Mphwiyo Shooting Case: State Restore Bail Revocation Application For All Suspects…

• The application Was Withdrawn Following Chalunda’s Change of Testimony

• But the state says has reversed the decision to prove its previous claim that suspects in the case have been interfering with and intimidated witnesses

The State prosecuting the case of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder of former Budget Director Paul Mphwiyo has made a turn back to a decision that requests Lilongwe High Court to revoke bail for all suspects answering the case.

In March this year following alleged state witness interference and intimidation from some of the accused persons, the state applied for the revocation of bail for all suspects.

But on Thursday morning, the State had withdrawn application to revoke bail for all suspects when a “hostile witness” Charles Chilunda changed his testimony. He told Lilongwe High Court during examination in chief that his audio affidavit claiming threats from some of the defendants was recorded after being forced by the prosecutors to do so.

The audio affidavit was played in court this Thursday, but Chalunda maintained what he said on Wednesday that he has no knowledge of any of the suspects and continued that his affidavits were wrong and he is therefore not a right witness.

However, as the case resumed in the afternoon after an adjournment for lunch break, Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mary Kachale told the court that the state has decided to restore the application for the revocation of bail for all suspects. 

Kachale made a prayer to Judge Justice Michael Mtambo that the state application be restored due to the interest of public on the matter and state insistence that its witnesses were interfered with by the accused persons.

In an interview to highlight more on the reversal of the state decision, Mary Kachale said the decision made in the morning of the day was done in a hurried manner. “So we sat down and considered the legal implications of the withdrawal and we knew that it is in the public interest and it is also in the interest of the state that it should be on the record that state has reasonable evidence and has put it before the court that its witnesses were interfered with.”

“This is because had we withdrawn, what it would have meant is that the court would have taken that record completely off. It would have been as if we were saying that actually the state witnesses had not been interfered with. So we did that to demonstrate that the state still is of the position that its witnesses had been interfered with and it should be up to the court to determine” said Kachale