Three judges charged with corruption
Seven months after he was thrown out of Mozambique’s judicial magistracy, former judge Acacio Mitilage has been charged with corruption, reports Wednesday’s issue of the independent newssheet “Carta de Mocambique”.
Mitilage used to work in the Matutuine district court, in the far south of the country, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has now sent his case to the Maputo Provincial Court.
Speaking at a Maputo press conference on Tuesday, the GCCC spokesperson, Romualdo Johane, said Mitilage is one of three judges facing charges of corruption. Mitilage is accused of embezzlement: the Higher Council of the Judicial Magistracy (CSMJ) expelled him from the judiciary in December when he was accused of stealing over 3.7 million meticais (about 57,800 US dollars, at the current exchange rate) from the Matutuine court.
Despite his expulsion, Mitilage is still practicing law, as a member of the Mozambican Bar Association (OAM).
The other two judges, who were not named, worked in the Gaza and Niassa provincial courts. The Gaza judge is also accused of embezzlement, while the GCCC says the Niassa judge demanded bribes to give favourable rulings.
Johane was summarising the GCCC’s activities in the first six months of this year. He said it had processed 1,373 cases, 518 of which led to charges. 59 of these cases concerned corrupt behaviour by members of the police force – which makes the police the state institution facing the largest number of accusations of corruption.
In addition, the GCCC handled 11 cases of corruption involving agents of the National Criminal Investigation Service (Sernic), and four officials of the immigration service (Senami).
Asked about possible criminal mishandling of funds earmarked for fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, Johane said the case is still under investigation.
The GCCC investigation began in June, arising from findings by the Ministry of Economy and Finance of significant abuses in the use of over two billion meticais of Covid-19 funding. A Ministry report in May pointed to the failure to observe correct contracting procedures, undue payments, expenditure not eligible for financing, and contracts not submitted to prior authorisation by the Administrative Tribunal.
(AIM)
