By Cathy Maulidi:
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has withdrawn its appeal against the acquittal of Norman Chisale, who was cleared of all charges by the Lilongwe Principal Resident Magistrate Court.
The DPP had initially filed a notice of appeal on August 8 2024, when it cited grounds such as misapplication of the law and failure to consider the required standard of proof. However, in a notice filed on August 14 2024, the DPP has withdrawn the appeal without giving any reason.
“We have decided to withdraw the appeal after careful consideration of the case,” said Chief State Advocate Pirirani Masanjala, who signed the notice of withdrawal on behalf of the DPP.
Chisale was acquitted on all six counts, including on that of the use of insulting language, intimidation, and disorderly conduct at a police station.
This was after the court found him with no case to answer.
Initially, Justice Minister Titus Mvalo, former DPP Steven Kayuni and other government officials complained that Chisale had allegedly used insulting language against them.
Reacting to the development, lawyer representing Chisale, Gilbert Khonyongwa, commended the DPP for the decision.
“We are pleased that the DPP has seen sense and withdrawn the appeal,” Khonyongwa said.
He said the decision is timely.
“This is the best decision made,” Khonyongwa said.
Last month, Chisale, a former presidential aide, was acquitted on all six counts he was answering in relation to the intimidation case.
Chisale was answering one count of use of insulting language, three counts of intimidation, one count of obstruction or interference with the execution of the legal process.
He also had one count of disorderly conduct at a police station.
Chisale was arrested in November last year on allegations that he intimidated and insulted senior government officers and Mvalo during one of the interviews he granted the media.
Delivering his ruling on whether Chisale had a case to answer, Principal Magistrate Roderick Michongwe said he decided to acquit Chisale on grounds that the State had failed to provide prima facie evidence to warrant prosecution of the accused.
This prompted the State to appeal the ruling.
0 Comments