|
Lumbanga testifies in Mahalu case
2008-02-28 10:12:44
By Correspondent Rosemary Mirondo
The first prosecution witness in the corruption case facing former Tanzanian ambassador to Italy Prof Costa Ricky Mahalu told a Dar es Salaam court yesterday he was not aware that the accused had entered two different agreements involving the purchase of a building for the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome.
Former chief secretary Martin Lumbanga told the Kisutu Resident Magistrate`s Court that he never ordered the accused to prepare two agreements on the acquisition of same building.
Lumbanga, now Tanzania`s UN Ambassador in Geneva, said he learnt of the two agreements from newspaper reports after the accused was arrested.
Prof Mahalu stands charged alongside Grace Alfred Martin, a former counsellor at the embassy, with fraudulently causing the government a loss of euro 2,065, 827.20 through the said transactions.
The following is a verbatim version of part of yesterday`s exchange in court between Lumbanga and PCCB prosecutor
Joseph Ole:
Prosecutor: You said you were Chief Secretary from 1995 to 2006, before becoming an ambassador. Could you tell the court what were your duties?
Witness: I was Chief Secretary in the President\'s Office, Chief Secretary to the cabinet, and Chief Secretary of the civil service.
Prosecutor: Do you know the accused?
Witness: I know Professor Mahalu.
Prosecutor: While still serving as Chief Secretary, were you aware of the Tanzanian Embassy building bought in Rome?
Witness: Yes, and Mahalu came to my office to ask me to help him get the money to buy the building. I cannot remember the date but it must have been in 2000 or 2001.
Prosecutor: What did he (Mahalu) tell you?
Witness: He said the situation in Rome was very bad because his visitors had to pass through his landlord\'s sitting room to get to his office. I felt that was degrading and therefore promised to look into the matter.
Prosecutor: How did you promise to help him?
Witness: I said I would use my position as Chief Secretary and as chairman of the permanent secretaries` board meetings to help him. I also said that, as chief secretary to the cabinet, I would tell them of the need to buy the building.
Prosecutor: Do you know how much was spent to buy the building?
Witness: The information I have is that it was a billion Tanzanian shillings.
Prosecutor: Are you aware that the building was bought using two agreements?
Witness: I was not aware earlier and only read about it in the newspapers after Mahalu was brought to court. But what I know is that the budget allocated for the purpose was 1bn/-.
However, Mahalu came to me a year later and told me that the funds set aside for the purchase were not enough and asked me to help him get enough money because the building they had found was selling at euro 3 million-.
But he explained that, if exempted from paying tax, they could get the building at a more reasonable price.
Prosecutor: So what did you do with that information?
Witness: I told him that Tanzania has nothing to do with the tax exemption issue.
I also advised him to discuss the matter with the Italian government, adding that it was important to ensure that he did not bargain for something in contravention of the laws of Italy.
Prosecutor: But I would once again like to know whether you ever ordered that they use two contracts in buying the building.
Witness: I never ordered that.
After the prosecution was through, the defence began cross-examining Ambassador Lumbanga. They were led by counsel Alex Mgongolwa and Cuthbert Tenga.
Mgongolwa: Who was in charge of buying the building in Rome?
Witness: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.
Mgongolwa: Who told you about the plans to buy the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome a building?
Witness: Mahalu.
Mgongolwa: Are you aware that the Ministry (of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation) communicated with Mahalu about the building?
Witness: I am aware.
Mgongolwa: (Showing the witness a document) Do you remember this document?
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: I thought you were the Chief Secretary in 2001?
Witness: I was.
Mgongolwa: So, how was the building bought? Did you use experts just as is usually done with respect to other embassy buildings outside the country?
Witness: Yes, the government used a quantity surveyor from the (Tanzanian) Lands ministry.
Mgongolwa: Do you remember his name?
Witness: No, I don`t.
Mgongolwa: Let me remind you his name is Kimweri. By the way, how many buildings did he inspect before giving his verdict?
Witness: I don`t know.
Mgongolwa: If I show you Kimweri\'s report, will it ring any bells?
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Why are you not telling the truth? The court can charge you with perjury and you will have a hard time looking for sureties because I know you did not come with them.
Mgongolwa: When did you know that you were coming to testify?
Witness: I received my summons on February 19, this year.
Mgongolwa: Then how come you are not prepared?
Witness: I live in Geneva and all the documents are here in Tanzania so I leave it to the court to decide which information is relevant to the case.
Mgongolwa: Do you want the court to depend on your hazy memory? Anyway (while showing him another report), do you see this three buildings?
Could you really say they could be worth a whole one billion Tanzania shillings?
Witness: No, two are worth euro 3 million and the third euro 6 million.
Mgongolwa: Which building did the quantity surveyor advise the government to buy?
(The prosecutor stands up, declaring that the defence counsel was using documents that were not tendered earlier.
However, Mgongolwa says that is all right in law because the witness did not tender any documents in court while testifying.)
Witness: then continues. He advised the government to buy the one worth euro 3 million.
Mgongolwa: (While brandishing another document) Do you remember this document?
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Do you remember which building was bought?
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Is it true that Mahalu told you that they were thinking of asking for tax exemption and, if so, how much was that expected to be and how much was he set to benefit?
Witness: He did not tell me.
Mgongolwa: Can an ambassador and a Chief Secretary communicate through the phone?
Witness: Yes.
Mgongolwa: Can an ambassador defy orders given to him orally?
Witness: I used to defy such orders, particularly if they had negative implications, unless they were written.
Mgongolwa: You said that you were not aware of the two contracts. What if somebody comes and tells the court that you were aware?
Witness: It depends; I cannot answer that unless I see that in writing.
Mgongolwa: Do you remember that sometime in 2001 Mahalu told you everything concerning the transactions?
Witness: I don\'t remember.
Mgongolwa then displays another document for the witness to see and asks him to read it.
Witness: The document says that the transactions are over and it is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the Ministry of Finance, the Budget Commissioner and me (as chief secretary).
Mgongolwa: So did you get a copy.
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Now, if you don\'t remember a thing about it, what have you come to do in court?
Witness: I have said what I know.
Mgongolwa: (showing another document), Do you remember this document, which was sent to you through DHL?
Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: The court will charge you with perjury if you are not careful.
Anyway, this document shows that on November 14, 2003 Mahalu sent you a copy showing that there were two contracts - one showing the real buying price and the other showing the official buying price.
Do you also remember that it was said in Parliament (in Tanzania) and recorded in the Hansard said that all procedures were followed when buying the building, which was bought at euro 3 million?
After going through the relevant section of the Hansard, the witness agrees that the building was bought at euro 3 million.
Mgongolwa: Don`t you think that, after all is said and done, the accused are innocent?
Witness: It is not up to me to decide.
The prosecution then re-examines the witness.
Prosecutor: Is it mandatory for you to go through all documents sent to your office?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor: Are the documents tendered in court by the defence original?
Witness: No, and anybody could have written them.
The case was adjourned to March 12 this year.
|
