By Esther Chisola
Civil and human rights activist Brebner Changala has petitioned the state in the Lusaka High Court demanding damages for false imprisonment relating to the charge of sedition he is facing.
And Changala has argued that the law of sedition is unconstitutional.
In this petition Changala who has cited the Attorney General as a respondent, has argued that he was unlawfully detained and suffered on account of the arrest and eventual arraignment before the subordinate Court.
He wants an order restraining the state, its servants or agents from effecting any further arrests or prosecutions that are predicated on the section 57 (1) (b) as read with section 60 (1) (b) of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia.
Changala also wants a declaration that Section 57 (1) (b) as read with section 60 (1) (b) of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia are unconstitutional.
He further wants a declaration that the provisions stated above are void for contravening the Bill of Rights and their enforcement amounts to obliterating of the right to free expression in a democratic dispensation
According to a petition filed, Changala submitted that he was currently appearing in the Subordinate Court before magistrate Davies Chibwili on charges of seditious intention contrary to section 60 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the laws of Zambia as well as seditious practices contrary to section 67 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the laws of Zambia.
He stated that the background facts pertinent to the charges in issue were that on May 25, 2024, media houses across the country carried an item pertaining to the alleged abduction of Petauke member of parliament Emmanuel Jay Banda.
“The said news report caused great trepidation among various political leaders, church leaders, traditional leaders as well as human rights advocates of note,” Changala submitted. “In the wake of the said astonishing news pertaining to what appeared to be a case of abduction and possible loss of life of a member of the legislature in unclear circumstances, I did render an interview to Diamond Television in the vicinity of Ibex Hill Police station.”
The human rights activist further stated that following the said event of the news interview, he was summoned and detained in police custody for a period of eight days, which was extra-judicial punishment as he ought to have appeared within 48 hours.
“Arising from what turned out to be illegal detention, I was later charged and the particulars pertinent to the charge in issue essentially stem from the television interview that I accorded to Diamond Television as alluded to,” he stated.
Changala further stated that after being charged, he appeared in court and trial commenced to which the prosecution closed its case and he was placed on defence.
“Following the charge and the scope of witnesses that have testified in the proceedings thus far, the petitioner reckons that the offense of “sedition” should be characterised as criminalising the right to free expression enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia,” he stated.
“By observation of his circumstances and of those similarly circumstanced, the Petitioner contends that the law of sedition is unconstitutional and an archaic crime that the current government is frequently using to target political speech, as minority regimes used it to suppress the freedom struggle.”
Changala further contended that the decision to charge him and other similarly circumstanced individuals for raising genuine concerns over a member of parliament who was reported to have been abducted bears a chilling effect on the sanctity of free expression, political debates and serves to undermine democratic consolidation.
“That notably, the law does not place a stringent evidential test of incitement of disaffection, violence, and that the law is mostly vague and overbroad. This allows it to lend aid to arbitrariness and greater suppression of free speech,” he stated.
He further submitted that his right to freedom of expression stood violated on account on the seditious charges drawn from Section 57 (1) (b) as read with section 60 (1) (b) of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia:
“The relevant provisions of the penal code on sedition as shown above bear the effect of criminalising any sort of speech that generates disaffection against the government. As such, the said provisions are broadly repressive and fly in the teeth of the fundamental right to free expression,” stated Changala.
