By Patson Chilemba
Former KCM provisional liquidator Milingo Lungu’s lawyer, Sakwiba Sikota has talked up the proof to back up his client’s claims that he met President Hakainde Hichilema and the other government officials.
And a senior legal practitioner in the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has wondered why Lungu has not been arrested as swearing in a false oath before the courts is an offence for which one must be prosecuted.
Lungu who stepped down as liquidator of KCM recently asked the Constitutional Court to prevent his arrest and prosecution, claiming he reached a deal for immunity having met President Hichilema, Vice-President Mutale Nalumango, the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) among other senior government officials.
But Justice minister Mulambo Haimbe during a press briefing yesterday said the government wished to end speculation which suggests that the presidency has interffered in the DPP’s functions in any way, including by issuing instructions to grant immunity to any persons facing criminal proceedings in Zambia.
“No such instructions have ever been issued as doing so would be abhorrent to the principle of the new dawn government to protect institutions of governance and the rule of law. We thus wish to make it clear for the avoidance of any doubt that any action taken by the DPP in the exercise of her office has been done unilaterally by her, in here sole discretion and in the purported exercise of her constitutional mandate,” Haimbe said. “In the same view, we wish to make it absolutely clear that it is not the policy of the new dawn government for the president to meet and negotiate with any person that is in conflict with the law for purposes of subverting the course of justice. Kindly take note accordingly.”
But Sikota was emphatic in defending his client’s position, saying they would argue their points in court as that was why they had taken the matter there.
“You know it’s very difficult for me to respond seeing that we have taken the matter to court. So if I respond the court will be saying but why were you arguing your matter in the thing when you have come here?” Sikota responded initially when asked to comment, but put to him that the government have argued their own matter in public, he said: “Yes that is wrong for them to do that, that is wrong. But I shouldn’t fall into the same. Just because they have done a wrong I should not do a similar wrong. What we will do is when they have put in their affidavits we will respond appropriately to the affidavits that they will put in.”
But asked if they would prove in court that what his client claimed did actually take place, Sikota said: “Yes, because there would have been no point us going to the court if we had no proof. There would be no point of us going to the court (laughs).”
And a senior legal practitioner in LAZ, who said he wanted his observations to be quoted off the record as the association has not given their position yet on this developing story, observed that the Attorney General who was amongst those addressing the media and mentioned by Lungu but did not deny that the meeting with Lungu did take place.
“All he talked about is that you press must feel free to enjoy your press freedom but do it responsibility. He stayed away from. Didn’t that strike you? And the other thing, the minister of Justice was very very careful with the wording that he was using. He too did not deny that the President met with Milingo. He did not deny that. What he said is that ‘the President would never meet with somebody for purposes of.’ So he is not saying he didn’t meet, what he’s trying to say is that that meeting was not for that purpose,” the legal practitioner said.
He said he suspected that those in the new administration wanted the matter to die a natural death in the same manner the Akafumba-Ngoma recording died.
“Remember they were saying that we can’t comment because there are investigations. Up to now there has been no comment and it’s sort of like died down. So with this one they are saying we can’t answer those questions because the matter is subjudice. They are trying to use the exact same wording,” the legal practitioner said. “Even if the matter is before court, to state that ‘no that is a lie, there was no such meeting and we are going to prove that in court.’ That is allowed for one to say that. But they failed to deny any specific fact they have just made general statements.”
The practitioner said knowing the way those in government operated Lungu would have been arrested by now if he lied before the courts.
“If in fact what Milingo Lungu swore in his affidavit was false, why have they not arrested him for a false oath? For swearing a false affidavit? Because that is an offence. Why have they not done so?” asked the lawyer.
