Thursday, March 28, 2024

Lifting RB’s immunity now will be premature and risks being an academic exercise-LAZ

Share

LAZ president James Banda
LAZ president James Banda

THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has observed that lifting former President Rupiah Banda’s immunity now will be premature and risks being an academic exercise if a case of wrongdoing is not established against him first.

LAZ president James Banda also said lessons should be drawn from the lifting of immunity involving late former President Frederick Chiluba, in which the State eventually lost the case.

Mr Banda said his association agreed with the position that a proper case had to be presented to the National Assembly for the Members of Parliament to seriously consider the issue.

“Further, the issue of the lifting of immunity of a former Head of State is not without precedent in Zambia. The late President Dr Chiluba’s immunity was removed and what was hoped to be achieved was not achieved.

“Following the acquittal of the late President uproar was raised against the judgment and it was a strong feeling amongst many stakeholders that the justice system was interfered with.

“The Law Association raised concern with the judgment as well and we were clear that it was faulty and needed to be appealed against. That was never done,” Mr Banda said.

Mr Banda said in a statement in Lusaka yesterday that the precedent set in Dr Chiluba’s case and the experience this country had gone through should help not to repeat the encounter.

Mr Banda said it was established by the Republican Constitution in Article 43 (3) and the Courts of law that the National Assembly could lift the immunity of a former head of state if it had before it allegations showing prima facie criminal conduct and that to remove such immunity would not be contrary to the interests of the State.

“Therefore it is not only evidence of criminal conduct which is to be considered. The Parliamentarians must address their minds to the question of whether removing the immunity of the head of state is not contrary to the interests of the state,” he added.

He said immunity as provided by the Constitution is obviously against prosecution and not investigation and that once credible investigations were carried out and it emerged that a prima facie evidence of wrong doing then at that point Parliament may be moved on a motion for the lifting of the immunity.

Mr Banda however, said the former President, enjoyed all constitutional rights and liberties of any person suspected to have committed a crime.

He added that accordingly any advice rendered by his lawyers including not attending interviews and notwithstanding Section 49 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act which gave power to the ACC to summon people for interviews, should not in any way suggest that the former head of state was guilty.

He said each person had a right to a lawyer’s advice and was entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Mr Banda said before considering the removal of the former President’s immunity, issues of identifying problems in the justice system should be rectified and also to consider whether investigation and prosecution systems enjoyed independence and credibility.

“In our view, before the above issues or questions are addressed this process (removing former President Rupiah Banda’s immunity) will be mired in controversy and the whole process, which might earn kudos for certain sectors of political system, risks achieving nothing,” the LAZ chief said.

16 COMMENTS

  1. Correct. In Summary, LAZ is saying:
    1. that investigating the former president is in line with our constitution
    2. that lifting the former president’s immunity once investigations reveal wrong doing is in line with our constitution.
    3. that Parliament can lift that immunity only when such a move is not against the interests of the state.
    I think that the PF-led GRZ has done well not to rush this matter. It is important to do everything right. Those screaming for the former president’s investigation and those who feel that he shouldn’t be investigated are entitled to their opinions. But like LAZ has observed, the constitution must be upheld. Which ever way things pan out for the former president, that will be fine as long as our constitution is respected.

    • WHAT LEGACY WILL WE LEAVE?
      Abel was the first man on earth to experience physical death. Even though thousands of
      years have gone by, he still speaks (Heb. 11:4). It is indeed remarkable that this obscure
      shepherd has left such a lasting legacy. Even in our modern world of space travel and computers,
      he still speaks. Among other things, he reminds us that by faith he offered unto God a more
      excellent sacrifice than Cain. Just like Abel, everybody has a legacy. No matter how poor and
      isolated we think we are, when we die someone will remember. That’s why it is important to
      consider what kind of a legacy we will leave.
      Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was shocked to read his own obituary while he was
      still living. This happened in 1888 and he didn’t die until 1896. It was…

  2. LAZ is always observing and issuing statements and not taking action. No wonder HE MC doesn’t bother to consultant them. They are always to slow to act. They need to focus on judicial reforms, corruption in judiciary and why many cases take several years to conclude. Delayed justice in the new information age era should be made a crime.

  3. The removal of Chiluba’s immunity should have achieved it’s intended purpose to lock the former president in prison if Banda didn,t temper justice with favour. I would clearly say in the face of RB that he betrayed the Zambian people and plunged the judiciary in the state it’s now, that anybody can twist them.Withuot Banda Chiluba would be arrive in mukobeko where he would have been stress free.

  4. The only crime Chiluba did was to give Katebe Katoto US$20 million for purchase of arms which never came. All other issues raised in his prosecution were trivial and the acquittal was justified

  5. In view of this clarification from LAZ, I honestly think YALI is more relevant to Zambia’s governance and democratic dispensation that TI-Zambia and most of these old NGOs. The boys had earlier spoken about how to deal with immunity of the former head of State and now LAZ has added the meet and agreed with them. So, TIZ must close shop and begin to think of learning from those boys at YALI.

  6. Is LAZ there4 implying that ACC can also call the sitting president for investigation? Investigation is the 1st step of prosecution and i dnt think interviewg is the best and only form of investigatn. Use better, sophisticated means if we are to make any sense in prosecuting the big fish.

  7. The bill that needs to be taken to parliament is not the lifting of RB’s immunity but the abolition of the constitution that allows a byelection when an mp willingly resigns, that is what is taking away our money instead of buying drugs.

  8. The fundamental thing is that RB was not the cleanest of presidents and therefore,his immunity has to be lifted.Of course,our dull grade 7s(law enforcement officers) need to have a water tight case againt him before that is done…one does not need to be a lawyer to know that…it is common sense.So let them conclude their investigations quickly……..

  9. a banda mukulu wana afunika kukambila ku so golo.i wander the kind of lawyers we have in zambia.banda ‘s immunity should be lifted we can’t be insulted by this stupid lawyer amsterdam.

  10. It is said that, ‘a Lawyer with a brief case will steal more money than many thieves with guns’. There is no other country where this is more true than in Zambia. Just look at how wealthy these punks have become!

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

Discover more from Lusaka Times-Zambia's Leading Online News Site - LusakaTimes.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading