By MakanDay
The Economic and Financial Crimes Court has dismissed a preliminary objection by lawyers representing four former public officials, including three Zambia Medicines and Medical Supplies Agency (ZAMMSA) officials accused of procurement-related offences, clearing the way for the trial to proceed.
The four accused—former ZAMMSA Director General Victor Nyasulu, former Director of Supply Planning Nalishebo Siyandi, former Director of Procurement Habadu Nchimunya and former Ministry of Health official Dr John Kachimba—have pleaded not guilty to seven corruption-related charges arising from ZAMMSA’s 2023–2024 mop-up procurement of medicines and medical supplies.
The matter is before the Economic and Financial Crimes Court sitting at the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court.
Delivering his ruling, Magistrate Peter Mungala held that the defence’s preliminary objection lacked merit.
He ruled that the charges were properly framed in accordance with Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia, which requires every charge to contain a statement of the specific offence together with sufficient particulars to inform the accused of the nature of the allegations.
The court further found that the charge sheet complied with Sections 137 and 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding that all seven counts adequately disclosed the alleged offences and contained sufficient particulars to enable the accused persons to prepare their defence.
Following the ruling, the trial resumed with the continued cross-examination of the State’s first witness, Zambia Public Procurement Authority (ZPPA) Contracts and Procurement Audit Manager Gilbert Mbewe.
The witness was questioned by Lubosi Yeta of Messrs CCY Legal Practitioners, representing Dr John Kachimba; Boniface Chiwala of Messrs Boniface Chiwala Legal Practitioners, representing Victor Nyasulu; Brian Kabika of Mwimaka Legal Practitioners, representing Nalishebo Siyandi; and Boniface Ngalasa of Boniface Ngalasa & Company Advocates, representing Habadu Nchimunya.
Defence lawyers questioned Mbewe’s qualifications, arguing that although he possesses procurement experience, he lacks formal academic specialisation in procurement law.
Under cross-examination, Mbewe acknowledged that his Master’s degree in Business Administration is a general qualification rather than one specifically focused on procurement. Defence counsel suggested this limited his authority to interpret complex procurement and anti-corruption legal provisions.
The defence also questioned Mbewe about the role of procurement evaluation committees. He testified that recommendations made by an evaluation committee are advisory and are submitted to an approval authority, which may either accept or reject them.
Relying on this testimony, defence lawyers argued that recommending a supplier is legally distinct from awarding a contract and that the distinction is central to the charges before the court.
In another line of questioning, the defence challenged the particulars of Count Five, producing employment records which they argued showed that Siyandi may not have been serving as Director of Supply Planning on the date alleged in the charge sheet.
Counsel also questioned Mbewe on the legal effect of cancelling a Notice of Award. He explained that a Notice of Award informs the public that a contract has been awarded and that cancelling the notice renders it ineffective.
During further cross-examination, Mbewe acknowledged that ZPPA had not produced ZAMMSA’s procurement plans for 2023 and 2024 as part of the evidence before the court.
He also told the court that he could not identify which officials had submitted those procurement plans to ZPPA.
Magistrate Mungala adjourned the matter to June 30 and July 1, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.
The police bond for all four accused persons was extended.
Discover more from MAKANDAY
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
