The High Court in Lilongwe has adjourned Chinese businessman Lin Yunhua’s application for bail as the State reviews whether to continue prosecuting him.
The Financial Crimes Division, presided over by Justice Redson Kapindu, has also deferred Lin’s application to be discharged from the criminal proceedings.
Lin is facing charges including corrupt practices with public officers, abuse of office and abuse of public office under the Corrupt Practices Act.
The development follows the State’s disclosure that it is reviewing the prosecutorial future of the case after the High Court, on July 13, 2026, rejected an application by the prosecution to withdraw the matter.
During Thursday’s hearing, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) lawyer Khunga told the court that the State is considering different options.
These include facilitating Lin’s discharge under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, discontinuing the proceedings or continuing with the prosecution.
Lin’s lawyer, Nkhutabasa, did not oppose the State’s request for an adjournment.
Justice Kapindu subsequently granted the application, meaning the discharge issue will be considered after the State completes its review.
Court flags conflicting affidavits
The court also questioned the State over two affidavits filed in relation to Lin’s application.
An affidavit sworn by lawyer Peter Sambani on August 18 was in firm opposition to Lin’s discharge application.
However, a second affidavit sworn by lawyer Ngwambula Nundwe on August 20 appeared to take an opposing position.
Both lawyers indicated that they were acting on instructions from the Acting Director General of the ACB.
Justice Kapindu said the affidavits appeared to contain “conflicting, or indeed diametrically opposed positions”.
The judge said a party cannot simply disregard sworn evidence that has already been placed before the court.
“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 emerging facts led to a review of the matter.
He said the State intended the later affidavit to replace the earlier one but was unable to retrieve the first document because the court file was already before the judge.
The lawyer also cited a “miscommunication” surrounding the preparation of the first affidavit.
The court accepted the explanation and allowed the State to rely on the August 20 affidavit as representing its current position.
Kapindu nevertheless stressed that the proper procedure would be to formally explain the withdrawal or replacement of an earlier affidavit.
State does not oppose bail
The ACB told the court that it does not oppose Lin being released on bail, provided stricter conditions are imposed to ensure that he remains available to the court.
However, Kapindu noted that the court must independently weigh the accused’s personal interests against the interests of justice.
The judge referred to previous rulings in which Lin was considered a real flight risk.
These include a High Court ruling delivered on November 7, 2025 and a Supreme Court of Appeal decision of March 15, 2024.
Both courts previously found that continued detention was justified because of the risk that Lin could flee.
The court has now asked the parties to consider whether new and stricter conditions can sufficiently address the flight-risk concerns.
“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 requested more time to prepare their submissions.
The bail hearing has been adjourned to Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 10:00am in open court.
Lin will remain in detention pending the further hearing and the State’s review of the case.
