By LordDenning SC
ILLEGALITY OF WITNESS CHISI IN (SECRETLY) OBTAINING HELP FROM ANOTHER PERSON WHILE IN THE WITNESS BOX
The witness box is a sacred avenue where the Court is entirely interested in filtering truth the testimony of the witness. The, which is guarded by the Courts, is that the witness has to narrate the truth from his point of knowledge as regards the issues that are in contention.
Along the contours of this principle, the Court does not allow a witness to be aided by anyone while in progress of his/her testimony. In fact, the witness is not allowed to take any cues even from a lawyer of his/her side.
NOW, it has been informed (by some of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) IT staff crew) that the UNDP Malawi is not only bent towards, but actually has procured itself to illegally render technical assistance to the MEC witness who works at MEC as IT Director – Mr. Muhabi Chisi.
What shoul, at this point, be borne in mind is that UNDP was involved in procuring the “Auditors” who mis-audited the RMS and endorsed fraudulent transactions. It is from this perspective that UNDP appears to have an interest to protect.
According to the Whistleblower, one of the UNDP Malawi IT experts, a Zimbabwean national named Joel Jaisi, has been communicating with MEC IT staff throughout the Court session today.
Further information is that this is the guy who created the MEC RMS which Suleman has exposed to have been abused to secure fraudulent ends.
It is revealed that the MEC IT staff members who were in contact with him during the Court session were taking down notes of instructions to feed into the system’s operation and could at times send codes via Whatsapp which the team could simply copy and relay to the witness to be assisted in his transaction.
LET ME HIGHLIGHT ON THE ILLEGALITY OF THIS MALPRACTICE AND WHY THE COURT NEEDS TO BE ALERTED ON THE SAME FOR ITS ACTION
Order 18 Rule6(1) of the Courts (High Court) Civil Procedure Rules 2017, provides that a Sworn Statement shall only contain facts that the deponent is able to prove with his own knowledge. Let me repeat: WITH HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE!
It is clear, therefore, from this Rule that a witness such as Chisi cannot be relying on cues from colleagues, or other sources whilst in transaction in Court.
I am of the view that if Mr Jaisi saw that he would be of help to the Court, he would simply apply for Amicus Curiae status. If he wanted to be of help to the Respondents, he should have discussed with them to be enjoined as their witness so that he can openly demonstrate his truth before the Court and not this nonsense that he is doing.
In light of the same, I submit that the Petitioners should rather reinforce the Court’s vigilance in curbing this nonsense by ensuring that there is not communication between the MEC staff who are in the court assisting the MEC witness while the Court is in session.
Additionally, there shouldn’t be any electronic communication between the Mr Chisi (the witness) and his own team when he is transacting his testimony. This vigilance will assist the Court in preserving the aforesaid Order 18 Rule6(1) of the Courts (High Court) Civil Procedure Rules 2017.
I adjourn my mind!
