Thursday, July 25, 2024

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions secure in playing politics rather than doing justice


Prof Muna Ndulo
Prof Muna Ndulo

By Muna Ndulo


There have been many questions raised by a number of people notably Laura Miti, Mike Mulogoti and Charles Milupi about the role the DPP is playing in prosecutions in the Zambian criminal justice system. I would like to address the concerns raised. The DPP’s handling of the cases of People v. Hakainde and Others and the People v. Mwaliteta and others raise serious concerns as to whether the DPP office is discharging its constitutional responsibility in criminal prosecutions in Zambia. I take the two cases to illustrate that the DDPs office is either playing politics or is incompetent. Either situation, would be sad for Zambia. An argument has been made by the President and others that it was up to the courts to decide whether the two cases should go on or not.

This argument is disingenuous, Zambia is not a civil law system where judges bring indictments. In Zambia prosecutions are initiated by the police which belongs to the executive and are authorized by the DPP which constitutionally is an independent office. The office of the DPP bears responsibility for certifying that the evidence presented by the police supports a criminal charge or indictment. The courts do not exercise control over the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings, save where it is necessary to prevent an abuse or to ensure fair trial (Maxwell v. R , 1995) The courts cannot be blamed for an indictment.

They can only be blamed for bad judgments. In this article, I would like to show that no properly trained lawyer let alone a DPP who had applied his or her mind to the law and facts concerning the Hakainde case and the Mwaliteta case would have authorized the indictments, and drawn such incompetently drafted charges (in the case of the Hakainde the charge sheet even contains elementary grammatical mistakes). And yet on more than one occasion the DPP affirmed these indictments. In contrast, the DPP used her powers to take over and stop the cases of contempt by private prosecutors against Godfridah Sumaili, Minister of Religious Affairs, and Amos Chanda, Special Advisor (press) to the President.

In my view, the DPP by repeatedly sanctioning prosecutions which no impartial judge properly directed in accordance with the law could reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the individuals who were being prosecuted had committed criminal offenses, failed in her responsibility and in the process undermined the judicial system in Zambia.

Additionally, she violated the human rights of the accused persons (in the cases of Hakainde and Mwaliteta) and violated international standards and guidelines for prosecutors. The fair, independent and impartial administration of justice requires prosecutors to be held accountable should they not fulfill their functions in accordance with their professional duties. The DPP must be held accountable. Constitutional office holders are accountable to the constitution. They must do their job and not play politics.

The DPP is a fundamental gatekeeper to the sacred temple of justice in any democratic society. This is because, the office of the Public Prosecutor has since evolved from its odious past – as a willing cudgel in the hands of feudal authoritarians – to its modern position; as not only the defender of the ethos of society via criminal prosecution, but also as firm protector of the integrity of the criminal justice system. The office has also developed to become a bulwark, protecting the citizens from the whimsical and capricious use or employment of the criminal justice system to oppress them. This is because, it has become axiomatic that justice is the primary reason of organized societal living. To deny this is to create a Hobbesian state of nature where life is “nasty, short and brutish.” “Take away justice and what are societies but organized brigandage.”

By the same reason, law is a tool of justice – a framework through which every member of society is accorded due self-worth, dignity and fundamental freedoms. Law therefore, is not an end in itself but a means through which justice is guaranteed to “all manner of persons, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.” The New South Wales, Australia, Guidelines for Prosecutors describes a prosecutor as a “Minister of Justice”. The Guidelines state that the prosecutor’s principal role is to assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness.

A prosecutor is not entitled to act as if he or she is representing private interests in litigation. A prosecutor represents the community and not an individual or political party. A prosecutor should act independently yet in the general public interest. The “public interest” is to be understood in that context as an historical continuum acknowledging debts to previous generations and obligations to future generations.

There is hardly any oath of office for Public Prosecutors in the common law tradition – which Zambia is a co-heir – which does not have one version of this solemn clause or otherwise. Justice therefore has many branches – including but not limited to equity, fairness, due process and insulation from arbitrary use of state powers. Essentially, it protects citizens – particularly the vulnerable – from abuse which is inherent in unbridled use of state powers. It allocates and regulates powers thus forestalling the crude appropriation of the coercive instrumentalities of state.

In the same vein, crime and punishment are subsisting attributes of law and society. Thus, the socio-political health of any nation can be measured by an evaluation of the structures that govern crime and punishment in that society – the criminal justice system. This is hardly surprising, considering that tyranny thrives in societies with weak and pliable criminal justice systems. Therefore, justice is the first casualty of tyranny and ‘democratic dictatorship’ is justice. For instance, under the Apartheid system, all that was needed to make the free movement of blacks and other persons of color criminal, was to just make a pronouncement to that effect and even justify it as of ‘good neighborliness’ or ‘law and order.’

In democratic dictatorships, all that is needed is to invoke powers of emergency – which are only preserved for extreme situations to preserve the life of the state – at the flimsiest excuse. By so doing, the state effectively suspends the full panoply of due process and other human right guarantees which the citizens are entitled to. This is extremely manifest in societies where there is a clear executive capture of the other organs of government – the legislature and the judiciary.

Evidently, the Directors of Public Prosecutions – as important personnel in the criminal justice system – hold what can be called a ‘power of life and death.’ They can cause the incarceration of citizens by merely framing charges against them. Such citizens may even face the prospect of death depending on the charges which it pleases the Prosecutor to put on them. The extent of the damage that can be done is even more far-reaching when one considers that a citizen once charged will go through the process of (pre-trial detention and) judicial trial even if such a citizen is merely challenging the validity of the charges against him.

What this means is that the powers of the Public Prosecutor may be wrongly used with devastating consequences not only to the liberty of citizens but also to democracy. The chilling effect of potential spurious charges by the DPP on citizens can destroy their ability to demand accountability from state authorities. The experience traumatizes citizens and leaves them bankrupt as a result of huge legal costs incurred in fighting the spurious charges. Indeed, the weakness or dysfunctionality of any criminal justice system is a calamity to citizens as shown in the plight of HH in which Magistrate Greenwell Malupani ruled in April that the treason charge against him was incompetent and lacked specifics on the planned overt act to commit treason. This decision by the Court showed that the Office of the DPP had failed in its responsibility to protect a citizen and compounded the failure by not dropping the case at this stage.

In the case of Mwaliteta, Judge Bowa in his well-reasoned and articulated judgement ruled that the Prosecution had not established a case sufficiently to warrant the Court to put the accused on their defence; the evidence presented did not meet the charge of aggravated robbery that the office of the Prosecutor had authorized. The accused persons were not even at the scene of the crime, their alibis were not investigated. They arrived at the scene of the crime after the alleged crime. The police linked them to the crime because they parked near a police car and looked suspicious when they arrived at the scene of the alleged robbery. And yet the accused persons had spent over a year in prison under inhuman conditions. In both the Hachilema and Mwaliteta cases the accused were deliberately slapped with non-bailable offences to keep them in jail. Such miscarriages of justice are due to the failure of the office of the DPP to do justice as the gatekeeper of the criminal justice system. Instead the Courts are left to do the job of the DPP’s office, thus undermining their role and overburdening them with cases that should not have come before them in the first place and unnecessarily overcrowding already overcrowded prisons.

It is this understanding of the linkages between law, justice and criminal justice that led to reforms in many democracies – particularly the establishment and insulation of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from the many influences of men of Power. Thus, the office of the DPP, is not only there to prosecute criminal behavior, but also to protect the citizen from the illicit exercise of coercive powers of state.


Section 180 of the Zambian Constitution Amendment Act 2016, created the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. By the distinct Provisions of that same section, the DPP though appointed by the President subject to the ratification by the Parliament is not an officer in the Presidency. In other words, she is not the President’s steward. The stewardship inherent in that office is to the Zambian people. Thus, the Office of the DPP enjoys a special status and only a person qualified to be a judge can be appointed to be the Director of Public Prosecutions under the relevant laws in Zambia. She is not only the Chief Prosecutor for the whole Zambian nation, she is also the Head of the National Prosecution Authority. The DPP has the power to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state and to determine prosecution policy. He or she must issue and enforce policy directives to be observed in the prosecution process and has the power to review a decision whether to prosecute or not.

The powers and duties are extensive and their proper exercise and performance is crucial to attainment of criminal justice in the country and the attainment of an effective criminal justice system is in turn vital to our democracy. It is therefore a position of immense public trust and responsibility, hence; the office is protected in such a manner that the occupant of that office can only be removed by the detailed and cumbersome process of removing a judge. By the further provisions of Section 180(4) of the Zambian Constitution Amendment Act 2016, the DPP may “institute and undertake criminal proceedings against a person before a court, other than a court martial for an offence alleged to have been committed by that person”.

The DPP also has powers and the function to “take over and continue criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by another person or authority; and discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered, criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by the DPP or any other person or authority.” Indeed, she can perform any of these duties either directly or through officers in her office. Significantly, section 180(7) of the Zambian Constitution Amendment Act 2016, provides unequivocally that “the DPP shall not be subject to the direction or control of a person or an authority in the performance of the functions of that office, except that the DPP shall have regard to the public interest, administration of justice, the integrity of the judicial system and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process.”

The obvious import of these provisions, is to grant autonomy and full agency to the DPP so that the holder of that Office may pursue justice vigorously, unhindered by self-interest and animated only by the finest interests of the public. I argue that this interest of the public is simply justice, due process and respect for fundamental rights of citizens. Any other thing added to should only be to enhance the foregoing values rather than derogate, diminish or indeed out-rightly destroy them. The DPP therefore is an authority unto herself whose motivation to frame charges, prosecute or refrain from prosecuting any alleged criminal offence must be informed by the duty to do substantial justice.

Little wonder then, why the framers of the law strengthened the position of the DPP by providing that she can only be removed in the same manner that a judge is removed from office – Sections 182(3) and 144 of the Zambia Constitution Amendment Act 2016. This autonomy of authority granted to the DPP is further founded on section 6 of the Prosecutions Authority Act (Law number 34 of 2010). In view of these powers, and functions vested in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is clear that the DPP enjoys an elevated public service position under the extant Zambian laws. It is therefore imperative, that particular attention is paid to this special public office as it is a crucial gatekeeper to the temple of justice.


According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, “Prosecutors are the essential agents of the administration of justice, and as such should respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.” Prosecutors also play a key role in protecting society from a culture of impunity and function as gate keepers to the judiciary.

Despite the central role of prosecutors, it is noticeable that often they are not the center of attention in the administration of criminal justice. Often, the police, the courts and sometime the defense counsel gets the full public glare and scrutiny. Thus, the prosecutor who is the lynchpin in the entire criminal justice architecture is left to enjoy the comfort of anonymity while accused persons are slammed with frivolous charges and incarcerated pending trial. Sometimes, the period of awaiting trial surpasses the period of time the accused would have served in prison custody if (they were) he was tried expeditiously and convicted.

This is particularly so for petty offences usually committed by ordinary citizens – who often may not have the wherewithal to secure effective legal representation. These and many more concerns led the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders to adopt “the Havana” Guidelines. The Guidelines are aimed at “assisting member states in their task of securing and promoting the effectiveness, impartiality and fairness of prosecutors in criminal proceedings”.

They also seeks to ensure that governments take these guidelines “into consideration within the framework of national legislations.” They therefore emphasize that “it is essential that the prosecutors have sufficient independence or autonomy to take their decisions regardless of any outside pressure, in particular from the Executive power of the state.” They state further that, where such pressures can be and are brought, the Prosecutor will not be able to protect the interest of justice, will not be able to respect the rule of law or human right and will be powerless to deal effectively with cases of corruption or abuse of state power.”

Summarily, the Havana Guidelines emphasize(s) that Prosecutors shall:

i. At all material times maintain the honor and dignity of their profession;
ii. Always conduct themselves professionally, in accordance with the law and the rules and ethics of their profession;
iii. At all times exercise the highest standards of integrity and care;
iv. Keep themselves well informed and abreast of relevant legal development;
v. Strive to be and be seen to be consistent, independent and impartial;
vi. Always protect an accused person’s right to fair trial and in particular ensure that evidence favorable to the accused is disclosed in accordance with the law or the requirements of a fair trial;
vii. Always serve and protect public interest;
viii. Respect, protect and uphold the Universal Concept of human dignity and human rights; and
ix. Act with objectivity.

These cannons are abundantly acknowledged by the Zambian Public Prosecution Authority Act, although their practical effect on the National Prosectution Authority is not visible. Other similar instruments have been adopted in the Region. For instance, South Africa has since adopted “An Ethical Code of Conduct for Members of the National Prosecuting Authority.” The code is anchored firmly on integrity, impartiality, diligence, and professionalism as the foundations of public prosecutions. The abundance of the cannons and the wide adoption of same by many democratic countries is indicative of the fact that fair, effective and impartial public prosecution is indispensable in any democratic society.


Undoubtedly, the Director of Public Prosecutions is a remarkable gatekeeper of justice in any democratic society. The powers of the office of the DPP are enormous and can give a crushing blow to human rights and democracy if improperly exercised. This makes the need to safeguard that office and use its powers in the best interest of the public indispensable. All prosecutorial decisions must be made against the backdrop of the requirements of domestic law and procedure and a constant and unwavering appreciation of fundamental human rights.

Prosecutions ought to be initiated or continued only where two conditions are satisfied: (a) the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction-evidence test and (b) the prosecution is required in the public interest-the public interest test.

Zambian democracy presently is on trial. There is what one may call a creeping self-appropriation of the coercive powers of state by state authorities. In that unholy expropriation of the people’s right to respect of their rights and fundamental freedoms, the Parliament and the Judiciary appear to have been totally emasculated. The largely present impotence – of the Judiciary and the Parliament – is telling and many a citizen have lost interest in seeking justice before the courts or expecting the lame duck parliamentarians to act in the interest of the public.

Amidst this trying time, the DPP holds a lot of powers and should courageously refuse to become a willing tool of repression, oppression and egregious violation of the fundamental freedoms of citizens. To do otherwise would be to turn the office into a thing of ridicule and office of public persecution. The reckless framing of charges and use of the same to put “perceived enemies” of the state out of circulation is an injustice that stinks.

Democratic societies thrive on competitive ideas and politics; they would die otherwise. It is unbearable when such trumped up charges bear the seal of the DPP whose oath of office demands that she does justice to all manner of persons, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will. The DPP stands on the threshold of history at this period of moral crises for the Zambian People – she cannot afford to stay aloof or feign ignorance or indifference. Indifference to evil is a greater evil.

The Author Professor of Law Cornell University Law School and Director of the Berger International Studies Program and Institute for African Development at Cornell University


  1. Thanks prof. A critical piece that should start a crucial discussion/ debate. Our Law Association has been consistently attacked and undermined by the politicians. Where are our the voices of justice? Where are our legal minds?

    • “Additionally, she violated the human rights of the accused persons (in the cases of Hakainde and Mwaliteta) and violated international standards and guidelines for prosecutors”………very valid points. I just wish you could also come out strong against the USA ,where you’ve chosen to be an economic refugee, concerning the prisoners who are being held at Guantanamal bay without trial for more than 12 years.

    • Just yesterday, the Police Commissioner revealed that it was the Minister who ordered him to so the prayer meeting at the Cathedral. The Minister is Kampyongo, uneducated and uncouth. The Commissioner is a professional with a degree in law just like the DDP. Why then should professionals accept to be used in the abuse of citizens?

    • When you plan evil deeds against another human always remember to dig your own grave deeper, judas escariot got 30 pieces of silver for his evil deeds and it came in handy to secure a burial place for him,they used the same 30 pieces of silver for his funeral.

    • Very good article, just a suggestion publish such long articles in parts as is not easy to read from devices like mobile phone. Other than that this is a very good article very informative.

    • This is an interesting legal treatise. For us the common people, we understand that the DPP is part of the PFascist instruments of oppression of Zambians. The PFolice and the DPP’s PFrosecutors will delay court appearances so that the oppressed can fester in prison for months or years. And when the opportunity to prove one’s innocence arrives, they will throw in a nolle prosequi just so that the DPP’s incompetence cannot be exposed in court. The DPP is just part of the evil mechanisms for suppressing and oppressing Zambians.

    • The next serious govt that Zambia will have must address the use of nolle prosequis. I don’t believe that in serious countries that nolles are issued like parking tickets every day. Use of a nolle must be a momentous occasion, and not a frivolous tool for hiding the truth about the incompetence of the DPP and how malicious and vindictive she has become. Also the frivolous and shameful take over of private criminal prosecutions just so that the DPP can kill those cases should be abolished. The DPP is clearly protecting the rabid dogs of her master from feeling the consequences of their nasty decisions.

  2. Prof Muna Ndulu, so the takeaway here is simple. There can only be two reasons this situation is now prevailing in Zambia.

    1. The DPP is incompetent and does not know how to do her job. Or

    2. The DPP is politically compromised and not a fit and proper person to hold the post.

    In both cases we are forced to look at who appointed this unsuitable person. As this is the person who is supposed to be a lawyer himself, and should clearly understand all you have articulated above. Therefore we must ask ourselves why he has allowed the current crisis in our judicial system to arise. Is it –

    1, He is just ignorant and/or incompetent and does not know how to exercise his sworn duties under the Constitution ? Or is it –

    2. He is intelligent enough to understand his duties, but is…

  3. 2. He is intelligent enough to understand his duties, but is illegally and maliciously avoiding carrying out his responsibility? And in the process destroying the State of Zambia?

    If it is the first, obviously he is not up to the job. If it is the second, then he is committing TREASON!

  4. The auther should not have indicated his name. Its hard to him him serious because we know him.

  5. Very good analysis, well done to the author! But how many Zambians understand how these basic principles of law will determine their future and how their rights have been stolen by Lungu and his PF machinations?

  6. This prof why voicing out now when hh is free. We needed this comment the time was still at mukobeko. I hope you have also cc ms Scotland who brokered his release. Madam dpp i hope you have heard. No more nolles from today onwards

  7. Political appointments are precarious. Anything you do will be under serious scrutiny and suspicion. The USA AG Sessions is a good example. He’s under fire from both the person who appointed him and the general population. .each with their reason. The world has never and will never be perfect.

  8. @ David … and so are Parliament who are party to the ratification of the DPP.
    Perhaps the Public Prosecutors also need security of tenure to enable them to act independently without fear of reprisals for choosing to either prosecute or not. It appears our checks and balances are still too weak because our institutions are still weak and are all manipulated by the executive – the politicians who are there as we know for self aggrandisement and not for service to the public.
    I donot know whether its poverty, we donot seem to have developed the courage to stand up for what we know is right even to the point of being fired for it or Resigning. Look what is happening in Trumps administration. Men and women are standing up to him and either resigning or getting fired for their principled…

  9. Yayaya, Prof. Muna Ndulo, it is just like the Author himself who wants to justify something he knows very well which side the Author is. Once upon a time, I was served with a Summon from one of the Zambian Courts. Some of the contents on the Summons read as follows: “In the name of the President, you are commanded to appear before this Honourable Court”. Further, when I was engaged in the Civil Service, part of the contents in my appointment letter mentioned on behalf of the President of GRZ, you are appointed to the position of ….. Now, I am not very sure whose behalf these institutions serve. Can the Author share with us on these issues. All MPs, including UPND swear to serve the Presidency. For them to boycott Presidential address, which President did they swear to protect?

  10. Just some question for the Proffesor, What charge could have been more appropriate for Mr Hakainde Hichilema over the Mongu Incident? Mr Obasanjo said Mr HH’s action was overboard. And many independent people believe there was something seriously wrong with Mr HHs conduct in Mongu. If he was DPP what charge could the learned professor place on Mr Hichilema over the Mongu Incident?

    • By interfering with the presidential motorcade HH committed a serious crime. This has nothing to do with Edgar Chagwa Lungu but the Republican Presidency. It doesn’t matter who was the president, HH, Rupiah or anyone else HH committed a crime.

    • Ndanje khakis the only serious crime that has committed on earth is your father forgetting to put on a condom, such that the world is infested with your stup idity.

    • @divided & rude. .your insults against me won’t change the fact that HH lost and your dreams were dashed. Come 2021 you’ll be insulting but no HH in State House. Sorry mwana insults are below my status.

  11. ….. stand or refusal to bend the law for him. Some for even refusing to protect the President from investigations (by American government institutions!) over Russians connections! Can our instititions ever investigate a sworn President in office eg ‘for Chinise interference’ in our election process? I doubt very much.

    There seems to be a problem with the seperation of powers. The powers are not effectively seperated and as long as we all answer to politicians the judiciary and everyone else can not work independently.

  12. Can we bring these people to justice after they leave offices since they are still protected by the constitution now?

  13. The justification for arresting and charging individuals can only be provided by the arresting and charging authorities. The outcome of the arresting and charging is irrelevant. That is the reality of criminal justice system. It is evident that in a certain number of arrests and charges, i.e., cases, the arresting and charging authorities have been proved right. It is also evident that in various cases, the arresting and charging authorities have been proved wrong. What is the moral lesson of the story? The moral lesson is that justice does not grow on trees naturally like wild fruits. There is need for law abiding citizens to keep away from the cross fire between bandits and gentlemen. If the traffic video is replayed, it is highly likely that the ending will be more tragic.

  14. There is absolutely no evidence that lungu is a lawyer. All we see is a brainless, morally depraved, alcoholic, thieving punk. Do you honestly believe a charlatan like this guy has time and interest of Zambia at his heart?

    • There is absolutely all evidence that YOU are brainless, morally DEPRIVED and a useless twit. To start debating that ECL is a lawyer is like arguing that the sky is pink. BE OBJECTIVE IN YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS!!!

    • @Zambian Citizen

      Of course I know lungu spent some time in a law class. But does he show evidence that he understands anything to do with law? Read the article again! The prof has shown us that lungu is either mad, if he understands the law but neglects to apply it. The fact that he is a thief, morally bankrupt and depraved, a drunkard and not a very clever man is as plain as the Zambian sky. What more evidence do you need to be convinced that this man is completely unfit for office of president?

    • They say, if people find you arguing with a mental patient, they won’ know which is the mad person. I prefer to debate such important issues with reasonable people who put real facts forward. If the majority of my country men and women accepted ECL as their president and his predecesser saw him appropriate to do so, I believe it is the will of the people of this great nation to have it that way. I understand your childish tantrums are as a result of your compromised mental standing and I wont bother to comment on your future postings. May the Lord continue blessing you. Good day!!!

    • @Zambian Citizen

      I would have gladly kept away from you if you hadn’t said something that demanded to be rebuffed:

      “If the majority of my country men and women accepted ECL as their president and his predecesser saw him appropriate to do so, I believe it is the will of the people of this great nation to have it that way”

      You seem to forget that election is up to this moment deemed stolen until the petition is heard. The majority wants the petition heard and haven’t accepted lungu yet. Don’t twist and bend facts. Bye!

    • “The majority wants the petition heard and haven’t accepted lungu yet. Don’t twist and bend facts. Bye!”…correction: your “majority” won provinces and have 54 mps; My real and tangible majority won 7 provinces and have 82+12 mps. You are suppose to write yours as minority, don’t you think so????

    • @@Zambian Citizen
      Including the votes lungu stole from HH PF got 1,860,000 while UPND got 1,760,000, a difference of 100,000. Do you think this number could come from only 3 provinces?

    • ofcourse!! If your voter turnout in the 3 provinces is 63.6% (against a vote for upnd of 84%!!) average compared to 53.5% (against a vote for PF of 71%) average. That’s why the totals had a difference of 100,00 for presidential BUT the parliamentary was clearly showed upnd is still confined to its tribal strongholds!!!!

  15. Despite all the claims of Zambia being a dictatorship at least the Professor acknowledges it is a democracy when he says ” Zambian democracy presently is on trial”. He at one time even called Zambia a failed state. Now he is calling Zambia a democracy. How interesting to learn this from the Professor of law.

  16. It may interest your readers that President Lungu was prof Ndulo’s student at UNZA. Prof Ndulo’s article is well researched and cogently argued. What we need to remember is Justice Learned Hand’s teachings on the Spirit of Liberty. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there no constitution can save it.

    What is happening in Zambia now is a great tragedy and we the Zambian people deserve the government we have. It should not have been like this.

  17. Ndulo a failed husband and upnd support should be the last person to talk about the functions of the DPP. When his bantu botatwe cousin Mwanswasa jailed Mr Sata for 2 months on trapped up charges of motor vehicle theft, he was quiet.

  18. When a contribution is right, as the prof. above, we must give credit where it is due. Good article. However, it baffles me that our learned professionals must always warn the nation of “mishappenings” when there is a vested interest on their part. Let’s go back to when Mutembo Nchito was DPP. He was removed by a tribunal which found him at fault unlike a previous DPP (MUkelabai Mukelabai) who was wrongly “hounded” out of office; YET THE NATION WAS NEVER OR RARELY ALARMED OF THESE ASSAULTS ON OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AND DEMOCRACY. Further, before hh and mwaliteta went to prison, it is a well known fact that our correctional facilities, our prosecution personnel and indeed our judiciary and police service are obsolete and outdated ( for lack of a better term!!) and needed reform. Prisoners…

    • …languish in prison without trial for years but people like Ndulo have never bothered to lobby and question successive governments on this “sudden” need to reform the judiciary: IS THIS CALL GENUINE?? DOES THIS ADD WEIGHT TO THE MYTH THAT JUSTICE IS ONLY FOR THE PRIVILEGED??? MUST WE ONLY SHOW RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR COUNTRY ONLY WHEN OUR RELATIVES, TRIBESPEOPLE AND THE LIKE ARE AFFECTED???

  19. This is a well written and thought out Article. Thanks Prof Ndulo for enlightening us including the DPP’s Office. The DPP was appointed by Lungu and as such she is compromises by the Appointing Authority. The DPP is not Independent from the Executive arm of govt. The DPP is an extension of State House and therefore highly compromised. The Problem is how to stop Lungu interfering with the Judiciary and Parliament. The fish rots from the head downwards. Jonathan Lungu is the Problem but DPP is equally to blame becoz she is not making an attempt to resist this interference from Lungu. With the Chipante Pante Lungu govt in power this politicization of DPP’s Office will continue. Mrs Nolle Prosqui Siyuni has failed to be professional in her job. Cry the beloved Zambia.

  20. The theme should be THE REFORM OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM here.

    That onurus task does not begin and end with throwing flack at Lungu names; the man is merely profiting from the rot therein as exemplified in the habitual ab-usage of the Nolle since before Lungu. The task begins when authorities in the Law like the Prof team up to challenge the status quo to the latter by all possible legal avenues at a time when citizens lack the capacity and skill to do so.

    It may not be enough to simply post these insightful – and flowery – articles across blogging sites. Leave it to us mere mortals to offer that timid and innocent criticism.

  21. Some people’s jobs are very nice. You just copy and paste quotable quotes and create a paper for your pay master. You even stand in front of people that I have to deliver a paper. I have a Phd and am a Professor. I know everything you are doing is dictatorship. Oxford dictionary what and what definition for dictatorship is detaining someone who has the freedom to refuse to give way to any other person President inclusive.

  22. If the above article was written by just a Prof of a University, I would have a second look at it BUT Alas the article was written a Professor who plays politics or is a legal advisor to Jack Mwiimbu and HH. Sorry prof Ndulo you are compromised. Your article suffers from several fronts that it is not worth looking at. Stop politics then we can treat you as a learned man or a Professor of Law. You look at issues to push a particular agenda. Shame on you!

  23. The problem is not the Judiciary but the Executive Arm of Govt. Sadist and Dictator Jonathan Lungu has no respect for Rule of Law,Constitutionalism, Good Governance and Human Rights. Lungu has abused the Police, Courts, Parliament and State Power to persecute his political opponents. What u require is a God fearing President with a Vision of his own. Visionless J5onathan Lungu is an ill trained Lawyer who doesn’t understand Law and Governance. Hence he is treating Parliament and the Judiciary as an extension of State House. The man doesn’t appreciate the need for checks and balances among the three pillars of govt namely the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. Thats what Dictators do!!

  24. So this chap is still around? Not that I missed a creep that like. He probably thinks that now that underfive is out he may have a chance to become minister of justice. To all intents and purposes this creep is a UPNDonkey in every way and should be seen in that sense whenever he opens his mouth.
    1. He mentions the current DPP issuing a nolle in the cases of Amos and Hon Sumaili. He was conveniently quiet when Mutembo did the same. But he could have atoned for his sins if he had used this opportunity in this article to condemn Mutembo – there you are a UPNDonkey a “Professor” for you. To me that alone rubbishes the whole article. Do you need any further proof that we have donkeys even in our intelligentsia?

  25. As I have stated before, no matter how many faults you find with the current or past governments since independence, the UPNDonkeys cannot be a better alternative, they can only be far worse in every respect. And everyday they demonstrate this. Talk about national democracy they cannot even practice it internally. When did you hear of elections in UPNDonkey party since Mazoka passed on? Chech this: even when Kaunda was incarcerated by the colonial government Mainza Chona acted as president of Unip. Look guys, UPNDonkey “party” remains commited to underfive becoming president of Zambia not by universal suffrage or national election, but by virtue of rotation based on the criteria set at the time he was “elected” or rather installed to replace Mazoka. Unfortunately underfive will wear…

  26. ……. Unfortunately underfive will wear this buttress around his neck till death does him part. Sorry underfive just keep on enjoying the prison nightmares, Terrible hereby declares that there shall be no Embassy Park for you ever….kikikikiki…chibaba!

  27. Look at this so called UPNDonkey “prof”. Ati President Lungu was disingenious for saying that “…the courts will decide whether the two cases should go on or not…”. Now that alone alone exposes the UPNDonkey or other donkeys in this man Ndulo. I mean even a baby knows that “the courts” is a collective term looselt used to describe the criminal justice process for the two cases, this includes the accused, the judges, the defence lawyers, the prosecution lawyers, the DPP etc. President was addressing journalists and general citizenry, not lawyers. Simple ba Ndulo, and for that alone I am reluctant to call you Professor, the nearest I can come to that is to call you UPNDonkey “professor” Ndulo with inverted commas.

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

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

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

Continue reading