By Esther Chisola
Lusaka Chief Resident Magistrates’ Davies Chibwili yesterday declined former Lusaka Province minister Bowman Lusambo’s application to adjourn the opening of defence.
And Lusambo through his lawyer Nkula Botha has asked the court to rule on whether or not there is an extension of time in which the case should be heard.
In this matter, Lusambo, who was placed on his defence in July after being found with a case to answer, told the court through his lawyer Botha that he was not ready to open his defence.
“We are unfortunately not ready to proceed with the case for the accused person owing to the fact that I’m currently attending to another matter before Wishimanga of the People vs Fredson Yamba and Joseph Malanji. In that matter, I represent the second accused person and the case had been given five days, we were hoping by now we would have concluded,” he said.
Botha said the other lawyers who would have assisted him left the firm.
“This matter is one in the economic financial Court. Also being counsel for this matter, I find myself between a rock and a hard place as I cannot split myself between the two courts. The lawyers which I had thought would assist have since left the firm. It is on that basis that I simply ask the court to adjourn this matter so that we can start and close the case,” said Botha.
In response, the state argued that there were no exceptional and compelling circumstances that could constitute an adjournment.
Magistrate Davies Chibwili denied Lusambo’s application noting that he was not ready.
“From the time the accused was placed on his defence, he was given time to file his documents which he hasn’t done. He applied for more time but still he hasn’t filed. I find that the defence is just not ready. Since they have spent the entire month without being ready, I wonder what will happen when we adjourn.
“These proceedings are time bound, what will happen to the month that has elapsed? They must proceed. I therefore, deny the application,” ruled the court.
However, Botha applied that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because five months within which the case could be heard had expired.
He said the court should rule if there was no issue in rule 3 concerning the filling and cause listing of the case.
“Given the ruling of the court, we have the second application to make, further to the provisions of rule 9 statutory instrument number 10 of 2024, and further to the provisions of rule 3 sub rule one, the record will show that this matter be conducted (held or trailed) within a period of five months and as the record will show, from the date of coming in of those rules, to this date, the five-month window has elapsed,” said Botha.
The court has since reserved a ruling for September 11, 2024.
