By PERPETUAL SICHIKWENKWE –
EMBATTLED former Ministry of Health, human resources officer, Henry Kapoko has challenged the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC)’s decision in the Lusaka High Court, to take over the management of his property.
The ACC and the Drug Enforcement (DEC) Joint Investigation team about a fortnight ago took over the management of Kapoko’s estates which include properties number 13949, number 13947 both off Mulungushi Road, property number 3775 Manda Hill road, Olympia Park, property number 7791 Woodlands extension and subdivision B of Lot 3325/M Ibex Hill.
This followed a court order by Lusaka magistrate Exornobit Zulu allowing ACC to take over the administration of Kapoko’s property while the matter was still in court.
But Kapoko, who has petitioned Attorney General Musa Mwenye on behalf of the State, wants the Lusaka high court to declare that the order by Mr Zulu was unconstitutional and unlawful and as such it is null and void.
He stated in his petition that he was charged and arrested on 78 counts of theft, theft by servant and money laundering and the matters were currently before Mr Zulu in the magistrate court.
Kapoko said that on or about July 2009, notices of seizures were issued by ACC and DEC Joint investigations team in relation to properties named above.
He said that on August 18 and 25, 2014, ACC wrote several letters informing him that the ACC was taking over management of the afore-stated properties.
Kapoko said that the letters were delivered to various tenants including him during the subsistence of trial and ACC directed the tenants staying in the properties to deposit rentals into an account provided by the commission.
He said that Mr Zulu’s order dated August 28, 2014 granting the ACC permission to manage court exhibits before it, was illegal, unconstitutional and void.
He said the same lacked authority or jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code and Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act and the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act as read with the Article 16 and 18 of the Constitution.
Kapoko said that a week before granting ACC permission to manage his property the same court denied him permission to take care (clean and warm the engines) of the many motor vehicles which were exhibits before the same court, saying that neither the State nor the accused could access exhibits, except the Clerk of Court.
He said that apart from the glaring contradiction in the two court orders made by the same court in the same matter, the actions of the ACC and subsequent court order infringes on his right, as the property to be managed by ACC under the purported court order assumed him as being convicted and the property in question had not only been seized but forfeited to the State.
Kapoko said that because of the action by the court and ACC, his rights have been usurped and prejudiced and court may have taken the decision based on external factors but not based on the law as alluded to.
He said that the ACC applied for the court order after having delivered the letters to the tenants for an order to manage property which act was a gross interference of a matter.