By Pemphero Malimba:
The High Court in Lilongwe will begin hearing a case on March 14, 2025, in which two people vying for the position of Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) Director General (DG) are challenging a determination made by the Office of the Ombudsman following its commission of inquiry.
Private-practice lawyer Oscar Taulo and ACB acting DG Hillary Chilomba have applied for a judicial review and an injunction to suspend the enforcement of the determination.
They argue that the Ombudsman overstepped its jurisdiction in conducting the inquiry.
Among other issues, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Justice disqualify the two candidates from the recruitment process for the ACB DG position.
According to the Ombudsman, Taulo and Chilomba did not meet certain job requirements when they were shortlisted and interviewed for the position last year, as outlined in the Corrupt Practices Act.
The inquiry followed a complaint from an anonymous person who alleged irregularities in the shortlisting and interviewing of the two candidates.
In his ruling, High Court Judge Simeon Mdeza granted permission for the two to seek a judicial review on the matter.
“The claimant shall file for judicial review within seven days from the date of this order. The defendant shall file their defence/ response to the judicial review within 14 days of receiving the application,” Mdeza ruled, according to a court document we have seen.
He has since reserved his ruling on the application for an injunction.
In an interview following the ruling, Taulo, who filed the application through Taulo and Associates, expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.
“Our initial application has been granted, and the matter will now be reviewed. We believe the [Office of the] Ombudsman erred in making its determination,” he said.
On the other hand, Chilomba’s lawyer, Gift Katundu, said that they would wait for the ruling on the injunction application.
Meanwhile, lawyers representing the Office of the Ombudsman declined to comment on the matter.
After the applications were filed last month, legal commentator Justin Dzonzi observed that the law remains divided on the issue.
“Regarding whether this determination should come from the Ombudsman or not, the current position is that this is still a fluid area in our legal development.
“There are those who believe matters like these should be addressed through a labour dispute in the Industrial Relations Court (IRC).
“Others argue that if a person invited for an interview does not attain employment merely by attending the interview, the IRC is the appropriate forum for determining employment-related issues,” Dzonzi said.
0 Comments