Front PageNational News

Court defers Senzani bail, describes action as premature

The High Court in Lilongwe yesterday deferred hearing of an application for bail by convicted former principal secretary Tressa Senzani, describing the action as premature.

In her ruling on the matter, High Court Judge Ivy Kamanga said the action by the defence to seek bail pending an appeal in the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal was premature because documents submitted to the court did not contain the grounds for appeal.

Treza Senzani (In White) consulting with her lawyer, Mhura
Treza Senzani (In White) consulting with her lawyer, Mhura

Senzani, formerly principal secretary for Tourism and Culture, has become the first person to be found guilty and convicted in relation to the plunder of public resources at Capital Hill widely known as Cashgate.

Last week, Kamanga sentenced Senzani to three years in jail on her own plea of guilty on charges of diverting K64 million of taxpayer funds to a private company she admitted to own.

Necton Mhura, lawyer representing Senzani, yesterday did not provide the grounds of appeal.

But soon after the court ruling last week, Mhura indicated his intention to appeal, describing the sentence as severe in wake of the fact that Senzani admitted to have committed the crime and her decision to refund the money she had stolen.

Ruling on the bail application yesterday, Kamanga said she was adjourning the matter to a later date to allow the defence team to prepare the grounds of appeal.

Said Kamanga: “I adjourn the matter to a later date as the application by the defence team is premature.”

She said the court files only contained a notice of appeal without any grounds of appeal.

Mhura said in an interview yesterday he would make a fresh application and he is expecting to do it as soon as possible.

He said: “I think it was just an error. We had all the documentation, I think it [the grounds of appeal] was just misplaced.”

In a separate interview, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) senior prosecution officer Imran Saidi explained that in any bail application, it should state reasons of appeal.

Mhura said he was not satisfied with the custodial sentence by the court handed his client.

He said Senzani was the first offender, hence deserved a non-custodial sentence as in first place she pleaded guilty of all charges and made full restitution of money she had stolen from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. Problem of lawyers and their courts want to confuse things when they are straight. APM bring back Traditional Court so that lawyers should go jobless and restore justice. Awa ndi maseweredi.

  2. How many first offenders are n Jail,why is it that Malawian justice system is so selective. It only punishes the poor who are also voiceless. Do you think all who are serving their jail term did not plea guilt in the first place? Donors and other partners of good will left Malawi because of peope like her. Actually these are the mafias we dont need in the society as they want to corner everything to their ward. How much was required to fix the motuary? How much is required to buy drugs? We dont need much but because of people like Namathanga the hospitals are now dealth traps for the poor yet people of her type are flown outside once they are ill.

  3. IT IS HIGH TIME THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LAWYERS BE REVIEWED OTHERWISE THESE LAWYERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A THREAT TO OUR SOCIETY.HERE IS A WHOLE FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF SECRETARY, MR NECTON MHURA WHO FINDS IT MORALLY RIGHT TO DEFEND SOMEONE WHO HAD INTENTIONS TO MISUSE OUR ALREADY MEAGER PUBLIC RESOURCES.TO LAWYERS, STEALING OR EVEN KILLING, AS LONG AS ONE CAN FIND LOOP HOLES IN OUR LAWS WHICH THEY PURPOSELY CREATE THEMSELVES, IS FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ACB AND THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE SHOULD AS A MATTER OF FACT UNDERTAKE THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS AT THE TOURISM MINISTRY COVERING THE ENTIRE PERIOD THAT THIS THIEF NAMATHANGA WAS A PS(CONTROLLING OFFICER). THIS MK64 MILLION WAS ONLY UNCOVERED DURING THE JB CASH GATE AUDIT COVERING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 2013.

  4. The fact that she pleaded guilty after the investigation shows that she was forced to do so. I wonder what difference that makes in comparison to the rest in jail. A lot of time and money has been spent to find such people. The only time I could understand that pleading guilty makes a difference is before the investigation. Otherwise whether pleading guilty or not after the investigation makes no difference because there was enough evidence that she was guilty.

Back to top button