Judge Annie Sitali has granted Rupiah Banda’s lawyers judicial review of Parliament’s decision to lift his immunity saying procedure was not followed.
Former President Banda was challenging the removal of his immunity from prosecution by Parliament.The Defence team representing the former president is lead by Prof Patrick Mvunga other include Eric Silwamba and Sakwiba Sikota.
His lawyers stated that the decision of the National Assembly of Zambia to proceed and to remove his immunity on a simple majority of 80 out of a total of 158 MPs was illegal and irregular.
Mr Banda’s lawyers further stated that the decision of the National Assembly to deny him an opportunity to be heard and adopt a summary procedure prior to resolving that he was amenable to the jurisdiction of any criminal court was contrary to the principal of ‘no person should be condemned unheard’ was therefore illegal and irregular.
He added that the decision to move the motion without due and proper inquiry as to whether the allegations presented as grounds constituted acts performed in his personal or office capacity was illegal and irregular.
The former President also contended that it was unreasonable for Speaker Matibini to proceed with the motion notwithstanding that a petition challenging the state’s intention to lift his immunity had been filed at the High Court and therefore subjudice.
More details to follow.
Ndeloleshafye ! Nchili ndetamba bane.
This is what I have always been saying.
Fight on my man.
We know these sluts know nothing. *****S
The Judiciary Versus the Executive.The Zambian intellectuals versus the Kaponya’s! When yo mamas told you to study hard at school you thought they were joking? Now see the results…Let the Kaponya’s know and learn that there a rules and regulations to follow. Guess the campaign to buy more Mp’s is now in full swing.More popcorn please!
Amsterdam 1 : 0 Kabimba
Good news to some extent…However, the story is yawning. LT, your role is also to interpret what that means as regards immunity of the former president pending judicial review.
Mulenga ulibwa sana. Nothing personal.
UKO!The biggest question is will PF respect this.Will they discontinue the prosecution?This should slow down Kabimba and his over exitement.
People, I think we need to grow up and think above political lines, am disappointed with your reasoning, does anyone here know how much damage Chiluba did to this nation because of his theft? and now you tolerate a man who stole and ran this country like a kantemba with his sons, shame on u! And for as long as you don’t change your reasoning, this country will never develop! call a thief a thief! period, the drama sakwiba and his team are putting up are meant to enrich them selves, waste our time and prevent zambians from recovering what ruphia banda stole (Christ was criticized for working on sabbath but he corrected us by Saying that ”there is no harm bending the rule to do the right thing’) same here, we do not need to waste time with the courts drama! we need our money back,…
When in a hurry to do things mistakes are sure to follow.
As much as we want a corrupt free country we should as well mind some procedure its sad that people like Matibini will allow something he knows is illegal just to waste tax payers money for those dealing in that case if RB is guilty which i think he is Patience will pay for all Zambans please follow PROCEDURE.Hnr Mwiinga People’s Party
This is all money at work! Banda has cash to bribe his way through! Why challenging the immune removal instead of facing the charges and clear his name? The guilty ones are always afraid!!!!!! PF be strong!!!!! You are dealing with tycoons!!!!!!
So what procedure was sopposed to be followed? Even though the procedure would have been somehow blundered, are you saying he should walk, what message are you trying to put accross? is he innocent or guilty? the matter at hand is determining if he stole or not, can you guys do your work properly and stop playing with our emotions? what next?
So tell us what will happen now. does that set RB free?
Don’t insult pliz.bonse balisambilisa but one cud have ben absconing certain lecturers.pliz next time don’t do things in a hurry.I watched the whole episode of immunity and the speaker was not fairly in the conduct of his business in parley.he allowed the motion to be tabled wen there was less number of majority and he went on to explain watever he knows about law.ma we r watching
I guess the free educate Kaunda gave us didn’t help some bloggers.You can’t think critically over an issue but resort to insults.PF didn’t follow procedure I know that,you know that and the judge knows that.It has nothing to do with money.Lucky for you,all hope is not lost you can improve your mental faculties by enrolling in some free online course.
This is good!
what’s at stake here is that procedure was not ,which has become a hallmark of the P.F’s rule.the rule of law has been thrown right through the window
If Democracy by simple majority rule is to stand by the 80 MPs who voted still means simple majority rule carried the day. Lets put this question before us: Is there some standing order, rule or condition which says that (1) when some MPs absent themselves from parliament or (2) storm out of parliament or (3) do not take part on voting whilst they are in parliament, then deliberations of parliament in session cannot go ahead? If there is then RBB can contest the lifting of his immunity. But If there aren’t such provisions then those who lifted Mambala’s immunity followed the right procedure. I await to see the loooooseeer.
PF government is a sham with misguided MPs without any direction. I use to support this party until I realised it was a mere opportunistic grouping of job seekers who could do anything to stay in power and win elections. Shame on them. Viva judiciary!
Winter is an embarassment to the nation….
Parliament should have heard Rupiah before condemning him.
Kabimba and his crooked friend Nchito had a chance to organise a secretive “joint investigative committee” whose legality and legitimacy is unknown, and yet it was on the basis of their word on which Parliament relied to make a decision: ie removal of immunity. Removal of immunity assumed that he had already been found to have done wrong things in his PERSONAL CAPACITY.
Who arrived at that decision and how did they arrive at it? indeed how did the MPs who voted arrive at the same decision without affording the otgher side respond in the House or through procedures in the House?
These are issues that must be decided now.
Okey mulenga ulimukali you have acquired basic education am impressed,u r able to analyse issues.
Wasnt RB be called to answer to some questions and he refused? What garantee is there that he could have respected parliamentary questioning?
# your thinking is right, can someone educate us on that matter! # 22, ruphia banda was asked to appear before the investigative wing at ACC but he refused, How many chances was he supposed to be given?
Removing RB’s immunity is what the majority of Zambians wanted so that the former president explains and defend himself against the numerous misdeeds he is alleged to have committed. This is right but what is questionable is the manner in which some powerful people with vested interests hurriedly took shortcuts in removing the immunity. The PF seems to be systematically trampling on the law in preference to applying it accordingly.
Uko!
There is nothing for RB to celebrate about.
@ 19 Floyd Chitalu, yes there is a rule and it’s called a quorum.
Chiluba v Attorney-General (Appeal Number 125 of 2002) [2003] ZMSC 3 (19 February 2003);
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 30th August, 2002, dismissing the appellant’s application for Judicial Review of the decision of the National Assembly removing the appellant’s immunity against prosecution in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him while he held office of the President.
Held:
7. The plain meaning of Article 43 (3) does not stipulate that specific charges have to be presented to the National Assembly before the Immunity of the former President can be removed even for a purpose of making a former President amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of the court.
8. The discretion conferred on the National Assembly by Article 43 (3) is wide and it can be validly exercised by resolution once the National Assembly has before it allegations showing prima facie criminal conduct to the National Assembly’s satisfaction.
9. The decision of the National Assembly was based on serious and unprecented allegations of criminal conduct in this country
10. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution that when the issue of removal of immunity of a former President arises, the former President would have the right to be heard.
106 MPs would have been the correct number to lift the immunity but again it should have been debated first, not rushed through Parley on the last day. it sounds vindictive and malicious
Agreed, if Banda stole, let him face the law, nevertheless, dont use illegal methods.
What are *****s talking about? Transperancy Internation representation earlier highlighted on Muvi TV. It does not even require 3/4 of the parliament to remove former presidents immunity. Rupiah is again being mislead by unreasonable representative eager to eat and consume his dubiously attained or aquired assets. Remember he was equally mislead over the issue of not appering for questioning stating that he was still enjoying his immunity. Mr. Former sir, i advise you humble yourself before the poeple that you thought they were fools than thinking all is well, you are worsening the situation because the men are at work, DONT FORGET THIS. ” he doesn’t know that Jay- Z will not give him assylum, and when he goes hiding, we shall find him, remove his immunity and send him to prison”
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court
Sakala, CJ, Lewanika, DCJ, Chirwa, Chibesakunda, Mambilima, Chitengi, Silomba, JJJJS, Mushabati and Munthali, Acting/JJS
31st October, 21st November, 2002 and 19th February, 2003
Judgment
SAKALA, CJ, delivered the judgment of the court.
…..Mr. Sangwa conceded that there was no procedure to be followed by the National Assembly when invoking the powers under Article 43(3). But he contended that whatever had to be done, had to be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. He did not allude to those provisions.
…He submitted that a former President can only be prosecuted or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of a court for: things he did or omitted to do in his private capacity and the National…
There is hope for Zambia through the judiciary. The politicians are always blind when they get in power. The worst part is the learned Dr. Matibini who proceeded with the case despite opposition members walking out of parliament. Walking out of parliament is definately a method of voting in parliament. Sad for those who bashed opposition members for taking this action. Next time adjourn the case if this happens.
@ OK so tell me you are wasting time dealing with Floyd. He is such a maniac when it comes to supporting PF. To him PF is ever right and will never go wrong. In other words he is a PF dull Diehard supporter.
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court Judgement
In his oral submissions, Mr. Sangwa attacked this finding, contending that immunity is against prosecution and that its lifting is not for the purposes of facilitating investigations. It was Mr. Sangwa’s submission that nothing stops the authorities to investigate the appellant even without lifting his immunity. We agree with Mr. Sangwa. The lifting of immunity as envisaged in the article is not for purposes of facilitating investigations but for facilitating prosecution. Thus, under immunity, the appellant can still be investigated, but he cannot be prosecuted because, immunity is his shield.
RB refused be be investigated before his immunity was removed saying he is still enjoying his immunity. this lead the government to remove this shield so that he can be investigated for criminal offenses alleged to have committed were in Office.
Mpombo wibilima, pantu ababilima tabaya
The pf is a bloody composition of good for nothing sicklings who lack insights in the depth of governance.
it’s leave that has been granted to apply for judicial review but the court REFUSED to grant R.B. an order staying the removal of immunity. R.B. will stil have to go to court and appear before investigative wings. So practically there is no positive effect to R.B. Obtaining leave is almost automatic but an order for stay is only granted in exceptional circumstances.
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court Judgement
However, the plain meaning of Article 43 (3) does not stipulate that specific charges have to be presented to the National Assembly before immunity of the former President can be removed. Immunity can be removed even for a purpose of making a former President amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of the court. Amenability to criminal jurisdiction can envisage allegations of criminal conduct, which in essence, was the gist of the President’s address to the National Assembly.
Article 43(3) states:-
“(3) A person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall not be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State.”
This Article, in our view, sets out the parameters in which the power to lift the immunity of a former President is to be exercised. The challenge for the drafters of this article was to bring out in clear words the power and the circumstances in which it was to be exercised. T
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court Judgement
The discretion conferred on the National Assembly by Article 43(3) is wide and it can be validly exercised by resolution once the National Assembly has before it allegations showing prima facie criminal conduct to the Assembly’s satisfaction. Indeed, there were emotions and heated debate before the resolution was passed. But we cannot infer any illegality of the decision they arrived at. We are therefore satisfied that given the address of the President to the National Assembly, the National Assembly properly exercised its powers under Article 43(3). The question of ‘illegality’ did not arise. In the same vein, we find nothing irrational in the manner the resolution was passed.
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court Judgement
On ‘procedural impropriety’ we find that the issue does not arise because the article itself provides for the procedure for lifting immunity. In any event, before the immunity was lifted, the National Assembly debated the procedure to be followed. The fact that there was lengthy debate before the resolution was finally passed, did not suggest any procedural impropriety. While we agree that removal of immunity cannot be for purposes of facilitating investigations, we do not agree that Article 43(3) means that immunity cannot be removed unless specific charges have been framed. Grounds two and three are therefore not successful.
Educated people 2:0 Savages
Ground 4 alleged that the learned judge erred in law by holding that there was no requirement for the appellant to have been given an opportunity to be heard by the National Assembly. Counsel referred us to numerous authorities on the requirement for an opportunity to be heard.
We have anxiously considered these authorities. But after looking at the provisions of Article 43(3), we find nothing in these provisions which suggest to us that before lifting the immunity of a former President, the National Assembly should give a former President the opportunity to be heard. The provisions of Article 43(3) should not be read in isolation, but together with the other relevant provisions in the Constitution. The other relevant provisions we find are those in Article 37 dealing with impeachment…
wow..so embarrassing to be a minister under pf govt..shame..
FREDERICK JACOB TITUS CHILUBA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Supreme Court Judgement
The other relevant provisions we find are those in Article 37 dealing with impeachment of the President. Unlike the provisions dealing with removal of immunity of a former President, which do not give the right to be heard, the provisions in Article 37 dealing with impeachment of the President specifically gives the President the right to be heard and to be represented by Counsel. Which means that while in Article 37 the President has the right to be heard, it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution that when the issue of removal of immunity of a former President arises, the former President would have the right to be heard. Of course, one cannot seriously argue that Article 43(3) and Article…
Of course, one cannot seriously argue that Article 43(3) and Article 37 conflict with each other because Constitutional provisions cannot contradict each other.
The rationale for this arrangement is very easy to find. In impeachment proceedings, the National Assembly has, after going through the whole process, power to finally determine the fate of the President by its own resolution. The National Assembly can either “acquit” the impeached President or remove him from office. In proceedings to remove the immunity of a former President, the National Assembly has no power to call upon a former President to give evidence to rebut allegations against him before removal of his immunity by the National Assembly. What action would the National Assembly take after hearing a former President?
PF thought it was a boxing match kanshi ni kunfu
The National Assembly cannot “acquit” or make a finding that there is a prima facie case made out against a former President and should therefore be charged with a criminal offence(s) because the National Assembly has no such powers under the Constitution. The power to determine the guilt or innocence of a person in a criminal matter is assigned to the courts by the Constitution. For the reasons we have given above, we hold the view that the provisions of Article 43(3) are very clear. We cannot imply anything in these provisions. Nor can we bring into the interpretation of these provisions glosses and interpolations derived from doctrine or case law. We are satisfied that the framers of the Constitution never intended that on removal of immunity, a former President should be heard.
Nici criminal, if am clean/no criminal records why keep fight for my immunity? You reap what you sow.
Ground five alleges procedural impropriety. This we have discussed in grounds two and three. While it is not in dispute that there was haste in circulating the motion, it is not correct, as argued, that the National Assembly is obliged to religiously follow its own rules of procedure. Be that as it may, Parliament regulates its own procedure (Article 86). We are satisfied that there was no impropriety in the manner the motion was circulated and adopted. Ground five also fails.
Read the whole judgement by googling
Chiluba v Attorney-General (Appeal Number 125 of 2002) [2003] ZMSC 3 (19 February 2003);
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Nchito, applies the law in terms of charging and trying the accused, Banda, without exploring what exactly all given sections state about the manner in which sections of the Criminal Procedures Code limit each other and violate the rights of the accused. What is considered as correct in one section is either revoked by another section or cancelled altogether by subsections of other major sections. It follows that when the law is applied on similar case studies, the results qualifies advoc. Nchito as a criminal who is attempting to legalise illegal prosecutions.I recommend that Nchito must study the rule of evidence in its entirety or study his weaknesses otherwise his case will explode before him.
iwe bush lawyer, action man, just summarize what you want to say. Don’t eat up space here. We know its free.
Lets go RB lets go. So far its RB 2 Sata 0
null and void, nolle prosque case atishani those terminologies imwe ma lawyers?
Great move. now lets see the political circus unfold. more pop corns please as I see back and watch this.
When will Zambians learn to do their Jobs right?
Problem with case is that Kabimba, Matibini, Mmembe were all blinded by hate and did not even care to first look at procedure. Even if they have a good case, they will lose it because they using their emotions to remove RB’s immunity. Believe me they will lose miserably.
Procedure should have been followed in attempting to remove the former presidents immunity rather than being in a hurry to to seal the deal knowing that Parliament was closing. I am not in support of Banda or any one but when I saw what transpired in the National Assembly that day I knew that there were going to be repercussions. Banda is getting his immunity back because procedure was circumvented during the immunity removal. What a shame and embarrassment this will be to the ruling party because they don’t take time to go through things but rather act on impulse.
This is just a review and not the reinstatement of immunity. There’s nothing to celebrate.
Destroyer you are a lazy man, just read the judgement on your own and see that RB has no hiding. The supreme court already made a ruling on the questions his lawyers are asking the court:
1. National Assembly properly exercised its powers under Article 43(3). The question of ‘illegality’ did not arise.
2. On ‘procedural impropriety’ we find that the issue does not arise because the article itself provides for the procedure for lifting immunity.
3. While we agree that removal of immunity cannot be for purposes of facilitating investigations, we do not agree that Article 43(3) means that immunity cannot be removed unless specific charges have been framed.
5. The framers of the Constitution never intended that on removal of immunity, a former President should be heard.
@Man of Action
While the judgement you refer to has substance and valid. The key issue here is whether Parliament has the authority to discuss the motion when the matter is before court. Below is the extract supporting this view hence the decision to pave way for a review:
“High court Judge Anne Sitali ruled that there was precedence in the courts of law that matters before the courts cannot be heard by Parliament or any other body until they are disposed off”
This is the issue and a Judicial review can result in halting everything and starting again. More cost to the public purse.
If the man did nothing illegal, why go the extra mile to enlist so many lawyers and above all fight the removal of his immunity?
Does anyone have the full text of this judgement? It is a bit sketchy to form an opinion on judicial matters based solely on a report like this. My take is that it is just possible immunity HAS NOT been reversed – BUT the permission to have it reviewed in weight and content has. It is almost like an ethical exercise to me – I believe the case will carry on in the meantime. Law brains help on this one…
You guys who on the side of the corrupt please read the Supreme Court ruling I have posted above when Chiluba tried to do what RB is doing now. There is nothing new here for RB sympathisers to celebrate becuase Supreme Court Judgement is law (law of precedent). The president can only be heard when there is a motion to IMPEACH HIM because the result of impeachment rests with parliament
The issue at hand is did this RB steal and if not let him not first fight for the immunity the out come of the caess he is facing will detemine the re-intatement of his imunity. for now is the love for money, lawyers are at it again desipite knowing that the man stloe.
It seems like many characters do not even understand what a judicial review is hence the silly and unwarranted comments. The judicial review is simply to allow for a review of the case involved and it can be upheld or overturned. So no need for excitement here. Therefore, the court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles. So let us wait and see the what happens because the executive will be trying to prove that the legislature acted according to the principles of the law and the constitution while RB’s lawyers will need to prove otherwise.
Action Man go and have a gin and tonic with Lubinda maybe both of you can forget this humilation.
Action Man uli wa mano. These corrupt characters think their corrupt friend will survive. A precident has already been set by the supreme court and it is LAW. There is nowhere for corrupt RB to hide. Hon Matibini was very articulate and clear in his ruling.
You wonder why US Presidents are respected? They are immune to any type of prosecution!
Isn’t Judge Chikopa also waiting for judicial review? PF PF seems to have a big L plate on their governance wheels. A government bent on hatred can not succeed. You should consider getting yourselves image builders. RB & sons 4: 0 Sata & crooks
WHAT MAKES THIS CASE INTERESTING IS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED AGAINST RB HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ATTENEDED TO. LETS NOT THROW IN SPANNERS BABA. THE MAN NEEDS TO CLEAR HIMSELF. I THINK IT IS GOOD THAT THE CASE GOES THIS WAY SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO STONE UNTURNED WHEN THIS MAN IS FINALLY ARRESTED.
Sometimes the process is more important than the ends of justice.You cannot use illegal procedures and say you’re enforcing the law.Actually in the U.S i’ve many cases are thrown out on account of police using wrong procedures hence the warnin “anything you say can and may be used against you.”
The Judiciary are fighting the executive because it is the most corrupt institution in Zambia. Sata is trying to clean this institution but it is equally refusing to be cleaned. So what do you expect when it come to corruption fighting. Judges are corrupt and they done t want to fight corruption period. RB remains guilty in my eyes and all those Zambians that removed RB from his seat. RB is a thief just Chiluba was a thief and it is this same judiciary that convicted his wife and acquitted the husband. You can now judge for your selves. The Judges are dirty f…ooo…..lz.
US presidents are equally accountable to the people. Richard Nixon had a scandle and it costed him much. Not ours, they steal and still shine. By the way US cannot be a good example for Zambia because they are pushing human rights in Zambia. awe we need our own plan mwe. not lyonse us, europe until pa last, ni fight for human rights. awe.
If you check the qualifications of this same judge, she is a standard 3 with a diploma law qualification from night school. Check her background and you will see that she is not learned as she will like to be called. how can you expect such pipo to understand law properly? Most of these oldies who are now judges, check their qualifications. You will be shocked the level of their qualifications.
This is Zambia the Real Africa where Thieves are Hero worshiped. Good luck Zambia. Guys it does not matter whether u hate Sata and PF. But to hero worship a thief whoever it may be is not acceptable. Its really like praising some rapist who has just raped your wife….?????
Understand the judge grants RB a judicial review and not that his immunity have to reinstated by NATIONAL ASSEMBLY because we dealing with two arms of govt who operates autonomously and have rules laid down to follow . What happened to FTJ few years ago what is different the way the immunity of FTJ was removed what is special treatment or law be changed in removing RB s immunity if he is also find to have stolen the country wealth or obtained through corruption RB have to prove to nation that he is innocent before the courts and be declared innocent as FTJ did ………???
Understand the judge grants RB a judicial review and not that his immunity have to reinstated by NATIONAL ASSEMBLY because we dealing with two arms of govt who operates autonomously and have rules laid down to follow . What happened to FTJ few years ago what is different the way the immunity of FTJ was removed what is special treatment or law be changed in removing RB s immunity if he is also find to have stolen the country wealth or obtained through corruption RB have to prove to nation that he is innocent before the courts and be declared innocent as FTJ did ………???
So can the incumbent president be impeached on a small number of 80votes in parliament? or does this only apply to removing of immunity?if it’s so then RB should be prosecuted.. And if the Mps want to impeach the president on a simple majority of 80 votes they should do so when such an emotion arises.
Given the haste with which this matter was driven, it was guaranteed that mistakes would be committed. But we also need to respect the fact that it is not technicalities that makes an accused innocent! Let the right procedure be followed so that he sees his day in court.
Dear LT Admin
LT yours has to be the worst commenting system of all Zambian online websites and you lazy chaps can’t even update us why its in such a bad state. Do you chaps know how difficult it is to reply to comments on this system if you are using a phone. This is just laziness on your part ****** LT chaps…
YABA! Zambians on one side supporting their being robbed. On another supporting bullying tactics of ruling elite. Education is more than school people.
Cry loud Maxwell,
How is Xiang Xheng in China since you are accompanying your Shikulu Sata.
Cry loud Maxwell,
Parliament has its mandate which go with its own rules & regulations and autonomy. It is not subject to the Judiciary in conducting its business neither is the Judicary subject to Parliament in interpreting thecommon law. It has only lifted a priveledge conferred a former office holder. It has not found him guilty. The judiciary’s role therefore is to determine RB’s innocence or guilt of the criminal charges. It is not the Judiciary’s role to interfere in the business of Parliament regardless of what the judiciary may think of the legislature’s actions. The CJ cannot not be telling the Speaker how to conduct parliamentary business neither can the speaker be seen to be telling the CJ how to run the Judiciary. I hope the judges will be levelheaded and not start a war with the…
How can a sane person blame or condemn the judges?how many cases did Kabimba lose?how many high profile cases did NCHITO Win?Ba Sata would have floated Sangwa or Simeza to DPP position,the team he assembled is crueless and has a track record of failings.Zambia 5 PF 0
Theoretician, that’s a cheap argument. Do you understand the concept behind the separation of powers?
Rb. Express your self and let the truth review like the late FTJC
RB=1, PARMA-FEE PARLIAMENT=0. POPCORNS PLIZ!!!!
PF took shortcuts in removing his immunity instead of following the law. Such thuggery will help RB. PF should start respecting the law of the land
HAS SUMMER KAMIMBWA EVER WON ANY CASE BEFORE??????????
CAN SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL EVER BE CALLED A LAWYER??????????
PF is illegal and irregular.
Come PF supporters there is one overinding factor to every law “the application of
Fairness “without fairness it’s injustice , those in authority are expected to act
Fairly , otherwise you will be giving RB more ammunition
Judicial Review doesn’t mean his immunity has been given back,but just bare in mind everything else waits till this judicial review is concluded. Judge chipoka’s still waiting for the tribunal, this is a week less than one year since president sata “suspended the judges” but the said judges are back in their jobs, waiting for judicial review. So even RB will wait to conclude this process. The way I see it he’ll win, the DPP isn’t worth his salt compared to the team of 4 state counsels RB has. If its people who know law, its Prof. Patrick Mvunga, not Nchito.
Just like the case of Judges and Chikopa’s gridlock, Banda’s case has now been firmly nailed to the ground. The haphazard manner Sata’s government has been handling all matters of state is most shameful indeed. Looking at the Chikopa case, the Banda case, the US$750 million case etc, they all seem to be characterized by mere chance hinged on impulse. It’s not the way to run the affairs of state, not at all.
Had the state taken its time to build solid cases on both the suspended judges and Banda cases, it would have prevailed. I mean, we all know most judges on the Zambian bench are stinking corrupt and that Banda was the epitome of corruption is in itself a gross understatement. It is therefore a tragedy that anything calling itself a government can fail to nail such obvious thieves to the case. And if they fail in such cases, god save us all from this rotten Northern based intellectually bankrupt charade. It also shows Mutembo is a lousy lawyer!
How can you have 2 dull lawyers in Nchito and Kabimba and expect them to take on the might of Mvunga, Saki, & Silwamba and expect to win such a complicated case?. The two are definitely out of depth.
Rupia is using a defective shield against the gladiators.Clear your name Rb..everyone will now believe that the guilty a always afraid.talking about procedure when removing immunity is not making sense guys.
Two very interesting issues on this discussion. 1. parliamentary resolution- the process assumes 2/3 of the MPs take part in the vote. Whichever way we may wish to inteprete the question of resolution procedure, legitimacy, fairness and justice requires that a significant number of MPs (same principle as 50 +1) 2. prima facie case- if the MPs were convinced that there was a prima facie case against RB, why have they continued questioning him? they have the evidence on all the issues and they should present all the charges at a go. 3. Separation of powers- Matibini should have waited for the judiciary to dispose of the matter given that it was presented there 1st.
zed forwad , I can’t agree more….
Ladies and gentlemen,
RB guilt or innoncent,let the law of the land takes its course.If found innoncent,he can get back his immunity in order to survive out of the office plot no 01 finish and klaa and if guilty,he should pay back to the nation by spend some years in prison .No one should be above the law.Let respect our parliament.Get a life,please..people