CJ GRANTS ACC WARRANT AGAINST BUSINESSMAN

MBABANE - After a long wait, the ACC is cracking the whip again. On Monday, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) obtained a warrant of search and seizure against a businessman and his company. Usually, a warrant of search and seizure is followed by the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

The warrant was issued by Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala after the commission moved an ex- parte application. An ex-parte application is one that is moved without the knowledge of the other party.

The businessman, who cannot be mentioned pending his arrest, is alleged to have been using the company as conduit or instrumentality for corrupt or unlawful practices.  The alleged corrupt practices involve a substantial amount of money.

The application was moved on behalf of the ACC by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Phila Dlamini, who was in the company of Ngcebo Lukhele and an officer from the commission.
In the past, the ACC has been encountering difficulties in executing its duties following a judgment by the CJ where he observed that certain sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act were inconsistent with the Constitution.

He made these findings when dismissing an application by the ACC to arrest former minister Gideon Dlamini, Nigerian businessman Fred Ngeri and his wife Sindile.
The trio was alleged to have colluded to defraud government a sum of E1.3 million which was donated by the Embassy of Qatar for the Online Shopping Project.

The CJ found that the ACC failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the prosecution of the three as required by the Anti-Corruption Act.

Allegations

The CJ said the Act required that a person investigated should submit a sworn statement on the allegations and further furnish books of accounts and other information.
Section 11 (1) of the Act provides as follows “In the performance of the functions of the commission under this Act, the commissioner may; – (a) authorise in writing any officer of the commission to conduct an inquiry or investigation into alleged or suspected offences under this act.”

Subsection (b) further states that the commissioner can require any public officer or person to answer questions concerning the duties of any other public officer or person and order the production for inspection of any orders, directives, office instructions relating to the duties of such other public officer.

This Section further provides that in performance of the duties under this Act, the commissioner of ACC or, if acting under the authority of a warrant issued for that purpose by or on behalf of the commissioner, an officer of the commission, shall have – (a) access, where necessary with a court order, to all books, records, returns, reports, data stored electronically on computer relating to the functions of any government ministry, department or other establishment or parastatal, public body or private body (b) access at anytime, where necessary with a court order, the premises of any government ministry, department, or other establishment, parastatal, public body or private body, or to vessel, boat, train, aircraft or any vehicle if the commissioner or officer has reason to suspect that any property acquired in contravention of this Act has been placed, deposited or concealed in that vessel, boat, train, aircraft or vehicle. The Act  also stipulates that any person who had been required to disclose information or to produce any accounts, books or documents to an investigating officer shall, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary comply with that requirement.
The chief justice also observed that the Act did not define what it meant by corruption.
The matter is still pending in the Supreme Court after the DPP noted an appeal.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: