Zovutitsitsa! High Court clears path for forfeiture of Norman Chisale’s assets after dismissing his objections
In a crucial decision on 29th November 2024, the High Court ruled to proceed with the State’s application for the permanent forfeiture of assets belonging to Norman Chisale, a former senior official in Malawi’s police force, after rejecting multiple preliminary objections raised by Chisale and his colleagues. The ruling sets the stage for the next phase of legal proceedings, where the State will present its case for the confiscation of property allegedly acquired through illicit means during Chisale’s tenure in power under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Background of the Case
The legal battle dates back to February 2021 when the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) successfully sought a Preservation Order from the court, freezing several of Chisale’s bank accounts and seizing property believed to be proceeds of crime. This move was based on suspicions that Chisale’s wealth had been illicitly obtained during his influential role as the bodyguard to former President Peter Mutharika.
By July 2022, the DPP filed a formal application to forfeit Chisale’s assets to the State, seeking a court ruling that would permanently seize the property if it was proven to be linked to criminal activities. In response, Chisale attempted to block the forfeiture process, requesting the return of the seized assets without the need for a full court hearing.
However, his attempt was rejected by the High Court in November 2022, which gave Chisale and his co-defendants 21 days to respond to the forfeiture proceedings. Instead of complying with this order, Chisale appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal, seeking a stay of proceedings and a referral of the matter to the Chief Justice for certification as a constitutional issue. In December 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Chisale’s appeal, affirming that the forfeiture proceedings should continue.
With the Supreme Court’s decision in July 2024, the DPP filed a fresh application on 1st October 2024, signaling its readiness to proceed with the forfeiture. This led to another round of legal objections from Chisale, who raised several preliminary points before the High Court.
Chisale’s Preliminary Objections
Chisale’s legal team presented several objections in an attempt to derail the process:
Referral to the Chief Justice: Chisale argued that the Supreme Court had referred the matter to the Chief Justice for certification and that, until the Chief Justice made a decision, the proceedings should be stayed.
Irregularities in the State’s Application: Chisale contended that the State’s application in October 2024 was flawed. Specifically, he claimed that the application was missing key documents, including a sworn statement, and that the application was filed incorrectly, creating confusion about whether it was a new proceeding.
Conflict of Interest: Chisale further argued that Pilirani Masanjala, the lead counsel for the State, was conflicted because he had also sworn an affidavit containing facts related to the case. Chisale claimed that it was unethical for Masanjala to serve as both counsel and a witness in the matter.
Abuse of Court Process: Finally, Chisale claimed that the State’s application amounted to an abuse of court process, given that he believed the matter was still under the Chief Justice’s consideration for constitutional certification.
High Court’s Ruling
After careful deliberation, the High Court rejected each of Chisale’s objections, clearing the way for the forfeiture proceedings to move forward.
No Referral to the Chief Justice: The Court found that the Supreme Court’s ruling on 17th July 2024 did not indicate any referral of the matter to the Chief Justice for certification. Chisale’s argument that the case was suspended pending certification was therefore dismissed as a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court noted that there was no legal impediment to proceeding with the forfeiture application.
Irregularities in the State’s Application: Although the Court acknowledged some technical flaws in the State’s October 2024 application, such as the lack of sworn statements, it ruled that these were not fatal to the proceedings. The Court clarified that the application was not a new filing but merely a notice of the impending hearing. The irregularities were deemed harmless, and the Court emphasized that no substantial injustice had been caused to Chisale or his colleagues. The Court dismissed this objection as well.
Conflict of Interest: Chisale’s argument that Masanjala was conflicted by being both counsel and witness was dismissed by the Court. The Court noted that Chisale’s defense was based on vague claims, and it found no merit in the objection, especially given that Chisale’s own lawyer had sworn an affidavit despite also being the legal representative for his client. The Court stated that the issue raised by Chisale was a non-issue and described it as an attempt to obstruct the proceedings without legal basis.
Abuse of Court Process: Given that the Court had already established there was no referral to the Chief Justice, it dismissed Chisale’s claim of an abuse of process. The Court pointed out that Chisale’s allegations were based on false premises and that the State’s actions were entirely legitimate.
Next Steps
With these objections rejected, the High Court ruled that the forfeiture proceedings should continue without further delay. The Court advised Chisale and his colleagues to prepare their defense against the State’s claims, noting that the State appeared to be on solid legal ground in seeking the permanent forfeiture of Chisale’s assets.
This ruling marks a key development in the ongoing efforts to hold those implicated in corruption and abuse of power accountable. The outcome also sends a clear message that the courts will not tolerate legal maneuvers designed to obstruct the recovery of illicitly acquired property.
As the case progresses, the focus will now shift to the substantive issue: whether Chisale’s wealth is indeed the product of criminal activity and whether it should be permanently forfeited to the State. The decision to dismiss the objections ensures that the High Court will soon make its determination on this critical matter.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :