17/07/2024
We are standing with our parents.
Defeated we shall never be.
The extradition case involving Prophet Shepherd Bushiri and his wife Mary is expected to continue today, July 17th 2024, at the Lilongwe Chief Resident Magistrate Court
BACKGROUND:
- The South African government presented its extradition request through its witness Sibongire Mzinyathi.
- The defense lawyers will continue cross-examining the witness to show that the South African government has failed to meet legal requirements for extradition.
- The Bushiri’s left South Africa to their homeland of Malawi in November 2020, just a few days after the Pretoria Central Magistrate's Court granted them bail.
- The extradition hearing started on Monday, March 13, 2024, and this morning the defense is expected to continue cross-examining the prosecution's witness, Sibongile Mzinyathi, who is the Director of Public Prosecution for Gauteng, South Africa.
WHAT TRANSPIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS COURT HEARING:
1. The extradition document which Mzinyathi tendered was not the same as the original request which they submitted to Malawi government in 2020. The one tendered in court had several instances that makes the document somehow doctored and tampered.
2. Out of the 13 offences that the Bushiris are wanted to answer in South Africa, 10 of them are not extraditable according to laws of Malawi. Today, the Bushiri lawyers are expected to demonstrate that the remaining three will also be challenged as not extraditable offences.
3. South African government witness Mzinyathi, told the court in March 2024 that Prophet Shepherd Bushiri and wife Mary never benefited from the R106 million which they were arrested for in October 2020. Which they can’t be extradited to answer a crime they never committed.
4. On 15 May 2024, the witness admitted that they did not prepare a charge sheet containing offences that the Bushiri's are allegedly accused of.
5. The witness also admitted that he cannot tell the strength of the case under the Malawian law.
6. The defence legal team proved without reasonable doubt that some of the documents filed in the state's affidavit were tampered with.
We will keep you updated.