Paul Fauvet
25 January 2008
Maputo — After insisting since mid-December that Mozambican Attorney-General Augusto Paulino is a formal suspect in a case involving the alleged theft of 300,000 meticais (about 12,500 US dollars) from the Maputo Provincial Court, the right-wing Maputo weekly "Zambeze" , in its most recent edition, has finally admitted that the charges against Paulino were dropped months ago.
But instead of admitting its mistake, the paper uses the fact that it was an assistant attorney-general, Erasmo Nhavoto, who signed the dispatch dropping the charges as yet another stick with which to beat Paulino. "Subordinate "clears" Paulino", shrieks the headline.
Well, yes. The Assistant Attorney-General is indeed subordinate to the Attorney-General. In fact, all prosecutors are subordinate to the Attorney-General. So what? Is "Zambeze" suggesting that Nhavoto was intimidated into dropping the charges? Does it have any evidence that his arm was twisted in any way? Certainly no such evidence appears in the article.
"Zambeze" is clearly uncomfortable because the truth about the dispatch dropping the charges was first published by AIM, in an article which I signed last week. It was not the most difficult assignment of my career: it took me just one phone call to find out that Nhavoto had indeed issued a dispatch dropping the ludicrous charges against Paulino.
"Zambeze" protests that that it made "countless attempts" to confirm the AIM story, but was told that the Supreme Court was on holiday.
January and February are indeed the months of judicial holidays. But this does not mean that all the judges and court clerks are lying on a beach. During these months, the courts are supposed to catch up on paperwork and prepare for the coming year. No new trials can begin in January or February, but trials that had begun last year can continue during these months.
In the age of the mobile phone it is a fairly easy matter to contact sources, including judges. Or is the hapless "Zambeze" unable to obtain their numbers? Perhaps the paper thinks it is sufficient to ring a switchboard and hear the receptionist tell them that the court is on holiday.
Of course, the real question is not whether "Zambeze" is able to confirm an AIM story, but why the paper made no attempt to establish the truth about the dispatch earlier. It has been running a scurrilous campaign against Paulino for the past six weeks, and for most of that time has insisted that the case against the Attorney-General is ongoing.
Instead of informing its readers that the charges had been dropped and Paulino's name cleared, "Zambeze" continued to give the impression that a shadow still hung over the Attorney-General.
In the issue of 17 January, "Zambeze" insisted that Paulino was still a suspect, and suggested that there was no dispatch dropping the charges. The previous week, it put a former assistant attorney-general, Isabel Rupia, on the front page, declaring "I didn't drop any charges".
Indeed she didn't. In September Rupia was no longer assistant attorney-general. She was one of six assistant attorney-generals dismissed, in line with new legislation implementing the provisions of the 2004 Constitution on the Attorney-General's Office. Nhavoto was the only assistant attorney-general who met the new qualifications.
Wittingly or not, "Zambeze" is echoing a campaign that was aimed, unsuccessfully, at preventing President Armando Guebuza appointing Paulino as the new Attorney-General. The paper now finds itself in serious difficulties since Paulino, after tolerating the first couple of attacks, has decided to sue for libel.
He is claiming 10 million meticais (about 41,500 US dollars) in damages from "Zambeze", its director, Fernando Veloso, and the author of the articles, Alvarito de Carvalho.
How do we know that the case against Paulino is empty? Mainly because it was thrown out by the body that disciplines judges, the Higher Council of the Judicial Magistrature (CSMJ). When it became clear that he was about to lose his job, Paulino's predecessor, Joaquim Madeira, sent the allegation that Paulino had embezzled 300,000 meticais to the CSMJ.
At the time, Paulino was presiding judge of the Maputo City Court, and so the CSMJ was the correct body to investigate the allegation. That investigation prevented Guebuza from appointing Paulino as the new Attorney-General for over a month.
The CSMJ could find no merit whatsoever in the claim that Paulino had stolen the money. There was no evidence and so the case was thrown out. The standing commission of the CSMJ then wrote to Guebuza (on 23 August) informing him that there was no obstacle to appointing Paulino as the new Attorney-General.
That should have been the end of the story. But Madeira's office had another string in its bow: via the Central Office for the Fight against Corruption (GCCC), which operates out of the Attorney-General's Office, it also sent the denunciation against Paulino to the Supreme Court.
Since the CSMJ had already rejected the allegations, there was little chance that the Supreme Court would find any merit in them. Nonetheless the case was given to a Supreme Court judge, Joao Trindade, who began the investigations, and heard witnesses. The case promptly disintegrated, especially since Paulino could show that he had purchased his house, not through any embezzled money, but through a normal bank loan.
The prosecution, in the person of Nhavoto, then saved itself the embarrassment of a trial by dropping the charges. "Zambeze" claimed that this prevented Trindade from holding a trial. Such a claim merely demonstrates the paper's ignorance of Mozambican procedures. First, any hypothetical trial could not be held by Trindade, since the magistrate who investigates a case cannot be the same as the one who tries it.
Second, the opinion of the prosecution does not bind the investigating magistrate. If the prosecution decides to press charges, the investigating magistrate is free to disagree and argue that there is no case to answer. If that happens, and the prosecution still wants a trial, it would have to lodge an appeal.
Thirdly, the prosecution dropping the charges is not the end of the matter. Nhavoto's dispatch is now in the case file on a desk in the Supreme Court, and eventually the Court must react. In theory, it could disagree with Nhavoto and insist that the charges were credible. But, given that Nhavoto's position coincides with that of the CSMJ, such a possibility seems remote indeed.
Where did the embezzlement claim come from? The person who denounced Paulino, Adelaide Muchanga, made the allegation after Paulino had relieved her of her duties as head of the Administration and Finance section in the Maputo Provincial Court.
In his libel suit against "Zambeze", Paulino notes that, instead of protesting to him against this measure, Muchanga got together with Rupia and Madeira. The connection between the three is that they are worshippers in a fundamentalist Brazilian sect, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (IURD). Although Muchanga made her allegation in November 2006, Madeira did nothing about it until 19 June 2007, when he sent the accusation to the CSMJ.
In short, the allegation looks like an act of petty spite by a court official whom Paulino demoted, which was then used in an attempt to prevent his appointment as Attorney-General.
There is, of course, a wider background to the campaign against Paulino (and the parallel campaign, also run by "Zambeze", against one of the country's top lawyers, Albano Silva). Paulino and Silva are the most prominent members of the legal profession who do not merely talk about organised crime, but have put up a fight against it.
Silva has never been forgiven for his relentless pursuit of the Abdul Satar crime family, who defrauded the country's largest bank, the BCM, of the equivalent of 14 million dollars in 1996. Working as the bank's lawyer, Silva had to fight against the corrupt attorneys who were on the Satar payroll, and narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in 1999.
The country's top investigative journalist, Carlos Cardoso, also demanded that the BCM case be brought to trial. He too was in the way of the Satar family, and their accomplice, the former BCM branch manager, Vicente Ramaya. On 22 November 2000, the death squad they hired murdered Cardoso.
It was Paulino who tried the murderers, sentencing Ramaya, and the brothers Ayob Abdul Satar and Momad Assif Abdul Satar to lengthy terms of imprisonment.
The campaigns against Paulino and Silva can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that they severely inconvenienced a powerful mafia which retains considerable influence, even though some of its members are in jail and others have fled abroad.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Agencia de Informacao de Mocambique. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
