Ex-Permanent Secretary, Mushota, denied bail pending appeal in $5 million procurement case

Former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, Engineer Charles Mushota, has been denied bail pending appeal after being sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for willful failure to follow procedure in the procurement of Infrastructure House — a government property valued at over US$5 million.

In a ruling delivered by Principal Resident Magistrate Sylvia Munyinya, the court held that Mushota failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify his release on bail while awaiting the outcome of his appeal.

Magistrate Munyinya noted that appeals before the Economic and Financial Crimes Court Division of the High Court are typically resolved within five months, and that Mushota had not substantiated claims that he would serve a significant portion of his sentence before the appeal is determined.

She cited precedent from the Sydney Kasungu Mumba case, where a three-year sentence was deemed insufficient grounds for bail on the basis of potential delay.

In Mushota’s case, the four-year sentence similarly did not meet the threshold.

“The Court finds that no truly exceptional personal or legal circumstance has been established that would warrant deviation from the general rule that a convicted person should serve their sentence unless and until the appeal succeeds,” Magistrate Munyinya ruled.

Mushota had argued that he would suffer prejudice if denied bail, citing a media report and the high level of public interest the case had attracted.

However, the court found that neither media coverage nor public interest, on their own, constituted exceptional grounds for bail.

He has since filed a formal appeal to the High Court, raising 12 grounds.

Among his arguments, Mushota claimed the trial court misapplied both the law and the facts, insisting that the procurement process was lawfully executed, with verification of funding and approval by the Ministerial Procurement Committee.

He also contested the court’s interpretation of procurement regulations, arguing that witness testimony about widespread procedural lapses across various institutions was improperly dismissed.

Additionally, Mushota denied the finding that he had unilaterally approved amendments to the contract, asserting that there was no evidence directly linking him to unauthorized changes.

He further accused the trial court of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense, which he claims amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.