ACC APPEALS UPND MP’S ACQUITTAL
THEAnti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has appealed in the High Court against the acquittal of UPND Livingstone Member of Parliament (MP) Mathews Jere and others for the abuse of authority of office.
Director of Public prosecution through ACC filed a notice of appeal against acquittal of Jere and 13 councillors.
In this case, Jere was charged with Fred Sikazwe, Maambo, Ziwa Ziwa, Patrick Makala, Stanley Ngoma, Frank Kalindima, Fennix Liandisha and Steven Simasinti.
Others were Reuben Kakwasha,
Friday Nkonde, Aggrey Njekwa, Saxon Simachembele, and Liswani Likando.
A magistrate’s court acquitted them for abuse of authority of office.
It is alleged that between August, 1, 2013 and October, 31, 2014, Jere and 13 others while serving as councillors at Livingstone City Council abused authority of their office by allocating plots of land to themselves.
This was done on property number LIV/4051 a matter or transaction concerning the Livingstone City
Council (LCC), a public body.
And former LCC directors Kingsley Siasinyanga, Kabukabu Sikwibele, Choolwe Lipenga and Benny Chiyesu were also charged in the second count of Abuse of Authority of Office.
It is alleged between August 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014, the four being Directors then at
the tourist capital’s local authority, abused the authority of their office by allocating plots to themselves on property number LIV/22251.
Kalomo based Magistrate Likando Matakala convicted and sentenced Sikazwe, Maambo, Ziwa, Makala,
Ngoma and Kakwasha to 12 months’ imprisonment as they were members of the committee that approved the illegal plots and acquitted the rest.
She also acquitted them on their charges but substituted it with wilful failing to declare interest in writing which saw PF District Chairman Fred Sikazwe, Stanley Ngoma, Reuben Kakwasha, Patrick Makala,
Milford Maambo were jailed for six months.
ACC filed on the grounds of appeal that the trial court erred in law and in fact when it acquitted all the respondents in the face of overwhelming evidence on the charge of abuse of authority of office, by holding that their actions were neither arbitrary nor prejudicial.
“That the Trial Court erred in both law and fact by holding that the land policy relied on by the Respondents was legally approved and the Respondents had the right to rely on it.
“That the Trial Court erred in law and in fact when it acquitted the Respondents namely A7 to A18 for the offence of Conflict of Interest when their participation in the decision-making process is very evident and clear,” the appeal notice read.