By LUCY PHIRI
Lusaka magistrate Irene Wishimanga has allowed Ndozo Lodge proprietor Chrint Sichamba to seek medical attention abroad but should make a formal application before the court.
Ms. Wishimanga in her ruling yesterday, said the accused person was free to undergo medical attention but his lawyers should make a formal application before the court with a specific request.
Earlier, the defense submitted before the court to allow Sichamba access his restricted bank account to allow him to go to Dubai for medical attention as he is unwell.
In response, the state submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to allow Sichamba access his bank account which was frozen.
In this matter, Sichamba, his wife Eudora Nambela and his son David Sichamba are charged with corruption involving over K781 million and more than US$10 million.
Magistrate Wishimanga also ruled that the application to take the matter to the High Court by state to access judicial powers over the question of accessing a restricted bank account to be referred to the high court for determination.
She said the affidavit in support summons for determination of preliminary issues was presented by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Director General and the request to access the funds was declined by him.
Previously, senior legal and prosecution officer Gloria Maimbolwa Muyunda had submitted that the accused person should take the application to the high court because jurisdiction to excess judicial powers is not with the subordinate court but the high court.
“The accused persons made an application before this court but should have made by a way of originating summons. We submit that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with a restriction notice that has been issued by the ACC Director General,” she said. Magistrate Wishimanga referred the question on wether the subordinate court has jurisdiction to deal with a restriction notice issued by the Director General under section 60(1) of the ACC Act No.3 of 2012 to the high court for determination.
However, the accused persons could not take plea because the fourth accused person in the name of a company is unwell.
