BLANTYRE-(MaraviPost)-Director of Public Prosecutions Fostino Maele is reportedly at an advanced stage in pursuing a possible perjury case involving businessman Azhar Mahmood Chaudhry, in what could open another legal chapter in the long-running controversies surrounding the businessman.
Information available to this publication indicates that prosecutors are examining allegations that Chaudhry may have given false evidence under oath during a court dispute involving the late Liaz Jakhura, proprietor of Speedy’s Car Hire.
Jakhura and Chaudhry were involved in a bitter legal dispute in Case No. CC-21-22, Chaudhry Mahmood v Speedy’s Ltd.
The case centred on a Mercedes-Benz which, according to media reports, Speedy’s imported from the United Kingdom for Chaudhry in 2021/2022. The vehicle was reportedly valued at more than K60 million at the time.
The dispute allegedly arose over payment. Reports indicate that Chaudhry had not settled the amount claimed by Speedy’s, prompting Jakhura to repossess the vehicle and setting the stage for a legal battle that would ultimately place the two men on opposing sides of the court.
In his own sworn affidavit filed in court in the case, Chaudhry claimed diplomatic immunity, stating that he was the Consul General of the People’s Republic of Pakistan, and therefore immune to prosecution.
In the same case; Case No. CC-21-22, Chaudhry Mahmood v Speedy’s Ltd, Chaudhry sets out details of payments he says he made to or through Riaz Jakhura in connection with the Mercedes-Benz transaction in Malawi.
The affidavit, signed on 20th March 2023, Chaudhry says he handed Jakhura US$10,000 in London.
In the same transaction, he states that he also gave Jakhura £7,000, which was intended for disbursement towards fees and pocket money for Jakhura’s son. The affidavit therefore identifies foreign-currency payments totalling US$10,000 and £7,000, made in the United Kingdom, rather than the previously stated £17,000 figure.
This raises questions that stakeholders say warrant further scrutiny, including whether the transaction complied with applicable financial and reporting requirements and whether there are any issues relating to money laundering or illicit financial activity.
These are among the matters that stakeholders are calling on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to investigate and, where the evidence supports it, prosecute.
THE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY CLAIM
However, during cross-examination, Jakhura’s lawyer, Lusungu Gondwe, poked holes in Chaudhry’s diplomatic claim. He questioned whether having lunch with, and accompanying, the Pakistani ambassador for a photographic opportunity at State House, or erecting a few flags outside one’s house, could amount to diplomatic status.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter and directed Gondwe to write to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to verify Chaudhry’s claimed diplomatic status. Gondwe was ordered to report back to the court within 14 days.
The Ministry’s position was set out in an official letter dated 12 October 2022, referenced Ref. No. EA/ADMIN/5/35, and addressed to the Managing Partner of Ritz Attorneys-at-Law, with attention to Associate Mwaiwathu Majawa, in connection with Civil Cause No. 120 of 2022, Mahmood Azhar Chaudry v Speedys Limited.
The letter was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and signed by Joel Immanuel Matonga, for: Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In response to the law firm’s request for confirmation of whether Chaudry enjoyed diplomatic or consular immunity and privileges in Malawi, the Ministry stated that it had only issued him with an identity card to assist with processes connected to the establishment of the Honorary Consulate of Pakistan in Malawi.
The Ministry said it could not confirm Chaudry as a holder of diplomatic or consular status entitled to the privileges or immunities claimed under the Immunities and Privileges Act and subsidiary legislation.
THE VEHICLES, DUTY WAIVERS AND THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
On top of his disputed claim to diplomatic status, Mr Chaudhrey is also alleged to have enjoyed diplomatic privileges on the strength of that status.
He imported and cleared three vehicles—CA09, CA101 and CA9290—reportedly using his claimed diplomatic status to obtain duty waivers. In effect, he did not pay the applicable import duties on the vehicles on the basis that he was a diplomat.
He was also reportedly driving a vehicle bearing CC registration plates, which are reserved for vehicles associated with diplomats, thereby appearing to enjoy the privileges attached to such plates, including diplomatic treatment and traffic priority on the roads.
But there is a fundamental question: on what basis was Chaudhrey enjoying these privileges when, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there was no documentation confirming that he had diplomatic or consular status?
There appears to have been no formal exchange of documentation between the Pakistani authorities and Malawi’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that established his diplomatic status.
Indeed, the Ministry subsequently clarified that the identity card issued to Chaudhrey to assist with processes relating to the establishment of an honorary consulate did NOT confer diplomatic or consular privileges or immunities upon him.
Ordinarily, the question of diplomatic status would have to be formally communicated and recognised through the appropriate government channels before the privileges and immunities associated with such status could be accorded.
That raises another important question: if Chaudhrey was not entitled to diplomatic status, what happened to the privileges he had already enjoyed on the strength of that status?
More specifically, what happened to the vehicles that were reportedly imported and cleared under diplomatic duty waivers?
If the Ministry’s clarification means that Chaudhrey was never entitled to those privileges, then the duty waivers and other benefits he may have received on that basis deserve scrutiny. It also raises questions about whether any criminal or administrative consequences arise from the circumstances under which those benefits were obtained.
This reporter has therefore written to the Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) seeking clarification on whether duty was subsequently assessed or paid on the three vehicles after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that Chaudhrey did NOT hold diplomatic or consular status.
At the time of going to press, MRA had not responded to our questionnaire.
There is also a broader question for the Pakistani authorities. Chaudhrey was presenting himself in Malawi as a representative of Pakistan, yet records available to this publication show that he held a Malawian passport during the period in which he was claiming diplomatic status.
That raises a basic question of diplomatic law: on what legal and diplomatic basis was a person holding Malawian nationality being presented as a Pakistani diplomatic representative in Malawi?
Those are questions that may require answers not only from Malawian authorities, but also from the Pakistani side.
This reporter also made enquiries with the Pakistan Foreign Office regarding Chaudhry’s reported diplomatic appointment in Malawi. However, by the time of going to press, no substantive response had been received.
QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS
There are obvious questions that demand answers—not only from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Malawi, but also from the Government of Pakistan over the conduct of Mahmood Chaudhrey and how he was allegedly allowed to operate under a disputed diplomatic status for so long.
For more than three years, Chaudhrey presented himself as a diplomat, enjoyed privileges associated with diplomatic status and imported vehicles under duty-free arrangements on that basis.
How was he able to operate under this disputed diplomatic status for such an extended period without the necessary documentation being formally established or his status being questioned by the relevant authorities? That is a question that demands a clear answer.
We do not want to believe that the Pakistani authorities deliberately looked the other way, or that anyone within the system was compromised. But the circumstances raise serious questions about the oversight mechanisms governing Pakistan’s diplomatic representation abroad and whether those mechanisms functioned as they should.
Misrepresenting oneself as a diplomatic representative of a sovereign state is a serious matter. The Pakistani authorities must investigate how Chaudhrey came to present himself as a diplomat in Malawi, what official documentation—if any—supported that representation, and whether any Pakistani officials or institutions were involved in, or aware of, the arrangement.
If evidence establishes that criminal offences were committed, the matter should be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution in the jurisdiction with the requisite legal authority.
Given the cross-border nature of the allegations, this could also require cooperation between Malawian and Pakistani authorities, particularly if evidence, transactions or persons relevant to the case are located in both countries.
Where the circumstances meet the applicable requirements, international law-enforcement mechanisms could also be engaged to assist with the investigation, tracing of records or assets, or securing the cooperation of relevant authorities.
For now, the questions remain unanswered: Who authorised Chaudhrey to present himself as a Pakistani diplomat? Who approved the duty-free importation of the vehicles? And what did the Pakistani and Malawian authorities know—and when did they know it?
Those questions deserve answers.
THE CITIZENSHIP AND PASSPORT QUESTION
The issue also raises broader questions about Chaudhry’s legal and citizenship status. He is understood to hold a Malawian passport, but this publication has not independently established the circumstances under which he acquired Malawian citizenship, nor whether he holds or has held citizenship of another country and, if so, whether that status has been properly declared in accordance with Malawian law.
The question of his passport status also warrants scrutiny. This publication has not independently established whether Chaudhry holds, or has ever held, a diplomatic passport issued by Malawi or another country.
That question is particularly relevant given that his claimed diplomatic status was specifically challenged in the Speedy’s case and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently indicated that it could not confirm him as a holder of diplomatic or consular status entitled to the privileges or immunities he had claimed.
Malawi’s Department of Immigration states that diplomatic passports are reserved for specified categories of office-holders and diplomats, while also providing for other persons where the President so directs.
This raises a straightforward question: if Chaudhry was not recognised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as holding diplomatic or consular status, on what basis, if any, would he have been entitled to a diplomatic passport?
The case, however, subsequently appeared to disappear into a maze of paperwork during the administration of former President Lazarus Chakwera, under then Director of Public Prosecutions Masauko Chamkakala.
A source familiar with the matter alleges that Chaudhry is a strong supporter and financier of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), and that his political connections may have contributed to the case being allowed to stall. The allegation could not independently be verified.
Adding another layer to the story is Chaudhry’s legal representation by Bright Theu, who at the time was also representing the UTM and the Tonse Alliance. That connection adds another dimension to questions about Chaudhry’s relationships, political networks and access to influential circles.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, under President Arthur Peter Mutharika, has publicly indicated a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. Against that backdrop, stakeholders are now calling on DPP Director of Public Prosecutions Fostino Mayele to move with urgency in bringing charges against Chaudhry before the courts.
The questions surrounding Chaudhry’s claimed diplomatic status, the evidence placed before the court and the subsequent handling of the matter now await a clear determination from the relevant authorities.
For now, the central issue is whether the matter will once again disappear into the administrative machinery of the state.
Leave a Reply