----------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CARDOSO MURDER TRIAL
Day 27 - final day
Mailing 12 - 15 January 2003
-----------------------------------------------------

JUDGEMENT ON 31 JANUARY: Judge Augusto Paulino set Friday 31 January as
the date for the verdict and sentencing of the six men accused of the
murder of Carlos Cardoso.
The final day of the trial ran into the early evening, as the three
prosecution lawyers and five defence lawyers gave their final statements,
and three of the defendants also gave final statements. (given in more
detail below)
Carlos Cardoso was murdered "because he was a journalist who
denounced abuses, who did not shut up, who would not forget any matter,
who insisted on following what he regarded as most important, and who
would not allow any of the illegalities he had written about to fall into
oblivion", declared the Cardoso family lawyer, Lucinda Cruz, in her final
statement. "Carlos Cardoso was a pain, he was obstinate, he was really
inconvenient. The only way for any criminal to go on practicing crimes
with impunity was to silence Carlos Cardoso. And the only way to silence
Carlos Cardoso was to kill him".

CARDOSO'S LAST AND GREATEST STORY: This trial, broadcast live on
Mozambican radio and television, "could be regarded as the last and
greatest report of the journalist Carlos Cardoso. At this trial, a vast
number of crimes have been denounced before all of us, including
money-laundering, usury, the illegal transfer of foreign exchange, car
thefts, bank frauds, trafficking in influence, illegal loans, and
corruption in its most varied forms, including corrupt relations between
police officers and prisoners", declared Lucinda Cruz. "The live
broadcasts of this trial have achieved what Carlos Cardoso was unable to
do while alive. It has carried his voice to the most remote parts of
Mozambique. And it has made us aware that we were losing the moral values
that are universally recognised, regardless of political regime or
religious creed".

-----------------------------------------------------
AIM & MediaFax clippings
circulated by Joseph Hanlon
([email protected])
-----------------------------------------------------

========================
REPORTS OF FINAL STATEMENTS
========================

41103E CARDOSO MURDER: DATE SET FOR VERDICT
~
Maputo, 13 Jan 2003 (AIM) - The Maputo city court on Monday set 31
January as the date for verdict and sentencing in the case of the
murder of Mozambique's top investigative journalist, Carlos
Cardoso.

Judge Augusto Paulino set the date after listening to the
summing up from prosecution and defence lawyers, and final
statements from the accused themselves.

Paulino stressed that the only people on trial are the five
men in the dock - Ayob Abdul Satar, Momade Assife Abdul Satar
("Nini"), Vicente Ramaya, Carlitos Rashid Cassamo, and Manuel
Fernandes - plus the fugitive, Anibal dos Santos Junior
("Anibalzinho"), who was illitly released from the Maputo top
security jail on 1 September.

The judge was thus alerting the public that, although
accusations have been made against several other people, notably
businessman Nyimpine Chissano, the oldest son of President
Joaquim Chissano, they are not on trial, and can thus neither be
found guilty nor acquitted.

Chissano Jr is a suspect in a separate case file on the
murder, which is in the early stages of investigation, and is
currently in the hands of the Maputo branch of the Public
Prosecutor's Office.

Paulino acknowledged that he had been criticised in some
quarters for allowing radio and television to broadcast the trial
live. It was said that this undermined the principle of the
presumption of innocence.

"Some people say that we are the only country in the world
that allows a trial to be broadcast live. That's not true", he
stressed. "And the presumption of innocence does not depend on
whether or not there are live broadcasts. It takes other forms".

He said the court was pleased to note that the Mozambican
Bar Association had issued a statement which praised the public
nature of the trial, and the decision to leave it up to the media
themselves to decide how they would cover it.

Paulino added that the defence lawyers themselves had also
supported live broadcasts "in order to guarantee transparency".

"All the Mozambicans who have followed this trial are
judges", said Paulino. "They all have a verdict and sentence in
their heads".

But he urged other citizens to keep their verdict to
themselves until the court has published its. "Let the court work
calmly", he pleaded. "We would like the citizens to keep their
own verdicts in the head, and only make them public after the
court has announced its decisions".

In its summing up, the prosecution only withdrew one charge
against one of the defendants. Both the public prosecution, and
the two private prosecutions (on behalf of the Cardoso family,
and Cardoso's injured driver, Carlos Manjate), withdrew the
charge of illegal use of a firearm against Nini Satar.

Initially, one of the confessed assassins, Manuel Fernandes,
had claimed that the AK-47 rifle used in the murder had been
delivered a few hours beforehand by Satar. But during the trial,
he changed his story - both he, and the man who actually fired
the gun, Carlitos Rashid, said that the AK-47 belonged to
Anibalzinho, and was already in the car when they set off to
ambush Cardoso.~

Withdrawing this one charge does not do Satar much good -
like all the other defendants, he is still accused of the major
crimes, the murder of Cardoso and the attempted murder of
Manjate.
(AIM)
pf/ (549)
~
43103E CARDOSO MURDER: FAMILY'S LAWYER SUMS UP
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Carlos Cardoso was murdered "because he
was a journalist who denounced abuses, who did not shut up, who
would not forget any matter, who insisted on following what he
regarded as most important, and who would not allow any of the
illegalities he had written about to fall into oblivion",
declared the Cardoso family lawyer, Lucinda Cruz, on Monday.

Presenting the summing up of the private prosecution in the
Cardoso murder trial, Cruz said that, for those affected by his
writings, "Carlos Cardoso was a pain, he was obstinate, he was
really inconvenient. The only way for any criminal to go on
practicing crimes with impunity was to silence Carlos Cardoso.
And the only way to silence Carlos Cardoso was to kill him".

But for three of the accused, the members of the death
squad, Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho"), Manuel Fernandes
and Carlitos Rashid, the motive was not remotely political: they
killed because they were paid to do so.

She expressed revulsion at the behaviour of the confessed
assassins, Rashid and Fernandes, "who have come into this room
countless times, laughing and very pleased with themselves, as if
taking a human life had not the slightest importance".

For those charged with ordering the murder - Ayob Abdul
Satar, owner of the Unicambios foreign exchange bureau, his
brother, money-lender Momade Assife Abdul Satar ("Nini"), and
former bank manager, Vicente Ramaya - Cruz had no doubt that the
main motive for the crime was the fraud which had seen 144
billion meticais (14 million US dollars) syphoned out of the
Commercial Bank of Mozambique (BCM), a crime which took place at
Ramaya's BCM branch, and used accounts opened by members of the
Abdul Satar family.

The Satars and Ramaya, she argued, were worried, not so much
because Cardoso was investigating the fraud, "but because he was
not going to stop writing about it until it came to trial.
Cardoso believed that taking this case to court could be a step
forward in making Mozambican justice credible".

But Cruz stressed that the Cardoso family did not rule out
other motives and other people who may also have ordered the
killing. "For the assassination of a person such as Carlos
Cardoso, there need not be just one motive", she stressed.

She said there were plenty of examples of crimes committed
by several people each with their own motive, and "united in a
single purpose - to kill someone".

The accusations made in court against other people - notably
against businessman Nyimpine Chissano, the oldest son of
President Joaquim Chissano - "deserve to be investigated
seriously", said Cruz. "But these accusations were made late.
This means that Nyimpine Chissano is the subject of a separate
case file, which has not yet come to trial, and so he can neither
be sentenced nor acquitted here".

Only the autonomous case against Chissano Jr, currently in
the hands of the Public Prosecutor's Office, could decide whether
he too should be brought to trial for the murder. Cruz stressed
that "it is up to civil society, and the friends of Carlos
Cardoso to demand that the investigation continue".

Civil society and the mass media, she urged, should ensure
that the accusations against Nyimpine Chissano and several others
"are not forgotten, and that this case does not join the heap of
other cases that have ground to a halt in the various stages of
criminal investigation".

Cruz noted that the defence lawyers had often criticised the
poor police work in investigating the murder. She agreed with
them - in fact, it had been Cardoso's family and friends who were
the first "to denounce the apathy and incapacity of our police.
In the more than 5,000 pages in this case file, there are
countless examples of obstructing justice and of failure to
cooperate with the judicial system".

She believed that there was now enough evidence, as a result
of the investigations and trial, to open over a hundred new
cases, "concerning crimes and illegalities committed by public
and private institutions, and by individuals".

Again, it would be up to civil society to oblige the public
prosecutor's office to take its job seriously, and pursue all
these cases.

Despite his physical absence, this trial, broadcast live on
Mozambican radio and television, "could be regarded as the last
and greatest report of the journalist Carlos Cardoso. At this
trial, a vast number of crimes have been denounced before all of
us, including money-laundering, usury, the illegal transfer of
foreign exchange, car thefts, bank frauds, trafficking in
influence, illegal loans, and corruption in its most varied
forms, including corrupt relations between police officers and
prisoners".

"The live broadcasts of this trial have achieved what Carlos
Cardoso was unable to do while alive", Cruz added. "It has
carried his voice to the most remote parts of Mozambique. And it
has made us aware that we were losing the moral values that are
universally recognised, regardless of political regime or
religious creed".

She praised the blanket coverage of the trial in most of the
Mozambican media. She did not think that radio and television had
broadcast it live, just to win larger audiences. "These
broadcasts were the way for the media to pay tribute to the man
who was the most courageous and outspoken journalist Mozambican
society has ever known", Cruz declared. "It was their way of
giving a voice, perhaps for the last time, to a man whose voice
had been silenced in such a barbaric and criminal fashion".

Cruz stressed her agreement with the presiding judge,
Augusto Paulino, who had declared in December that Anibalzinho,
the fugitive who headed the death squad, "may be stronger than
each one of us on our own, but will not be stronger than all of
us together".

Criminals were only strong, if society allowed them to be
strong, she stressed. "All of us together, society united, will
defeat any criminal, and can always bring criminals to trial, no
matter how influential, how important, how wealthy, they may be".
(AIM)
pf/ (1004)

44103E CARDOSO MURDER: PRIVATE PROSECUTION DEMANDS CONVICTIONS
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Lucinda Cruz, lawyer for the family of
murdered journalist Carlos Cardoso, on Monday stressed that there
is more than sufficient evidence to convict Vicente Ramaya, and
the two brothers Ayob and Momade Abdul Satar, of ordering the
assassination.

Summing up for the private prosecution in the Cardoso murder
trial, Cruz stood by the testimony of Oswaldo Muianga ("Dudu").
His account of conspiratorial meetings in the Rovuma hotel
"established the link" between those who ordered the crime and
those who carried it out.

The defence lawyers have tried to discredit Muianga, who has
changed his story several times, and deny that any meetings were
held at the Rovuma. But if that were the case, asked Cruz, why
had the defendants and their relatives been so anxious to
intimidate and bribe Muianga and his family ?

Why had the Satar brothers telephoned Muianga from prison,
sometimes threatening him, sometimes offering bribes, "if Muianga
did not know, and had never heard about the plans to kill Carlos
Cardoso ?"

She noted that immediately after Muianga made his first
statements, in March 2001, the defence had accused him of having
a criminal record (which was not true), and demanded that he be
arrested. The reason they reacted in this way, she suggested, was
precisely because meetings had taken place at the Rovuma hotel,
and had discussed murdering Cardoso.

Faced with threatening phone calls from Momade Satar and
Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho"), the head of the death
squad, Muianga pretended that he had lost the power of speech.
But in early 2002, he withdrew his earlier statement, and claimed
he had been incited to incriminate the Satars by Gary Rouper, the
former manager of the Polana Hotel, which owed the Satars money.

"This retraction was obviously false", said Cruz. "Being
false, and only benefiting the defendants, it could only have
been obtained through the interference or influence of the
defendants - as was later proved" (Muianga's mother, Fatima
Razaco, told the court how she had pressured her son to sign the
retraction, after receiving bribes from Satar's relatives.)

The pressures put on Muianga and his mother convinced Cruz
that his initial statement of March 2001 "is at least partly
true", and that there were indeed meetings at the Rovuma.

"Muianga knows that Carlos Cardoso was spoken of at those
meetings", she said. "That's why, on the day of the murder, as
soon as he knew, who did he telephone - none other than
Anibalzinho and Momade Satar !~ And later that night, as he
admits, he went to meet with Anibalzinho".

The defence has objected that another prosecution witness,
Rohit Kumar, is a confessed murderer (he killed a shop owner in
1997, but has never stood trial for the crime, due to police
incompetence or complicity).

Rohit Kumar was apparently the first person the Satars tried
to recruit to murder Cardoso. He told the court that in 1999,
Momade Satar, in the presence of his brother Ayob, asked him if
he could arrange assassins to dispose of Cardoso. He turned the
job down because the Satars did not offer him enough money.

Of course, Kumar is a criminal, Cruz said - that was the
whole point. Satar had met him in jail in 1997 (when he was
briefly imprisoned for his part in the BCM fraud, before corrupt
attorneys secured his release).

Satar knew he was a killer, and that was why he had tried to
recruit him.

Calling him a murderer simply made Kumar's testimony more
credible. You don't hire honest, clean people with no criminal
records to carry out a contract killing, Cruz pointed out.

"If you want to hire someone to do a job", she said, "logic
and intelligence dictate that you hire someone who has already
shown that he knows how to do it".

Cruz also pointed to the evidence from the records of the
mobile phone company M-Cel. These records proved the links
between Anibalzinho, the Satars and Ramaya.

The initial phone contacts between Momade Satar and
Anibalzinho occurred in July 2000: Muianga overheard Satar
telling Anibalzinho that there was "an inconvenience" to be
removed before dealing with "the first matter discussed".

The "first matter" was the planned assassination of lawyer
Albano Silva, the prosecution argues, while "the inconvenience"
was Cardoso.

Phone contacts were frequent between the defendants -
notably on the day of the murder (22 November 2000), and the day
after, including calls late at night.

Cruz argued that the main target of the Satars and Ramaya
was Albano Silva, the lawyer for what was then the country's
largest bank, the BCM. But when the attorneys who had been
protecting the Satars lost their jobs in July 2000, after
President Joaquim Chissano appointed a new Attorney-General,
Joaquim Madeira, the Satars changed their plans.

"They knew that first they had to get rid of Carlos
Cardoso", she said. "To regain any impunity, they had to
eliminate the only person who could stand up to them. Because he
had a credible newspaper, because nobody could buy him, and
because his voice was heard at all levels".

"So they had to guarantee that Carlos Cardoso would not
inconvenience them any more", Cruz added. "So they had to kill
him. But they made a mistake: after his death, Carlos Cardoso has
inconvenienced them much more".

Cruz asked the court to convict all six defendants on the
count of first degree murder. She also demanded that the
defendants compensate Cardoso's two children, 13 year old Ibo and
seven year old Milena, to the sum of 14 billion meticais (568,000
US dollars).

Helder Matlaba, the lawyer for Cardoso's driver, Carlos
Manjate, who survived the attack, but was severely injured and is
currently unable to work, also asked the court to convict all six
defendants. He is seeking compensation of 500 million meticais
for his client.
(AIM)
pf/ (964)

42103E CARDOSO MURDER: PROSECUTION DEMANDS MAXIMUM SENTENCE
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - The prosecution in the Carlos Cardoso
murder case on Monday demanded the maximum sentence for the six
people charged with the November 2000 assassination of
Mozambique's top investigative journalist.

Giving his summing up, public prosecutor Mourao Baluce said
that the guilt of all six men had been proven during the trial,
which began before the Maputo City Court on 18 November.

He was thus demanding the maximum sentence for first degree
murder (a 24 year jail term) not only for the three members of
the death squad - Carlitos Rashid Cassamo, Manuel Fernandes, and
the fugitive Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho") - but also
for the three men charged with ordering the killing, Ayob Abdul
Satar, owner of the Unicambios foreign exchange bureau, his
brother, the notorious loan shark Momade Assife Abdul Satar
("Nini"), and former bank manager Vicente Ramaya.

Baluce said that the murder had been plotted in a series of
conspiratorial meetings in a room at the Rovuma Hotel, as from
July 2000. Anibalzinho, Nini Satar, Ayob Satar and Ramaya all
took part in one or more of those meetings.

Baluce argued that the initial purpose of the meetings was
to assess why the November 1999 attempt on the life of Albano
Silva, the lawyer for what was then the country's largest bank,
the BCM, had failed, and to plot a further assassination attempt.
But the plan to murder Silva was shelved, in favour of
eliminating Cardoso first.

The motive cited by Baluce was the 1996 fraud, in which 144
billion meticais (14 million US dollars at the exchange rate of
the time) was stolen from the BCM. The fraud took place at
Ramaya's BCM branch, using fraudulent accounts opened in the
names of members of the Abdul Satar family.

Silva had been pursuing this case relentlessly, and Cardoso
had been writing about it. "Carlos Cardoso was a serious,
incorruptible, investigative journalist who would not allow the
BCM case to be forgotten", said Baluce. "His work inconvenienced
the criminals."

Cardoso was the main problem for those who defrauded the
bank - for they could be sure that, if they murdered Silva first,
then Cardoso would not rest until they had been brought to
justice.

Baluce pointed out that the difference between the
activities of a lawyer and of a journalist ensured that "Carlos
Cardoso's work came to the work of many more people than those
aware of Albano Silva's procedural battles".

The Satars and Ramaya had attempted to present themselves as
legitimate businessmen, but Cardoso "exposed the false nature of
this public image".

The major problem for the prosecution has been that a key
witness, Osvaldo Muianga ("Dudu"), who claims to have been
present at the Rovuma meetings, has changed his story several
times. The defence has tried to discredit him, and claims that
the meetings are a figment of his imagination.

Baluce argued that the instability of Muianga's story was
due to the pressures put upon him and his family by some of the
defendants and their relatives.

Throughout the trial, the court has heard of how the Satar
family threatened, cajoled and bribed witnesses. These tactics
were successful, in that Muianga's mother, Fatima Razaco,
persuaded him to retract his original statements in February
2002. But later in the year, he retracted the retraction.

A final version, told on the witness stand, was that the
Rovuma meetings had taken place, but had solely discussed
murdering Albano Silva, and had not mentioned Cardoso.

Baluce argued that Muianga had been telling the truth in
his initial statement. He noted that the defence made much of the
fact that Muianga claimed the meetings had happened in rooms 105
or 106 - when there are no rooms with those numbers in the
Rovuma.

He pointed out that "initially Dudu said he didn't know the
room numbers. Only after pressure did he mention numbers 105 and
106. He probably took the lift to the bar, and then went into a
room on the first floor after the bar".

As for the defence's objection to Muianga, and to several
other witnesses, because they have been charged with other
crimes, Baluce remarked "the same can be said of the defendants".

He noted that Ramaya's wife and the sisters of Ayob and Nini
Satar were among those who had tried to bribe witnesses. "Can
innocence be purchased ?", he asked. "Innocent people cooperate
with the court, and do not lie. Innocent people do not need to
spend vast sums of money to buy their innocence".

Baluce warned that, if the defendants are allowed to go
free, "they will continue their criminal activities:. He demanded
"exemplary punishment", with a sentence "to the maximum limits
envisaged by the law".
(AIM)
pf/ (775)

45103E~ CARDOSO MURDER: DEFENCE LAWYERS SUM UP
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Lawyers for the defendants in the Carlos
Cardoso murder trial on Monday urged the Maputo City Court to
acquit their clients, or, in the cases of those who confessed to
the assassination, to show clemency in the light of "mitigating
circumstances".

But, unlike the carefully produced prosecution summaries,
the last words from several of the defence lawyers seemed to have
been thrown together hastily and incoherently.

Worst of all was Portuguese lawyer Eduardo Jorge,
representing the loan shark Momade Assife Abdul Satar ("Nini").
Jorge did such violence to the Portuguese language that parts of
his summing up were entirely incomprehensible. His habit of
beginning a sentence but never ending it meant that some of his
arguments were impossible to follow.

He admitted his client's character defects - Nini, he said,
was indeed arrogant, loved money, and had committed usury. But if
he was as powerful, and influential as some people claimed "then
how come he is in prison and not outside ?"

Jorge had to face the awkward fact that last year Nini Satar
had tried to involve the judge, Augusto Paulino, and senior
police officers, including Antonio Frangoulis, former head of the
Maputo Criminal Investigation Police (PIC), in an alleged
conspiracy to extort a million dollars from him.

"Nini erred - out of despair - when he went after the judge
and the police officers", said Jorge. "Did he do it on purpose ?
I don't think so".

He claimed that the prosecution had produced "no serious
evidence" that his client had ordered the murder of Cardoso. It
was true that he had made payments to the man who recruited the
death squad, the fugitive Anibal dos Santos Junior
("Anibalzinho") - but he had claimed not to know what these
payments were for, and the prosecution had not proved otherwise,
Jorge said.

Domingos Arouca, lawyer for Nini's brother, Ayob Abdul
Satar, knew that his client was innocent because he, Arouca, was
his next-door neighbour. "Frequently he comes to my house, and
seeks my advice", said Arouca. Sometimes they sat in the garden
together. So he couldn't possibly be an assassin.

A somewhat more serious line was to separate Ayob from Nini.
Arouca claimed that Ayob's company, the foreign exchange bureau
Unicambios, "never made illicit payments". The post-dated cheques
for 1.29 billion meticais (over 50,000 US dollars) shown to the
court "are a personal deal between Nini and Nyimpine Chissano
(oldest son of President Joaquim Chissano). They are not in the
name of Unicambios, and Nyimpine said he doesn't even know Ayob.
At no time did Nini inform Ayob of these payments".

Simeao Cuamba, lawyer for Anibalzinho, and for one of the
confessed assassins, Manuel Fernandes, appeared to believe that
the best strategy was to send the court into a deep sleep.
Certainly this reporter had great difficulty in keeping his eyes
open as Cuamba rambled on about the 19th century Italian criminal
anthropologist Lumbruso (who thought that criminal "types" could
be detected by the shape of their heads), cited Emmanuel Kant,
and invoked Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel.

The occasional outrageous remark did wake the audience up -
as when Cuamba alleged that the staff on Cardoso's newspaper
"Metical" had not done enough to protect their editor, or claimed
that there was no attempted murder of Cardoso's driver, Carlos
Manjate, because the bullet that struck him in the head was not
intended for him.

Abdul Gani, lawyer for Vicente Ramaya, left no such nasty
taste in the mouth. Indeed, of all the defence lawyers, he seemed
the only one who had taken the trouble to read Cardoso's work
thoroughly.

Unfortunately, he reduced this to a statistical exercise.
The fraud at the Commercial Bank of Mozambique (BCM), where
Ramaya had been a branch manager, and which involved the theft of
144 billion meticais (14 million dollars at the exchange rate of
the time) could not have been the motive for the murder, because
Cardoso had written much more about other subjects, Gani claimed.

He had counted five articles or editorials on the BCM in
"Metical" in 1999, and 20 in 2000, prior to Cardoso's death. But
in the same period there had been 59 articles on the cashew
processing industry. There had been 32 articles on the
introduction of Value Added Tax (to which Cardoso was opposed) in
1999, and there had been 37 articles on the customs service in
2000. Ergo, the BCM was not a key issue.

Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with Cardoso's
work knows how passionately he felt about the destruction of the
cashew processing industry, as the government blindly followed a
diktat from the World Bank. Nor is there any doubt that Cardoso
thought that handing over the management of the customs service
to the British firm, Crown Agents, violated Mozambican
sovereignty.

But it is a huge leap to conclude that these could be
motives for murder. Gani did not draw the logical conclusion from
his own argument - he did not suggest that the World Bank, the
Crown Agents or the VAT office had hired the death squad.

The key difference is that, when Cardoso wrote about cashew
or customs, he was hoping to change government policy. When he
wrote about the BCM, he was hoping that those who defrauded the
bank would be brought to justice.

The defence lawyers tried hard to discredit key defence
witnesses, particularly Osvaldo Muianga ("Dudu"), who had
testified to meetings in the Rovuma hotel, attended by
Anibalzinho, the Satar brothers and Ramaya, at which murder was
planned.

Muianga had changed his story so many times that he was not
credible, they claimed. Gani took Muianga's inability to describe
the rooms where he had attended meetings over two years
previously as an indication that the meetings had never happened.

Arouca claimed that Muianga was so distinctive (a very short
man wearing moslem clothes) that the hotel staff would have
recognised him if he had really been to the Rovuma.

Samuel Valentim, lawyer for Carlitos Rashid, the man who
admits firing the shots that took Cardoso's life, had the easiest
task. He merely asked the court to take account of his "free and
spontaneous confession" as a mitigating circumstance.

He claimed that Rashid committed the crime because of his
poverty (he was having difficulty paying the rent on his house)
and because of "bad company" such as Anibalzinho.
(AIM)
pf/ (1055)

46103E CARDOSO MURDER: LAST STATEMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Maputo money-lender Momade Assife Abdul
Satar ("Nini") on Monday once again tried to implicate Nyimpine
Chissano, the oldest son of President Joaquim Chissano, in the
November 2000 murder of Mozambique's top investigative
journalist, Carlos Cardoso.

Giving a final statement to the Maputo City Court, Satar
recalled that he had presented the court with post-dated cheques,
signed by Nyimpine Chissano.

Satar's story is that these cheques, totalling 1.29 billion
meticais (over 50,000 US dollars), were security on a loan. He
alleges that Chissano asked him for the money, but stipulated
that it be paid to Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho"), the
man who organised the death squad that murdered Cardoso.

Satar claims it was not until he met Anibalzinho in prison
in 2001 that he realised the money had been used to pay for a
contract killing.

"Nyimpine lied to this court when he said he only spoke to
me once", said Satar. "There were several business deals between
us".

He complained that the police had taken no notice when he
first mentioned the involvement of Chissano. "I had a meeting a
year before the trial (i.e. in November 2001), at which I told
Antonio Frangoulis (former head of the Maputo Criminal
Investigation Police) that Nyimpine was involved", said Satar.
"Why was no inquiry opened into what I said to Frangoulis ?"

Satar denied any hand in the illicit release of Anibalzinho
from the top security jail in September. "If I got him out, why
did Anibalzinho send to Maputo a cassette incriminating me, and
exonerating Nyimpine ?", he asked.

(This cassette arrived in Maputo in December, and the judge,
Augusto Paulino, refused to admit it as evidence. Copies are
circulating, however, and it is known that in it Anibalzinho
blames the Satar brothers for the murder of Cardoso.)

"Everything was set up so that Anibalzinho could flee. It
was not in my interests for him to escape", said Satar.

Satar's brother, Ayob, protested his innocence and said he
had "no motive" for killing Cardoso.

The prosecution has cited as a likely motive the fraud in
which 144 billion meticais (14 million dollars at the exchange
rate of the time) was stolen from what was then the country's
largest bank, the BCM. The fraud used accounts opened in the name
of members of the Abdul Satar family.

Ayob Satar said that, at the time the fraud was committed,
"I didn't have close relations with the rest of my family". His
parents and brothers fled the country, but he stayed.

The BCM's lawyer, Albano Silva, believes that this is just a
family stratagem: Ayob did not open one of the fraudulent
accounts, because his task was to look after the family's
apparently legitimate business interests, if his relatives had to
leave Mozambique.

Ayob insisted that "I never had any dispute with Carlos
Cardoso or with any other journalist".

The third man accused of ordering the assassination, former
BCM branch manager Vicente Ramaya, also claimed he had no quarrel
with Cardoso, and that "Cardoso never did me any harm at all".

But he did admit participating in the BCM fraud, though
tried to put the blame on people higher up the bank hierarchy. "I
did not participate in the fraud as a citizen, but as the manager
of the Sommerschield branch and I carried out the instructions of
my superiors", Ramaya said. "I know who got the money and who are
the real beneficiaries of the fraud".

The two confessed murderers, Carlitos Rashid, and Manuel
Fernandes, were also given the opportunity to address the court,
but said they had no further comment.

The presiding judge, Augusto Paulino, has announced that the
court's verdict will be given on 31 January.
(AIM)
pf/ (620)

mediaFAX Maputo, quarta-feira, 15. 01.2003, Nº2694

Extractos das alegaçoes finais da Lucinda Cruz, advogada da familia de
Carlos Cardoso, no ultimo dia do julgamento, anteontem

A ultima reportagem de CC foi o julgamento dos seus assassinos

Durante mais de um mes estivemos em audiencia de julgamento, para julgar
seis homens acusados e pronunciados por terem cometido um dos crimes mais
hediondos que existe: o assassinato por encomenda. Aquele que e preparado
a sangue frio, pelos mandantes, porque entendem que ha motivos que
justificam mandar matar. Assassinato que e cometido fisicamente por
pessoas que nada tem contra quem disparam, a nao ser a ambiçao do
dinheiro. (...) Durante estes mais de trinta dias, este julgamento,
transmitido em directo, bateu os recordes de audiencia televisa e
radiofonica, em todo o pais. De norte a sul, as pessoas estiveram
agarradas a televisao e a radio. Este julgamento foi equiparado a uma
telenovela em termos de audiencia.
So que este julgamento nao e uma telenovela, pois ha uma diferença
fundamental.
E que neste caso, o protagonista principal a volta de quem gira todo o
drama, nao voltara a fazer outra telenovela, nao voltara a aparecer em
mais nenhum papel.
Carlos Cardoso, o homem, o jornalista cujo unico crime foi lutar para
denunciar publicamente as ilegalidades, as injustiças, a corrupçao, os
crimes em que esta mergulhada a sociedade e o Estado moçambicano, os
crimes cometidos pelos poderosos e pelos nao poderosos, nunca mais o
voltara a fazer.

Carlos Cardoso ja nao voltara para junto dos seus filhos, da sua mulher,
da sua familia, dos seus amigos.
Mas este julgamento em directo, pela televisao e pela radio, acabou por
constituir aquela que podera ser considerada a ultima e maior reportagem
do jornalista Carlos Cardoso.

Neste julgamento, foi denunciado perante nos todos, um infindavel numero
de crimes que vao desde a lavagem de dinheiro, a transferencia ilegal de
divisas, a usura, a troca de moeda ilegal, o roubo de viaturas, o trafico
de influencias, as fraudes bancarias, a corrupçao nas suas mais diversas
formas, a promiscuidade corrupta entre policias e reclusos, ate aos
emprestimos ilegais, ate as empresas que funcionam ilegalmente, ate as
pessoas que exercem actividades ilegais por si so e ilegais porque para
tal nao tem autorizaçao.
Este julgamento em directo pela radio e pela televisao acabou por
conseguir aquilo que Carlos Cardoso nao tinha conseguido em vida:
- fazer chegar a sua voz ao mais recondito dos lugares de Moçambique;
- fazer-nos tomar consciencia que estavamos a perder os valores morais
reconhecidos universalmente independentemente do regime politico ou crença
religiosa.

Mas, por ironia do destino, quem tambem, em muito contribuiu para que este
julgamento acabasse por ser a maior reportagem de Carlos Cardoso, foram
aqueles que foram acusados de ter planeado e executado a sua morte.
Quiseram guardar para este julgamento aquilo que sabiam de todos os crimes
cometidos, por si, ou por outras pessoas. E ao falarem, deram alcance
nacional, aquele de quem sao acusados de tirar essa mesma voz.
Entendemos que a radio e a televisao moçambicana ao transmitirem este
julgamento em directo nao tiveram como primeiro objectivo conquistar
audiencias, como chegaram a ser acusadas.
Entendemos que esta transmissao foi a forma destes orgaos da comunicaçao
social prestarem homenagem aquele que foi dos jornalistas moçambicanos
mais corajosos, mais frontais que a sociedade moçambicana ja teve.
Foi, afinal, a forma que estes orgaos de informaçao, assim como todos os
outros da imprensa escrita, darem, eventualmente pela ultima vez, voz
aquele cuja voz tinha sido silenciada de forma tao barbara e tao
criminosa. Foi a forma de se aliarem a luta pela transparencia que impede
as manipulaçoes de gabinete e que, quando nao impede, pelo menos
desmascara. (...)

Para se chegar a este julgamento foram necessarios dois longos anos de
luta.
A sociedade civil moçambicana e a comunidade internacional, os amigos e a
familia de Carlos Cardoso, ao longo de dois dolorosos anos nunca
esmoreceram na sua luta para que justiça fosse feita e para que os
assassinos de Carlos Cardoso fossem levados a julgamento.
Sociedade civil moçambicana essa que nao se deixou intimidar nem pelas
ameaças, nem pelas criticas feitas, nem pelas pressoes exercidas das mais
variadas formas. Racista, elitista, manipulada por mao externa, de tudo a
sociedade, os amigos e a familia de Carlos Cardoso foi acusada.
So porque nao permitiu que se deixasse cair no esquecimento o assassinato
de Carlos Cardoso.
Uma sociedade que soube continuar a luta de Carlos Cardoso.
Exigiu a perseguiçao dos criminosos, exigiu que fossem levados a
julgamento.
O que Carlos Cardoso sempre fez e por isso foi morto.

O Juiz - Presidente deste Tribunal referiu a proposito da cassete video
enviada pelo Reu Anibal, que este Reu podia ser mais forte do que cada um
de nos, mas nao sera mais forte do que todos nos juntos, nao sera mais
forte do que o Estado moçambicano.
Com permissao do Meritissimo Juiz, gostariamos de o parafrasear dizendo
que o crime, os criminosos poderao ser mais fortes do que cada um de nos
isolados, mas nao poderao ser mais fortes do que todos nos juntos.
Nao ha crimes perfeitos.
A impunidade por crimes cometidos so sera mais forte do que nos, se nos,
se a sociedade o permitir, se a sociedade o quiser.
Todos juntos, toda a sociedade unida, derrotara qualquer criminoso, podera
sempre, sempre, levar a julgamento qualquer criminoso por mais influente,
por mais importante, por mais dinheiro que ele tenha.

Carlos Cardoso foi assassinado a 22 de Novembro de 2000.
A defesa, neste julgamento, referiu varias vezes, a deficiente
investigaçao e instruçao que foi feita.
Concordamos inteiramente com esta afirmaçao. Fomos, alias, os primeiros a
denunciar a apatia e a inoperancia da nossa policia.

Exemplos de obstruçao a justiça, da falta de cooperaçao com o sistema
judicial, sao inumeros ao longo das mais de 5 mil paginas que constituem
este processo.
Os exemplos sao tantos que se os enumerassemos aqui, levariamos mais tempo
do que aquele que nos e concedido para estas alegaçoes.

Mas este processo e o que resultou deste julgamento contem em si, indicios
e nalguns casos, provas, suficientes, de muitos crimes e ilegalidades
cometidas, tambem, pelas mais diferentes instituiçoes publicas e privadas
e por pessoas singulares.
O Ministerio Publico, tera, neste processo, materia suficiente para
instaurar mais de uma centena de procedimentos criminais pelos mais
variados crimes.
Mais uma vez, competira a sociedade moçambicana exigir que o Ministerio
Publico cumpra a sua obrigaçao e leve ate as suas ultimas consequencias o
que foi denunciado neste processo e neste julgamento. (...)

Quando Carlos Cardoso foi assassinado e pela forma como ele tinha sido
morto, todos tivemos a certeza que ele tinha sido morto porque era
jornalista.
Mas, intelectuais que somos, que tantas vezes complicam aquilo que e
simples, procuramos o motivo por detras do motivo.
Ou seja, o que e que Carlos Cardoso estava a investigar, quais eram os
assuntos quentes sobre os quais Carlos Cardoso estava a escrever que
pudessem constituir o motivo do motivo. Tarefa quase impossivel. A lista
dos assuntos perigosos, quentes, era interminavel.
Mais grave. Ao contrario do que muita gente pensa, Carlos Cardoso era um
jornalista que nao usava blocos onde apontasse tudo e todas as informaçoes
que ia obtendo. Para tomar apontamentos, Carlos Cardoso usava o primeiro
papel ou papelinho que lhe aparecesse.
E para preparar qualquer artigo ou intervençao, Carlos Cardoso usava a sua
memoria e os tais papelinhos, para se sentar ao computador e duma so vez,
escrever aquilo que ia ser publicado ou o que ia ler.
Carlos Cardoso nunca foi pessoa de guardar informaçao escrita durante
muito tempo sobre qualquer assunto. Esconder informaçao quente, era
candidatar-se a levar um tiro para nao a divulgar.

Assim so a prisao dos executores podia levar a descoberta do motivo da sua
morte.
Foi, desta forma, que com a prisao de Anibal dos Santos Junior e de
Carlitos Rachide Cassamo, soubemos que o motivo do motivo tinha que ser
procurado, afinal, nao nos ultimos artigos publicados no Metical, mas sim,
em artigos ou acontecimentos que tivessem ocorrido, pelo menos, mais de
dois meses antes da sua morte, ja que esta, tinha começado a ser
preparada, pelo menos, nessa ocasiao.

Afinal, a prova produzida durante estes dois anos e da que resultou deste
julgamento faz concluir que o motivo principal do assassinato era,
afinal, aquele que era o obvio:

Carlos Cardoso era um jornalista, que denunciava, que nao se calava, que
nao se esquecia de nenhum assunto, que insistia nos assuntos que ele
considerava importantes, que nao deixava cair no esquecimento nenhum dos
crimes, nenhum dos assuntos, nenhuma das ilegalidades, sobre as quais ele
tivesse escrito e que no seu entender, ainda nao tinham sido resolvidos.
Carlos Cardoso era um chato.
Era um teimoso.
Era um verdadeiro incomodo.
A unica forma de qualquer criminoso conseguir continuar a cometer crimes
ou ilegalidades impunemente, era silenciar Carlos Cardoso.
E a unica forma de silenciar Carlos Cardoso era mata-lo.

Mas e evidente que, pelo menos, para 3 destes Reus que estao agora a ser
julgados, o motivo nem sequer era este. Eles ate nem liam o jornal de
Carlos Cardoso.
Para 3 destes Reus, o motivo foi o mais banal de todos: Dinheiro.

Mas, a partir da investigaçao feita, tivemos a certeza que para os autores
morais, para os mandantes, o motivo principal do crime era o caso da
fraude dos 14 milhoes de dolares no BCM.
Nao tanto porque Cardoso estivesse a investigar esta fraude, nao tanto por
quaisquer revelaçoes que ele pudesse vir a fazer, mas simplesmente, devido
a sua personalidade como jornalista:
Carlos Cardoso nao se iria calar ate que fosse realizado o julgamento do
caso da fraude dos 14 milhoes de dolares do BCM.
Como aqui foi referido, ja nao se tratava so de levar a julgamento este
crime.
Cardoso acreditava que o julgamento desta fraude podia ser um passo em
frente para a credibilizaçao da justiça.

Com isto nao queremos dizer que excluimos outros motivos para o
assassinato de Carlos Cardoso ou que excluimos outros mandantes.
Para o assassinato duma pessoa e duma pessoa como Carlos Cardoso nao tem
que haver um so motivo.
Alias, ja vimos que para estes seis Reus havia, pelo menos, dois motivos.
A literatura que sempre se baseia em factos da vida real e em casos
judiciais existentes, dao imensos exemplos de crimes cometidos por
diversas pessoas, tendo cada uma o seu motivo proprio. Que duma forma ou
doutra se unem com um mesmo proposito: matar alguem.
Alem disso, a acusaçao nao e obrigada a provar o motivo.
A acusaçao tem que provar que ha motivos provaveis que podem levar alguem
a matar alguem.
Mas nao que o motivo que levou alguem a matar outra pessoa e este e nao
outro.
Isso pertence ao foro intimo do criminoso e, assim, so este o pode saber
com exactidao.

E, esta suficientemente provado nos autos e ficou ainda mais evidente
neste julgamento, que o facto de Carlos Cardoso ser um jornalista
incorruptivel, ser um jornalista que nao se calava jamais pelo cometimento
de qualquer crime, qualquer que fosse, que Carlos Cardoso, jamais iria
deixar de insistir pelo julgamento da fraude dos 14 milhoes de dolares,
era e foi, senao o unico, pelo menos, um dos motivos que levaram a sua
morte.

As acusaçoes feitas neste julgamento contra outras pessoas como mandantes
do assassinato de Carlos Cardoso, sao acusaçoes que merecem ser
investigadas seriamente.
So que estas acusaçoes foram feitas tardiamente.
Isto fez com que, Nhimpine Chissano, um dos mais acusados por alguns dos
Reus, seja sujeito doutro processo crime e nao tenha sido julgado agora.
Por isso, nao pode ser nem condenado nem absolvido neste processo.
So nesse outro processo, agora sob a alçada do Ministerio Publico, e que
se podera decidir se, tambem, ele deve ser acusado, julgado e condenado
pela morte de Carlos Cardoso.

Em relaçao a Nhimpine Chissano e a todos os outros que foram aqui acusados
pelos Reus, competira a sociedade civil e aos amigos de Carlos Cardoso
exigir que a investigaçao continue, que se apure seriamente a sua
responsabilidade e, caso seja aplicavel, sejam julgados e condenados.
Mais uma vez, competira a sociedade civil e aos orgaos de comunicaçao
social fazer com que esta investigaçao nao caia no esquecimento e o
processo nao va aumentar a pilha dos processos parados nas varias fases do
processo criminal.

~Exige a lei que haja prova para que se condene alguem. Mas a lei nao
define, em concreto, nem em detalhe, que prova tem que ser esta.
Nem o poderia fazer.
A lei exige que ninguem seja condenado se o tribunal tiver qualquer
duvida.
E o principio constitucional "in dubio pro reo".

O tipo e o nivel de exigencia de provas variam consoante o tipo de crime
cometido e a participaçao de cada autor nesse crime.
Muito importante, ainda, e o principio que a lei estabelece da livre
apreciaçao das provas pelo tribunal, excepto aquelas que fazem prova plena
e absoluta e que so sao ilidiveis mediante prova em contrario.
E esta livre apreciaçao das provas e o principio mais importante para
fundamentar a convicçao que elas criam na acusaçao, primeiro, e no
julgador, principalmente, de que certas pessoas cometeram ou nao cometeram
um crime.

E e isso que temos que ter presente ao apreciar a prova que foi produzida
ao longo destes dois anos.

========================
REPORTS OF RELATED ISSUES
========================

47103E CARDOSO MURDER: NYIMPINE CHISSANO DID VISIT LISBON
~
Maputo, 14 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Businessman Nyimpine Chissano, the oldest
son of President Joaquim Chissano, did indeed leave Mozambique
during the festive season, despite a travel ban imposed in
December by the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The independent newsheet "Mediafax" reported the ban on 20
December, and at the time the story elicited no denial or any
other comment.

Last week "Mediafax" said that, despite the ban, Chissano Jr
made a visit to Portugal. His diplomatic passport was allegedly
returned to him "on higher orders".

AIM has confirmed that Nyimpine Chissano was indeed in
Portugal. AIM spoke to another Mozambican citizen who was on the
same flight from Lisbon to Maputo as Nyimpine. Chissano travelled
business class, and returned to Maputo on the flight of 7
January.

Nyimpine Chissano's name was repeatedly mentioned in the
Carlos Cardoso murder trial at the Maputo City Court, as one of
those who ordered the killing of Mozambique's top investigative
journalist.

A second case file into the murder has been opened, in which
Chissano is one of the suspects.

He has vehemently denied any connection to the
assassination. But evidence at the trial indicated that Chissano
and his company, Expresso Tours, have had longstanding relations
with money-lender Momade Assife Abdul Satar, the man who claims
he was an unwitting middleman between Nyimpine Chissano and the
fugitive Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho"), who led the
death squad that murdered Cardoso.
(AIM)
pf/ (241)

39103E CARDOSO MURDER: LAWYER ALLEGES THREATS
~
Maputo, 13 Jan 2003 (AIM) - Abdul Gani, the lawyer for Vicente Ramaya,
one of the men charged with ordering the November 2000 murder of
investigative journalist Carlos Cardoso, has claimed that he has
been followed by an unknown vehicle, and has received threatening
phone calls.

Gani told Mozambican television on Sunday that the previous
night he had been followed, on two separate occasions, by a white
Toyota with a South African number plate. He did not know who was
driving it.

He said he had also received threatening phone calls, from
unknown individuals urging him to drop his defence of Ramaya.

These claims come in the wake of Friday's accusation that
Gani himself has tried to interfere with witnesses. Fatima
Razaco, the mother of prosecution witness Osvaldo Muianga
("Dudu"), told the court that Gani was among those who had phoned
her in October, to persuade her to accept a bribe in exchange for
her son changing his statement, so that it no longer incriminated
Ramaya.

Gani categorically denies making this phone call.

Interviewed in Monday's issue of the independent newsheet
"Vertical", Gani said "I and my colleagues are fighting
insistently to defend our clients. They are not managing to shake
us, and so they've changed their tactics".

It was not clear who Gani meant by "they", but he added "I
know there are people who want to see Vicente Ramaya found
guilty. They are attacking me to reach him, but they will not
succeed".

Gani added that, far from persuading him to drop the case at
this late hour, "They are giving me further strength to defend my
client to the end".
(AIM)
pf/ (278)

=====================
THE PEOPLE INVOLVED
=====================

Carlos Cardoso, investigative journalist and editor,
gunned down in Maputo 22 November 2000.
Carlos Manjate, driver, seriously injured

The trial opened 18 November and ended after 27 days, on
13 January 2003. It was held in a marquee (large tent)
inside the walls of the maximum security prison.
The case was being heard by the investigating magistrate
Augusto Paulino and four lay magistrates.

Accused of organising the murder:
+ Momade Assife Abdul Satar ("Nini")
+ Ayob Satar, brother of Nini and owner of an exchange house
+ Vicente Ramaya, former bank manager
Accused of carrying out the murder:
+ Anibal dos Santos Junior ("Anibalzinho"), who escaped from
prison and was tried in absentia.
+ Manuel Fernandes ("Escurinho")
+ Carlos Rashid Cassamo ("Carlitos")

Lawyers for the prosecution:
+ Mourao Baluce for the Public Prosecutor's Office
+ Lucinda Cruz for the Cardoso family
+ Helder Matlaba for Carlos Manjate.
Lawyers for the defence:
+ Eduardo Jorge, representing Nini
+ Domingos Arouca, representing Ayob Satar
+ Abdul Gani, representing Ramaya
+ Simiao Cuamba, representing Anibalzinho and Escurinho
+ Samuel Valentim, representing Cassamo

==========
ENDS
==========