LAZ Statement on Directive By Inspector General Of Police Missed the Mark

26
3,370 views
Sunday Chanda
Sunday Chanda


By Sunday Chilufya Chanda

The statement dated 31st January 2017, by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) in which it stated that the directive by Inspector General of Police Kakoma Kanganja’s to bar Zambia Police officers from marrying foreigners is discriminatory and contravenes the provision of article 23 of the constitution in the Bill of rights was incorrect as it ignored crucial elements of the provision referred to. LAZ also argued that there was no such law in existence that bars Zambia Police officers from marrying Foreigners.

This is besides LAZ acknowledging the existence of Sections (3) and (5) of the Police Act which gives powers to the Inspector General of Police to come up with a standing order to guide the running of the police.
For the benefit of the general public and in order to have guided debate, let me reproduce provisions of Article 23 with particular reference to Article 23 (4) (c) and (e) which states as follows:

Article 23 (1) Subject to clauses (4), (5) and (7), no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.

(2) Subject to clauses (6), (7) and (8), no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.

(3) In this Article the expression “discriminatory” mean, affording different treatment to different persons attributable, wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, tribe, sex, place of origin, marital status, political opinions colour or creed whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description.

(4) Clause (1) shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision –

(c) with respect to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other matters of personal law;

(e) whereby persons of any such description as is mentioned in clause (3) may be subjected to any disability or restriction or may be accorded any privilege or advantage which, having regard to its nature and to special circumstances pertaining to those persons or to persons of any other such description, is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

From the foregoing, it is clear from the provisions of Article 23 (4) (c) and (e) that the LAZ statement “missed the mark” and thereby rendering an inaccurate position to the Inspector General of Police.

Article 23(4) (c) and (e) provides exceptions to the law against discrimination, and refers specifically to where the law makes provision with respect to among others, marriage.

Further while it may be argued as LAZ has done in their statement that the IG’s directive is not law, this is again not in tandem with the definition of “law” by any law dictionary. In general all definitions of what law is agree that it includes a set of rules or directions or regulations that govern a people or a group of people.

For example, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the ‘law’ as follows:

a (1) :  a binding custom or practice of a community :  a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see prescribe 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) :  the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules

So one then wonders what LAZ meant when it pronounced that the directive by the IG was not supported by law while in the same statement they themselves had indicated that the directive is pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Police Act. If there is a question LAZ must be asked is whether the directive has the force of law. It’s a no brainer that since the police officers has to obey the directive, it means it has a force of law, and therefore it is law.

Lastly, it is difficult to see how LAZ concluded that the directive was not based on the law when it is clear that it had the backing of the law, in particular, Section  3(2) of Police Act) and further satisfies the constitution, in particular, Article 23 (4) (c) and (e).

Loading...

26 COMMENTS

  1. Iwe just shut your mouth, you will never get a position in PF by making noise on their behalf. A sounding gong you are. No one pays attention to you.

    0

    0
    • This is what happens when junior lawyers, doctors, engineers etc start running institutions. Youth thinks they know it all!

      0

      0
    • Sunday seems to derive some weird pleasure from responding to Linda.
      As for the directive its one of those issues where one ‘leader’ wants to make himself felt while he knows the next leader will reverse it. True leaders leave a lasting legacy.

      0

      0
  2. You are the same ppl that are failing us, the constitution you formulated is now in the dust bin, you can’t interpret what you diviced….. Don’t ave faith in you n more, milking us to our death bed….

    0

    0
    • Really pathetic. He has admitted that what Kanganja wrote is not law but a regulation. Any regulation that contradicts the Constitution should not be allowed to take effect. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Even in USA, racial discrimination was ended by using the 200 year old Constitution written by slave owners. Why cannot PF busybodies reason? Is it a party disease to have crooked thinking?

      0

      0
    • Which parts of the Laws/Clauses he has quoted that you disagree with? Do just ‘fart’, argue with the facts he has put forth!

      This idea that you can only be right at Law if you have been a lawyer and practiced law before is the reason why Zambians fail to have intelligent and fruitful resolution. No wonder you !d!ots have let LOSER Heck-Heck keep lying to you. The KACHEMA-COW sort of relationship! Please, try to think for yourselves too!!!

      0

      0
    • Chanda recently graduated with an LLB. he has the right to comment, firstly as a citizen of zambia as well as a law graduate!

      0

      0
  3. Chanda, you put your mind in the issue and laid a very interesting presentation. Whether you are right or wrong at least you used your brains, unlike the above comments that reveal the other kind of mind.

    0

    0
  4. Full of contradictions, the constitution is the supreme law of the land were as standing order, in this case the inspector general’s directive does not supersede the constitution. If truly some of the officers feel that their rights under the constitution have been subverted by ill conceived standing orders issued by your misfits, they have every right to challenge that in the courts of law.Remember Chiluba made theft of motor vehicle a non bailable offence just to fix one person. Are you telling us that his conduct should stand when we have the constitution which safeguards the right of every citizen? Don’t get excited for nothing Chanda. We know you have been overlooked and the reason could be your VUVUZELA mannerism. Don’t bring your bush law on this forum wembwaiwe.

    0

    0
  5. The reasons advanced by colleague Sunday Chanda are off the mark iin that a directive from Inspector general is not the law if it is not in tandem with the constitution. Marriage is a personal right that cannot be denied on ground on status or position. Article 423(4) (c) and (e) highlight that fact.The word discrimination imputes also marital status on which may mean being single, about to marry,divorced, widowed ect ,with a person of your choice.
    Above all , the supreme law is the constitution of Zambia and policy, directive, rule and statutory instrument that is repugnant to the supreme law is void and lack the force of law.
    To assume that The Police Act is equal to the Constitition is like to say all legislation passed or to be enacted are equal to Constitution even it all…

    0

    0
  6. Wednesday Chanda iwe mona, Lungu ni mbuya obe. It’s too obvious you are looking for a job so just approach him as opposed to kulisebanya ta like this. I mean, your argument is shamefully vexatious, one would think you’re related to the Godfoolish Corporal-major.

    0

    0
  7. Chilufya Chanda is neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional legal expert so he should just shut up and leave it to legal experts. LAZ is spot on. The IG’s Directive is not illegal but unconstitutional. Where is the AG in all this? The AG as Chief Legal Adviser to govt should advise the IG to withdraw the Circular becoz it violates the Policemen’s Rights to marry a woman of their choice without fear and discrimination on the basis of race, creed or nationality. Chilufya Chanda should just be ignored.

    0

    0
  8. Chanda is right. LAZ president’s view is flawed. The article she is quoting is concerned with the status of Police Officers but not type of spouse who is a third Party. Discrimination against marital status of someone simply means whether one is single, married, widowed, divorced, etc, which is not a factor & one shouldn’t be discriminated against, but who someone marries still remains a factor. Should one who desires to marry own child or spouse of same sex or parent or foreigner be allowed to break other laws to avoid lesser evil of discrimination? Should I.G. ignore officers taking advantage of foreigners while on duty? I.G. is issuing orders to entire Police Officers, not one, who have all voluntarily consented to rules of the job.

    0

    0
  9. Why single out police? What about army officers, special branch officers, ZNS, air force officers and secretaries of ministers?? The list of personnel working in sensitive security areas is long. Shall we all scrutinize their sex lives? KK had a white woman as a personal secretary…in today Zambia it is treason to employ a person ‘without colour’ in such positions in Zambia.

    0

    0
  10. Anti-gov’t Zambians! This is discourse, why ask Mr Chanda to shut up? Surely if you feel very hot on the police directive as being wrong, then you welcome proof or challenges to the contrary if it exists so you are either corrected or vindicated.

    0

    0
    • The simple question to ask in this matter, is, can a foreigner be hired in the Police and Armed Forces in most countries? If not, then why would there not be a condition on spouses if the reason is National Security?

      0

      0
  11. Surely we have issues in my beloved country. Some persons in important offices of our country, leave us with much to be desired! And how can one, in their full senses defend such a primitive directive from a senior person of the Inspector General of Police. This is unbelievable! It feels sad to be abroad and you see such new about your county on BBC and on Kenyan newspapers. Such makes news because it is so absurd to any civilized persons or countries. I believe the Zambia police has a lot more better things to reform within itself and its practices than focusing on unnecessary issues. The inspector General can take time to work on improving the housing and sewerage systems of the police camps.

    0

    0
  12. @Chilumax – well said. Its not about having power to make directives, its about exercising that power reasonably. It still has to be within the bounds of other laws/rights, good conscience etc. I can’t understand bloggers who can’t get it that subsidiary legislation (deriving from a higher general enabling law) cannot be made without a check as to whether it is within ‘civility’ or is not a breach of other rights. The IG, for example, should not just wake up and pass a standing order that says Policemen should not eat nshima during the day, as it affects their efficiency.
    The absurdity of this directive can also be shown by the fact that it alludes to ‘marrying’. What about living with a foreign partner without marrying them?

    0

    0
  13. “It’s a no brainer that since the police officers has to obey the directive, it means it has a force of law, and therefore it is law.” No.
    The inspector general can’t be god. He can’t be given the power to make illegal rules. Like hes doing now.The constitution surely insubordinates him to laws

    0

    0
  14. If i was Sunday Chanda, i wud lern something from Fube and Kambwili. Nomatter how much noise u will make, Lungu will never give u a position. Acording to him and RB bemba,s are just useful i.d.i.o.ts and indeed they are.

    0

    0

Comments are closed.