By Agness Changala
Former first lady Esther Lungu has asked the Lusaka Magistrate’s Court to review its decision not to hear her case on account that it falls under the realm of the Economic and Financial Crimes Court.
In the alternative, Esther has asked the court to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court so that it can interpret whether the creation of Economic and Financial Crimes Court and Subordinate Court is in conformity with Article 120 (b).
In this case, Esther is jointly charged with four others among them, two police officers on three charges of theft of motor vehicle, theft and possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime.
When the prosecutor called the case, he informed magistrate Mbuywana Sinvula that it was coming up for plea.
Both parties indicated their readiness to proceed with the case but the magistrate said she would not proceed to hear the matter because count 5, where Esther is accused of concealing $400,000, property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime fell in the realm of the Economic and Financial Crimes Court.
She said for the above reason, she would send back the case for re-allocation.
But the defence through lawyer Jonas Zimba urged the court to review its decision while she was still sitting as required by law.
Zimba argued that the decision that the charge in count 5 fell within the realm of Financial Crimes Court was erroneous.
“I say so because in this jurisdiction, there is no law that defines what a Financial crimes court is. There is equally no legislation to which the court is designated as a Financial Crimes Court at the Subordinate Court,” he said.
Zimba said the question raised was fundamental adding that it was neither frivolous nor vexatious.
He said in the absence of reviewing its decision, the court’s hands were tied and the only door available was to refer the same to the Constitutional Court for determination.
In response, the state asked for more time to apply its mind to the provisions advanced by the defence in order to comprehensively respond.
The state sought a shot adjournment to enable it respond but Zimba objected saying the reasons given for seeking an adjournment lacked merit.
He also said no compelling reasons had been advanced.
Making a ruling on the issue raised, magistrate Sinvula allowed the State’s application to adjourn the case so that it could apply its mind to the provisions cited by the defence.
She said the reason advanced by the State were compelling.
The magistrate has since adjourned the case to October 4, for the State’s response.
