Web Page HTML/CSS Template
Webstyle produced NavBar
 
Twitter & Facebook
 INTER-NETWORKING
 
 
    LINK CATEGORIES
   *International
   Arts & Culture
   Business & Internet
   Education & Training
   Government & Politics
   Health
   Online Resources
   Organisations
   People & Society
    RELEVANT LINKS
 
 
   
 
  View NEWS
 2010-10-23 11:58 pm Back to NEWS
Mohan maintains testimony on Simeza in cross-examination

Inktech managing director Mathew Mohan has told the court that the K150 million alleged to have been given to a magistrate was not for granting bail to Semyon Holdings proprietor Anuj Kumar Rathi but to refer him to Chainama Hospital.

And Mohan has maintained that the testimony he gave in the Lusaka High Court which implicates Lusaka lawyer
Robert Simeza in the murder of Cyclone Hardware proprietor Sajid Itowala is the only version he knows.

This is in a matter in which Mohan is jointly charged with Idris Patel and Shabia Patel with the murder of Itowala.

It is alleged that the trio, last July whilst acting together with others unknown, brutally murdered Itowala.

During continued cross-examination in the matter before Supreme Court judge Gregory Phiri who is sitting as a High Court judge, Mohan said the K150 million which Itowala delivered to a magistrate was not for him to grant bail but meant to refer Rathi to Chainama Hospital where he was supposed to escape from.

Mohan said he and ‘Simeza’s boys’ tried to help Rathi to escape from Chainama Hospital prison.

Responding to a question from state advocate Benny Mpalo on whether it wouldn’t have been easier for the magistrate to grant bail because of the K150 million, Mohan said the amount was a lot of money to a civil servant but that it was not shocking for the magistrate to deny bail because the money was not meant for that.

He added that Itowala was given the task to deliver the money by Simeza to the magistrate, adding that he trusted him to have given the magistrate the funds.

Mohan said he did not know whether Rathi’s attempted escape from lawful custody was reported to the police.

However, Mpalo put it to Mohan that there was no record from Chainama to show that the reason bail was denied was because Rathi had attempted to escape and that such information could have been communicated to the prosecutor.

“If there was such an attempt, Mr Mutembo Nchito, prosecutor in the Rathi case, could have said that bail should not be granted because the accused tried to escape,” Mpalo said.

And Mohan said he was not speculating that the US $450,000 was given to a magistrate.

He, however, said he had no proof to show that Itowala delivered the US $450,000 to a magistrate and a US $300,000 to the judge which was meant to bribe them in the case where the subordinate court convicted Rathi and sentenced him to four years for corruption.

When asked if he would concede that it was unfair to say that a judge and a magistrate received the said monies, Mohan said it was not fair.

Asked if he was aware that there were regulations in force which did not allow transacting in foreign currency exceeding US$5,000 over the counter, Mohan responded in the negative.

Mohan said it was not fair for Mpalo to say he was a very dishonest person. Mohan told the court he was not aware that a report was compiled from the interview he gave to a police officer who pretended to be a court official because he had not seen the officer.

And Mohan told the court that the testimony which implicates Simeza was the only version he knew.

He denied having written and signed two warn and caution statements which were shown to him during cross-examination.

Mohan said he did not recall writing the two statements dated August 3 and November 25, 2009, respectively. He said there was no mention of Simeza’s involvement in the two statements which are purported to have been written and signed by him.

The two statements which are purported to have been written by Mohan named Idris, who is Accused number 2 in the matter, as the one who abducted Itowala from House No. 1 Ngulube Road with his four boys, but Mohan denied the statements saying: "That statement was written by yourselves.”

He said he was not aware that Itowala was murdered along Mungwi Road but that he heard that from an officer in court.

Mpalo alleged that Mohan had substituted names such as where there was a mention of Idris and his men in the warn and caution statement with that of Simeza and his boys.

Mpalo said another version of the statement by Mohan was that he mentioned Simeza in court while in the warn and caution statements which he denied signing, lawyer Frank Tembo was mentioned.

Mpalo said there was a common trend in Mohan’s statement that he was involved in the murder of Itowala from the start.

In response, Mohan said he was not there when Itowala was murdered.




 
    MEMBER OPTIONS
 
Username
Password
Member Signup
Forgot Password
 
 
    SPONSORED LINKS
 
 
   
 DIRECTORY HOME
MEMBER LOGIN · EDITOR LOGIN · MEMBER SIGNUP · EDITOR SIGNUP
NEW LINKS · POPULAR LINKS · LINK TO US · ADD A LINK · NEWS
TERMS OF USE · PRIVACY POLICY · LEGAL POLICY · CONTACT US