People v Constance Nalishebo Muleabai (SL/FC/02/25) (29 September 2025) – ZambiaLII

• p • or e St ate • • , uyunda and Miss . L . A. Ha m e emba of l SS G C r or c c sed Pe r so ! r . W. K. Cheelo of Messers Leoard ea ar e r s an d r . B Ch· ala of Messe rs Boniface Chi ala ega rac • o ers 1. OCEDURE CQD,E CHAPT.ER C V CHAMPAKO KOMBWE JQ,SE H (2010 Z 2 ) 207 ( p - TO 207 O· HE R C 0 ' ' s z 0 7 co co 0 E ( 0 _C C C ' ' • 1 1 The accus d stands c h ar e d wi h wo coun s of corrupt ra t i c e s wi t h pr ' vate b ody , con ar y to Secti n 20( 1) , as read with Section 41(a) , o f t h e An ti-Corruption Act o 3 of 2012 . 1. The court i s c a l l e d up on to de t ermi n e wh e ther the evidence adduc ed by the pro s ecuti o n i s suf f i c i e n t t o r equire p t t i n g th e a c c used on her d ef e nc e o r not . At the ' no cas . t o a ' s t age, t he applicab le t e s t i s that there i s a ca se to answer i f t h e pro s ecuti o n evidence i s suc h t h a t a reasonab l e ribuna mi g h t convict upo n i t i f no exp l a n a tion was of f e r e d by he d efence . 1 4 e court mu s t assess whether the prose cution h as prese ed s u f f · cie n t e v idence which, i f accepted as cr e dib e , wo warra nt a convic t i on . As stated in Archbold (43rd e ~ o , ) , a submission 0£ 'no case to an.swer' shou1d be _ o wh en there i s no evidence upon which, i £ the, evi .-... ...... ~ , re accepted, a reasonable jury, properly dire co v i ct'' 5 T • s aut o r i t y l • S supported by e ase z, 9 _ - here ·EOPL (1 - 67) the Co r s a e a t e e I no ,case to answer where l.S essential ingredient ro _ '(a) an of the offence i s no (b) where the evidence adduced has be n iscredi e s a r e s u l t o f c oss examination (c) whee t e ev'd ce a duced · so m • e 1 n e • 1 · un 1 c n convic on ' II F t 1 e i o es that · I f at the clo e ence port the i of evi in su of charge , a ear to the cou · t th t a i s made out against the case ccused er ·on ·U!T£CIE_~TLY to require him to make a · - efe nee. .. II 1 7 · · _· ·to · gman Dictio,nary of Contemporary Eng i .sh ( . e I ag 1058, defines the term ' s u f f i c i e n t l y" as · 'enough; as needed th .e purpose . m ch as i .s for · n erpreting th e me aning of ''s u f f i c i e n t l y / as employe · n Sec . ·_o 207 above , guidance was prov id e d by t e cour · · OP E V. CHAMPAKO KOMBWE JOSEPH (.2010) ZR 25, w ere . e d as fol ·. ows : 1 The Court ' s understanding of the words 's u f f · cien l y o • require im to make a defence'' in sect ion 206 of the Pe a the e Code i s that at stage of the close of t case f o r t e prosecut · i t s beyond on as proved case reaso able do b , e i t e r i s i t determine the issue e supposed to of r e l i a b i l i t y o f the witnesses . These are mat er.s to be de ... ermi ed by the Court in i t s composite role bo . as a - · e o f fact and of law , after a careful evaluat · on of the e i e ce at t e conclusion o f the t r i a l 2 The Cour ' s obligation to stop a case i s a. ob iga -io which i s concerned primarily with those cases w · ere e necessary minimum evidence to es ablish the fac s o the c i e has not been called 3 I t i s not the Court ' s . -ask -o - ,eigh the evi ence, to who i s t e l l i n g the t uth , and o stop he case merely be se h Cou t thinks hat he wi ness i s lying • 4. A pr1•m a faci cas does no me n provi • n g e h n • ngr di n he nee cha ge i f here • e 0 0 1.S I ov 1 the • • on h n e ' .1 '.) , 1· • cas (und m ) • In • was e l In crimina l c ases , the rule i s th a t the lega l b rd e of ro i g e · er y element of o f f e nce charge , the co sequ e n t l y th e g u i l t of the accused l ies from beg i n i e . o ·: prosecution . d h e 2 T e s a n dard of proof must be beyond a l l r e a s onab l e o t 3 s ubmi s s i on of no case to answer ma y p roper l A e a ( a ) e t e re h as been no evidenc e to r o e ele e o f t e a l l eged offence; and evid e n ce adduced the p rosecutio as { ) e by ee o d' scredi t ed that n o reasonable t r i b unal cou , sa e • C i t bears the burden o f ad d ci g e • · e ce I a ccu sed 4 T e a f t e r he as b e e sup o o f a y defe ce OU a se 0 a s e • 1 efore roe i g, I wis o ex ess my appreciation t bo h the t a t e and the Defenc · or h e i r respective submissions I have c a r e f u l l y considered he arguments advanced by eac a r t y , and they have been instrumental in guiding t h i s r l i n g . In a r r i ing a t t h i s decision , I have r e f l e c t e d upon t h r e e f ·- damental questions t h a t l i e a t the heart of the 'no case t o a s e r ' inquiry : • hether the pro secution has adduce d s u f f i c i e n t evide ce w i c ' , i f acc epted, would e s t a b l i s h a prima ·· a c i e case against the accused person; • Whether the evidence presented i s manifes t l y c r e d ' b e l and r e l i a b l e t o the extent t h a t a reaso able · r i b a , properly d i r e c t e d , could convict on i t t e a s e ce o i , a defence , and e t h e r the prosecution has successfully l a i d o 0 0 I e l l e s s e n t i a l elements of the of fe ce as cha ged, e eb s a t i s f y i n g the s t a t u t o r y requireme s necessary o s u s t a i n t e charge 2.2 T ese questions form the b a s i s of the ju i c i a l assessmen a i s stage , and my r u l i n g i s p e i c a t e - upo a ho o evaluation o f t e evidence in l i g h of hese c o s · e a io s 2 on ho u h o x m n ' 0 10 y V C s n s ' 1· he 0 0 h s man'fes ly e , l1abJ , and suf f · ci n lish a ima f c · e ca s ., s a·nst , the accuse The prosecutiI o has ischarge 1 S ur en t this s g by he ev'dence a duced 2 4 ccordingl , I find that here is a case to answer The accused is the ref ore called upon to enter her defence I l accordance with the provisions of the law. The proceed· gs shall o advance to the defence stage , where the accused ·11 have the opportunity to respond to the allegatio s a d present her case . 2 5 OF · HE CRIMI AL PRQ,CEDURE CO C pro ides t a t : , At the close of the evidence i suppor of the charge , i t appears to the court that a case is ade out against the accused person sufficiently to re ·re i o make a defence , the court s hall again e xplain t e s bs a ce of the charge to the accu s ed and shall inform him t a he as t e right to give evidence on hi s own behalf a d t a , e ' f does so, e will be liable to cross examination, or to ma e a statement not on oath from the dock, and sha 1 as · wet er he has any witnesses to examine or othe evide ce o adduce in his defence , and the court shall the ea _ e i f y accused and his witnesses and other evidence, a 2 6 7 ( ) 0 CODE ( 0 · IAL CR - S CO 2 02 S. 0 . 10 OF 2 rovi des, where an accused person fou n d wi t h a case to ans ver i t end to lead e v i d e n ce in t h e accuse d perso n ' s defence , t h at accused per s on or the acc us ed l e gal represe n t a t i v e s s h a l l within f ou r t een da y s from th e d ate o f the accuse d p erson being found wi t h a case to ans wer , by way o f disc l os ure f i l e a document t ha t t h e accu se d person i n t en ds to re l y on . (2) an ac c used pers on s h al l wi t h i n t wo days o f (a) f i l ing the doc ume nt referred to in subru l e (1) by wa y o f di sclosure , s erve t he document on t h e prosec ut i on , a d (b) service o f th e document on t h e pr o s ecut i on i accord a c e wi h paragraph (a), f i l e an a f f i d a v i t o f servi c e e • e ce Ha vi g carefully considered the t o t a l i t y of the 1 2 7 a c• e addu ced b y t h e p r osecution ; I am sa t i s fied t a t a pr i a erso cas e h as been es t ab l i shed aga i nst t e accused • Accordingl y , I f i nd tha t th e accused h as a case o a s e respect of Co un t One and Count Two , both re l a t i · g o e of f ences of Corrup t Pra c t i c e s wi t h a Private Bo d , co a to Section 20(1) , as read together i t h Sectio ( a ) , e An i - Co r ruption Act No 3 of 2012 l i g h t of t i s f i ndin , th e a cc used s h a l l be i 2 8 I r r ' g t s A date s h a l l b e se for he pre - e ence e · • I du i g w ich th cou oceedi • gs of he def nee •