By Burnett Munthali
In a major legal development, Justice Frank Kapanda has ruled that it is illegal to use evidence obtained from the United Kingdom in Malawian court cases involving former Minister of Lands, Kezzie Msukwa, and others.
This judgment follows ongoing legal wrangling between the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and key individuals implicated in corruption and money laundering allegations, most notably linked to businessman Zuneth Sattar.
Justice Kapanda’s decision effectively bars the use of foreign-sourced evidence that has not been lawfully processed or admitted under Malawi’s judicial standards and legal procedures.
The court has, therefore, ordered the ACB to exclude and drop all such UK-based evidence in its case against Msukwa.
This legal directive is a significant setback for the ACB, which has heavily relied on international cooperation and cross-border investigations to build its cases against high-profile figures.
The ruling potentially renders impotent the key foundation of several ongoing investigations, particularly those associated with Sattar, who has been at the centre of one of Malawi’s most controversial corruption scandals.
Legal observers note that the judgment might signal the collapse of multiple cases that were based on the same UK-sourced evidence.
In practical terms, this means that the much-anticipated Sattar-related cases could gradually disintegrate or be withdrawn entirely due to lack of admissible evidence.
For many Malawians who have long hoped for accountability in high places, the news is nothing short of disheartening.
The phrase “Tasuzgika mwawanthu!” — loosely translated as “We have suffered, people!” — echoes across social platforms, capturing the collective frustration of a public disillusioned by slow justice and systemic loopholes.
Justice Kapanda’s ruling has reignited debate about the effectiveness of the country’s anti-corruption efforts and the apparent disconnect between international cooperation and local judicial practice.
Many now wonder whether Malawi’s legal system is equipped to pursue transnational corruption cases without stumbling over technicalities.
For the ACB, the ruling represents not just a legal defeat but also a crucial moment for introspection regarding evidence gathering, legal compliance, and international collaboration.
The future of the corruption fight in Malawi remains uncertain, as key cases once seen as emblematic of a new era of transparency now hang in the balance.
With public confidence wavering and legal hurdles mounting, the dream of cleaning up Malawi’s political and institutional corruption may yet prove elusive.
