The prosecution in the case against Bongo Movie star Kajala Masanja told the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court that they failed to read a new charge sheet to the accused because the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) was not in his office.
Prosecution led by Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) prosecutor Musa Hussein claimed that, they took the file to the DPP so that they can get a permission to bring another charge sheet but the DPP was absent on Wednesday.
The defence counsel Alex Mgongolwa did not object and told the prosecution to do so in hurry.
Magistrate Sundi Fimbo adjourned the case until March 26, this year and Kajala remains in custody.
Kajala is charged together with her husband Faraja Chambo, who was not in court because he is in the custody for another case.
Earlier, the court told the prosecution that the prosecutor from the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau has the authority to prosecute other cases which are not corruption linked.
Resident Magistrate Sundi Fimbo told the court that the prosecutor Hussein, who prosecutes in the case, is one of the prosecutors who were pointed by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to pursue other cases which are not linked to corruption.
According to the charge sheet it was alleged that on unknown date and place the accused conspired, to commit an offence of transfer proceeds of corruption and money laundering.
Earlier, the prosecution led by prosecutor from the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB), Leonard Swai, claimed to the court that in April 2010 the accused being the husband and wife respectively, conspired to commit an offence of transfer of the proceeds of corruption (selling a house situated at Kunduchi Salasala in Kinondoni Municipality) in contravention of the provisions of section 34 of PCCB Act 2007.
On the second count it was alleged that on April 14, 2010 the accused having been served with a notice under section 34(2), and 3 of the PCCB Act 2007 in contravention to the said notice, transferred the ownership of the said house.
Further it was alleged that on the same date and place the accused transferred the ownership of the said house while they knew or ought to have known that the said house was the proceeds of corrupt practice for purposes of concealing its origin.