High Court judge Redson Kapindu has defended Hilary Chilomba’s prolonged role as the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) acting director, saying it is not in conflict with the initial six-month period as prescribed by law.
Kapindu made the ruling in a judicial review application, in which Vice President Michael Usi was challenging the ACB’s summons compelling him to appear before [the court] to answer questions over corruption allegations he has been raising on the campaign trail.
Through his lawyer Tamando Chokotho, Usi argued that Chilomba lacked authority because his lawful period of his acting appointment had expired.
Chilomba was appointed ACB acting director following the expiry of Martha Chizuma’s contract on May 31, 2024. He was deputy director general then.
Activists have been criticizing President Lazarus Chakwera for maintaining Chilomba in that capacity for more than six months.
According to Section 6B(7) of the Corrupt Practices Act, in the event of a vacancy arising in the office of Director, the Deputy Director may act in that capacity but for a period not exceeding six months.
However, Kapindu ruled that as long as the Defendant holds the substantive position of Deputy Director, he has the requisite authority, in any event, to issue such notices and indeed exercise any other functions and duties that a Director must perform.
“In the Court’s view, on a fuller reading of the Corrupt Practices Act, whether or not the tenure of the Defendant as Acting Director of the ACB has expired by effluxion of time under the law is neither here nor there. Information is in the public domain that he was confirmed as substantive Deputy Director of the ACB by the Public Appointments Committee of Parliament in January, 2023, for a three-year term.
“Whilst indeed Section 6B(7), on its face, seems to limit the total period within which the Deputy Director may act as Director, it is important, firstly to note that under Section 6B(8) of the same Act, in the event of incapacity of the Director and Deputy Director or if the offices of the Director and Deputy Director are vacant, the President is required to appoint a suitably qualified person to act as Director for a period not exceeding six months or for such longer duration until the vacancy is filled.
“It would therefore appear that if a narrow interpretation of Section 6B(7) of the Act is adopted, it would suggest that an Acting Director appointed under subsection (8), who may only be appointed if the ACB does not have both a Director and Deputy Director, may serve for a longer duration than a situation where there is a Deputy Director, who acts as Director simply by virtue of holding the office of Deputy Director, in which case the acting Directorship may last for a duration
