…Before appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Fostino Maere used to be Lin’s lawyer……
LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-The High Court in Lilongwe has postponed a decision on whether Chinese wildlife trafficker Lin Yunhua should be discharged from his criminal case, after the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) disclosed that it is reviewing the future of the prosecution.
Justice Redson Kapindu has also deferred Lin’s bail application, with the court asking the parties to come up with stricter conditions to address concerns that he could flee if released.
The matter will return before the Financial Crimes Division on Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 10am.
Lin is facing charges of corrupt practices with public officers, abuse of office and abuse of public office under the Corrupt Practices Act.
His lawyer, Nkhutabasa, had asked the court to discharge him from the proceedings, arguing that the State was no longer willing to prosecute him.
But ACB lawyer Khunga told the court that the State is currently reviewing the prosecutorial future of the case.
The review follows an earlier High Court ruling of July 13, 2026, in which the prosecution’s attempt to withdraw the case was unsuccessful.
The State told the court that it was considering several options, including seeking Lin’s discharge under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, discontinuing the proceedings or continuing with the prosecution.
“The State is now reviewing the matter,” Khunga told the court, according to the ruling.
Lin’s lawyer did not object to the request for an adjournment.
Justice Kapindu subsequently granted the State’s application to defer the discharge proceedings pending the outcome of the review.
Court raises red flag over conflicting affidavits
The proceedings also took an unusual turn when the court raised concerns over two affidavits filed by the State.
An affidavit sworn by lawyer Peter Sambani on August 18 indicated firm opposition to Lin’s application for discharge.
However, another affidavit sworn by lawyer Ngwambula Nundwe on August 20 appeared to take the opposite position.
Both lawyers indicated that they had acted on instructions from the Acting Director General of the ACB.
Justice Kapindu said the two affidavits appeared to advance “conflicting, or indeed diametrically opposed positions”.
The judge stressed that sworn evidence cannot simply disappear from the court record because a party later changes its position.
“Evidence that is placed before a court, on oath, cannot simply be treated as though it had never been filed merely because the party concerned subsequently wishes to adopt a different position,” Kapindu said.
Khunga explained that the Acting Director General had changed his position after new facts emerged and the State began reviewing the case.
He said the State intended the second affidavit to replace the first but had been unable to retrieve the earlier document because the court file was already before the judge.
The lawyer also referred to “a miscommunication” surrounding the preparation of the first affidavit.
The judge accepted the explanation and allowed the State to rely on the August 20 affidavit as representing its current position.
Kapindu, however, cautioned the State on how such changes should be handled in future.
“That course of action avoids ambiguity on the record and, more importantly, removes any possible concern arising from the existence of apparently contradictory statements made under oath,” he said.
State not opposing bail—but flight risk remains
On bail, the State told the court that it was not opposing Lin’s release, provided that the court imposes strict conditions to ensure that he remains available whenever required.
But Justice Kapindu reminded the parties that the court is not bound simply because the prosecution does not oppose bail.
The Bail Guidelines Act requires the court to balance the accused’s personal interests against the interests of justice.
“Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution does not oppose the granting of bail, the court has the duty to weigh up the personal interests of the accused person against the interests of justice,” the judge quoted from the law.
The court noted that Lin had previously been found to pose a real flight risk.
Justice Kapindu referred to an earlier High Court ruling of November 7, 2025 and a Supreme Court of Appeal decision of March 15, 2024, where the courts had considered whether bail conditions could adequately address the risk.
Both courts had concluded that the interests of justice favoured continued detention.
The judge has now asked the parties to consider whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify bail and whether new, stricter conditions can effectively prevent any risk of flight.
“The Court thus wondered whether the parties could think of other novel conditions that would assure the Court of a firm guarantee that the accused person would no longer be a flight risk,” Kapindu said.
The parties have been given more time to prepare their arguments.
The bail hearing will resume on September 1 at 10am.
For now, Lin remains in detention as the ACB reviews whether to continue with the prosecution, discontinue the proceedings or pursue his discharge.
