Mphwiyo Shooting Case: Court Ban Communication Btwn Accused and Chiumbuzo Family

Manondo

High Court justice Michael Mtambo has granted state an order restraining three accused persons answering attempted murder trial of Paul Mpwiyo to temporally stop communicating with Chiumbuzo family, the close relations to first accused, McDonald Kumwembe.

“Accused persons and all agents should not contact Luciano Chiumbuzo and all his nuclear family” ordered Mtambo on Tuesday evening at Lilongwe High Court  

The order come following ‘rebuttal evidence’ application made by State relating to alibi of suspected gunman, Kumwembe who stand by his claim that he was in Mozambique when Mphwiyo was shot in the night of September 13, 2013.

Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mary Kachale said state would like to rebut his excuse by bringing four witnesses among them are members from Chiumbuzo family who are related him. 

State evidence through Airtel mobile company call logs indicates that during the period in question, Kumwembe cell phone was actively used in communicating with second accused Pika Manondo here in Malawi up until the morning of September 14. Call logs, shows the morning of September 14, the two met in Dedza, the neighboring district of Lilongwe, where they communicated to each other using network tower for Dedza market.

But his earlier testimony, Kumwembe said he left his mobile phone in Malawi with his cousin, Luciano Chiumbuzo so he can communicate with Pika and any other person on number of business issues while he was away. Kumwembe who claim to have left the country though Dedza boarder agrees with witness of Pika that it was Luciano Chiumbuzo who had met with Pika in Deza in the morning of September 14.

Mphwiyo who until the time of attempted murder was serving as Budget Director at Ministry of Finance was shot while entering the gate of his home at area 43 in Lilongwe.

Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mary Kachale made the rebuttal application immediately after defense had closed its case

“What the law allow is that when the defense have given their case and there are what we consider as new matters that we could not have reasonably foreseen then in that case the State is allowed to bring in the rebuttal evidence so that is what we want to do” said Kachale in an interview

The matter has been adjourned to May 9, 10 and 11, 2016 but before adjournment Judge Michael Mtambo advised parties that court must finish dealing with the new business within the specified dates. It is now expected that after concluding with new business, parties will submit whether the suspects are guilty or not guilty.

In the day, Second accused Pika Manondo paraded Airtel expert to speak about network and how it precisely locate position of the phone making or receiving a call. Before the expert was introduced in the court, parties had met to define scope of evidence the defense were looking from Airtel since the company is also prosecution witness.

Pika brought Airtel expert to clarify because it is believed that he was present at the shooting scene in Area 43 since call logs had traced him being in Area 43 around the hours of the shooting.

Through his testimony, Pika said he was drinking that night staring from City Centre and had stopover at Area 10 Pacific Mall a neighboring area to area 43 around 23:00 hours. He then proceeded through Malawi College of Accountancy road heading to Area 10 crossroads where traffic lights are he took M1 road and drove to Area 47 at Bwandilo where he continued drinking at Chez-Mtemba till early hours of September 14.

Kuyere

Explanation from Kelvin Kuyere, Radio Network Planning Manager at Airtel Malawi throughout cross-examination in chief and during cross examination with first and second accused maintained that a person driving from City Centre passing through Capital Hotel to area 10 then proceed to Area 47, one’s cell phone is likely going to register network towers for Capital Hill, area 10, area 18 and area 43 tower which is at Petroda filling station near area 30 and very close to Area 10 Pacific Mall.

He said it most likely because very often signal from separate network towers in very close areas do overlap just to make sure that a subscriber is fully covered.

However, Kuyere contradicted himself during cross examination with State when more than once said was “certain” that Pika was outside range of coverage area of Area 43 tower. He also told court that it was not likely that Pika phone could be picked by far and weaker signal from Area 43 when stronger signals from Area 10 and other nearby towers were at off-peak hours which normally begin after 19:00 hours to the next day 09: 00 hours.

In his explanation, Kuyere said only when a closest tower is experiencing loading, the tower at far distance offering weak signal is allowed to take users. He emphasized that normally, when making a phone call network automatically decides cell tower offering best signal but in cases where there is loading, the network pushes subscriber to the next cell even if that cell is offering weak signal.

But he emphasized that during the off-pick hours closer tower always offer strong signal and it is therefore not likely in such circumstances that cell phone can pick far and weaker signal.

He also told court during cross examination of both first and second accused persons that call logs cannot be used to locate actual position but to locate general locality of subscriber within the radius of the tower. He emphasized that call logs must be used along with GIS application.