By Isaac Mwanza
Introduction
Following publication of the article through this media entitled “Can you criticise the conduct of the courts or of a judge in Zambia?” there are now resounding calls from different sections of society to have United Party for National Development (UPND) leader, Mr. Hakainde Hichilema, charged with the offence of criminal contempt of court and of scandalising the judges of the Constitutional Court.
The general discussion in this article will involve the procedure to be followed in arraigning a person alleged to have committed contempt of scandalising the court, long after trial has been concluded, and the possible consequences of scandalising judges and judicial officers. I conclude by stating that the better way to fight against contempt charges is to humble oneself, apologise and be very remorseful than continue using less-informed supporters to continue slandering the court or judges.
Genesis of allegations
The calls to arraign Hakainde Hichilema for contempt of court and scandalising the judges, stem from a media briefing held at his residence in New Kasama, Zambia around 10th October, 2017 where Mr. Hichilema nakedly accused three judges of the Constitutional Court who voted to throw out his 16th August, 2016 presidential election petition, of having received money “from State House” (the incumbent President), the good Judges thereby compromising their positions on the Court.
“These days I do not even beat about the bush, Judge Anne Mwewa Sitali is corrupt, Palan Mulonda corrupt, Mungeni Mulenga also corrupt. That is why we are saying dissolve the Constitutional Court… They got 30 pieces of silver. You cannot throw out a petition before you hear it. They are agents of evil, the three musketeers,” said Mr. Hichilema.
In his attacks on the female judges in the majority opinion, Mr. Hichilema stated,
“It is also shameful to see female judges getting corrupt like this to an extent of almost setting the country ablaze just over money, nepotism and unprofessionalism.”
Perhaps influenced or encouraged by, and following the publication of my previous article on the question of whether or not anyone can criticise the conduct of the courts or of a judge in Zambia, a resident from Lufwanyama District in the Copperbelt province of Zambia, wrote to the Chief Justice on 14th August, 2018 calling on Mr. Hichilema to be summoned to court to answer charges of scandalising the court. In his response to the said letter, which was copied to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Acting Chief Justice, His Lordship Marvin Mwanamwambwa, replied, stating in part:
“In this particular case, it was the Constitutional Court that was attacked. They are aware of the attacks and insults. But for unexplained reasons, they did not charged the culprit (Hakainde Hichilema) with contempt… In fact, the matter does not need an inquiry; because the evidence is already there. It is documented in the form of a report of utterances by the named culprit (Hichilema)”
Following this response, the leadership of Zambia’s main opposition party, the United Party for National Development through its national youth chairperson, Gilbert Liswaniso, has stated the party’s position on these Constitutional Court Judges:
“Firstly, we stand by our party president (Mr. Hakainde Hichilema), that indeed some of the judges (in reference to the 3 Honourable Constitutional Court Judges Mulenga, Sitali, and Mulonda) are not only morally bankrupt but corrupt to the jaws (as alleged by Mr. Hichilema) and we attribute this to so many injustices happening under their watch if not engineered by them,” said Liswaniso.
Conduct that scandalises the court
Section 116 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia seeks address criminal contempt committed in the face of the Court. However, the offence of scandalising the court is a crime that is committed with or without there being any pending case. This kind of contempt is committed when one publishes or causes to be published, either in writing or verbally, of allegations which, objectively speaking, are likely to bring judges and judicial officers or the administration of justice through the courts into, contempt, or unjustly to cast suspicion on the administration of justice.
In the contempt of scandalising the court, whether the administration of justice was in actual fact brought into disrepute is irrelevant. All that is required is that the words or the conduct should have the tendency or likelihood to harm (see the South African case in Mamabolo 2001 1 SACR 686 (CC), p.43).
To constitute contempt of court, an attack on an individual judge does not necessarily need to be made in public. A judge can also be scandalised in his judicial capacity in a private communication to him or her, for example, by letter even though no third party is aware of the communication. While the Courts in Zambia do not consider the writing of every letter as contemptuous, guidance was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sebastian Saizi Zulu vs The People (1991), briefly discussed below, that:
“We feel that the appellant (Mr. Zulu) could safely have drawn the allegation against the learned trial judge to the attention of high judicial authorities, had he so wished. Rather recklessly, however, he chose a calamitous method. The serious situation in which he placed himself could have been avoided.”
It also falls within the ambit of this form of contempt when a person does anything – spoken or written – imputing corrupt or dishonest motives or conduct to a judge in the discharge of his official duties, or reflecting in an improper or scandalous manner on the administration of justice by the courts (see the South African case in Torch Printing and Publishing Company (Pty) Ltd 1956 1 SA 815 (C) 819).
Who must institute contempt proceedings?
Although Section 116 of the Penal Code provide for a limited procedure and penalty for punishing contempt of court, Section 2(c) of the Code provides that, “Except as hereinafter expressly provided, nothing in this Code shall affect the power of any court to punish a person for contempt of such court.”
In dealing with cases of contempt of court, Zambian courts apply the law and practice for the time being observed in England. Primarily, the courts in Zambia derive power from Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England (RSC), 1965, commonly known as the White Book, which empowers the High Court and the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of court. This primary derivation of power from the English law is based on the strength of Section 116(3) of the Penal Code which states,
“Section 116 (3)
The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation from the power of a court to punish for contempt of court.”
By this provision, a court may thus proceed to conduct contempt proceedings in terms of Order 52, having expressly excluded section 116(1) (a) and (2) of the Penal Code. The Courts’ powers under Order 52 are wider than those provided for under section 116 of the Penal Code.
For example, under Section 112(2) of the Penal Code, where a person has committed contempt in facie curiae, that is, in the face or in view of the court, the law provides for detention of the offender, “and at any time before the rising of the court on the same day take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender” but under Order 52 there is no limitation on the court to dispose of a contempt of court on the same day that it arises.
Order 52 is very detailed and does more than merely set out rules of court, it is all that is required to understand and apply the rules governing contempt. In it one will find the law as to what constitutes contempt of court and what criticism will not constitute contempt of court; the role of the courts and parties. Care is taken not only as to who can initially commence proceedings against contempt ex facie curiae, meaning, contempt committed outside the face or view of the court, in other words, not in the presence of the presiding judge or judicial officer while the court is in session, but also what consent and from whom it may be required to prosecute the case.
Further, the Penal Code does not outline procedure for contempt ex facie curiae. Since the contempt in which Mr. Hichilema is alleged to have scandalised the court with his remarks were made at a time when there was no pending case before the Constitutional Court, he is alleged to have committed contempt ex facie curiae. The procedure to be adopted can be found in judicial precedent and the White Book.
Role of citizens, court, DPP, and ZP to initiate contempt proceedings
In Zambia, the procedure of how prosecutions for scandalising the court are to be initiated and investigated especially where contempt is committed ex facie curiae attract debate even among learned persons. In line with this question is an issue of who should be able to decide cases where a judges have been scandalised, given the personal interest that judges may have in the case to be heard before them.
It is a general requirement that any person who believes from a reasonable and probable cause that a criminal offence, including contempt of court, has been committed by any other person, to make a complaint. The Penal Code, in Section 116, distinguishes between contemptuous acts committed in the face of the court and those that occur outside the view of the court, such as, when one scandalises judges after the case was concluded.
In the case of The People vs. David Masupa (1977), it had been held that the court itself may bring charges for acts of contempt in the face of the court. It was also stated in this case that if contempt is committed outside the court and even if it is separated by distance of time or space from the actual judicial happenings, the proceedings should be instituted by the State or the aggrieved party.
The guidance of the Supreme Court in the case of Reverend Tegerepayi Gust and Elias vs The People (1988) is very important when dealing with these two types of contempt. In that case the Court held that when a Judge invokes provisions of section 116 of the Penal Code, then, the only courses open to him are either to proceed under subsection (2), that is, to deal with the matter on the same day before the rising of the court or to report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions who could investigate and institute proceedings, if he thought fit.
This is well grounded from an English precedent in the case of Balough vs The Crown Court (1974) where Lord Denning, the learned Master of the Rolls, said at p 288, paragraph h:
“As I have said a judge should act of his own motion only when it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. In all other cases he should not take it on himself to move. He should leave it to the Attorney General or to the party aggrieved to make a motion in accordance with the Rules in RSC, Order 52. The reason is so that he should not appear to be both prosecutor and judge; for that is a role which does not become him well.”
Zambia’s Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia establishes the role of our Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Police in matters of contempt of court through Section 83 (1) and 85 (1) which reads:
“83. (1) [Criminal information by Director of Public Prosecutions]
Notwithstanding anything in this Code contained, the Director of Public Prosecutions may exhibit on behalf of the People in the High Court against persons subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court, information for all purposes for which Her Britannic Majesty’s Attorney-General for England may exhibit information on behalf of the Crown in the High Court of Justice in England
85. (1) [Arrest of persons for offences requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for commencement of prosecution]
Where any written law provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for an offence without the sanction, fiat or written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, such person may be arrested or a warrant for such arrest may be issued and executed and such person may be remanded in custody or on bail, notwithstanding that such sanction, fiat or written consent has not been first obtained, but no further proceedings shall be taken until such sanction, fiat or written consent has been obtained and produced to the court.”
For acts of contempt committed after the case has been closed, the best route is to find balance in the procedure given by the Supreme Court and Lord Denning, i.e. the court should not take it on itself to move. The Court should leave it to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the party aggrieved to make a motion in accordance with the Rules in RSC, Order 52. The aggrieved party in the case being complained against involving Mr. Hakainde Hichilema are three Judges of the Constitutional Court and the Court itself. It goes therefore that either the aggrieved party itself can make a motion or the court can leave it to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
His Lordship, Acting Chief Justice Marvin Mwanamwamba, fittingly offered sound legal guidance to the complainant against Mr. Hichilema when he copied the letter to the DPP while stating, “The procedure on contempt of court is that it is for the court that was attacked or the adjudicator who was insulted, who should have the culprit summoned and charged with contempt of court.” Copying the letter to the DPP, was also not without legal basis, as demonstrated by his role above.
Despite the two available routes on initiation of the complaint for contempt of court, it must be noted that it is not particularly rare for courts in Zambia to move on their own motion to punish for scandalising the court, and this has been the trend in almost all Zambian cases where scandalising the court has arisen. In the current debate on the possible contempt of court as allegedly committed by Mr. Hichilema, the reference of the matter to the DPP for necessary action to be taken may have a sound legal basis. Nevertheless, the White Book makes it possible to punish the Hichilema kind of contempt of contempt as it happened in the case of Masiye Motels Ltd vs. Rescue Shoulders and Estate Agency Ltd (2010), later discussed below. This does not require the FIAT of the DPP as it is not premised on the Penal Code. To this extent, involving the DPP may actually be irrelevant and inapplicable.
Do acts of contempt committed outside the face of the court, require an inquiry?
His Lordship, Deputy Chief Justice Marvin Mwanamwamba stated in his letter to Mr. Chilombo, “…In fact, the matter does not need an inquiry, because the evidence is already there. It is documented in the form of a report of utterances by the named culprit (Hichilema).” What would be the authority in this matter since this was contempt committed ex facie curiae?
In the case of Sebastian Saizi Zulu, earlier referred to, the Supreme Court of Zambia held that the enquiry that the learned trial judge instituted was unnecessary because he had made his finding of contempt of court as soon as it arose. In this case, Mr. Zulu was acting for the defence in a murder case and before judgment could be delivered, that is, after final submissions for the defence had been made, Mr. Zulu handed to the learned trial judge an affidavit and made an application for the learned trial judge to recuse himself from that case.
The deponent averred in the affidavit that he had been seen at an office in Chachacha Road, Lusaka a letter dated June 14, purportedly written by four judges, including the learned trial judge, Mr Justice Musumali, addressed to Mr Fredrick Chiluba, the President of the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) and copied to MMD Vice President Mr Levy Mwanawasa, in which the deponent averred the learned trial judge had informed the MMD that he would fix Kambarange Kaunda (President Kaunda’s son in the murder case) and that he would make history that President Kaunda and his wife would never forget by convicting and sentencing Kambarange Kaunda to death.
The learned trial judge found the action of the appellant to be a contempt of court and proceeded to call witnesses over a period of a number of days. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated,
“In our view, the enquiry that the learned trial judge instituted was unnecessary because he had made his finding of contempt of court as soon as it arose. There was thus no need for him to have gone further than that. However, the learned trial judge explained his action on the basis that he did not want to be seen to be covering up for himself; rather, he wished to give the appellant “an opportunity to say openly to the Republic the basis of his and Kundiona’s allegations against him.”
It goes without saying that if the Acting Chief Justice is correct that “evidence is already there documented in the form of a report of utterances by the named culprit (Hichilema),” then there would be no need for an enquiry as the State or the court may rely only on the available report.
What is the punishment for people who commit contempt ex facie curiae?
Where the court hears contempt under Section 116 of the Penal Code, the culprit is punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months or imposition of a fine. However, where one is found guilty of contempt under Order 52, the Supreme Court held in the case of Sebastian Saizi Zulu that the punishments referred to in section 116 of the Penal Code do not apply and no particular punishments have been prescribed by Order 52.
The leading case in Zambia on punishment a court can impose on the contemnors who commit contempt ex facie curiae is found in Masiye Motels Ltd, cited earlier, where the court will summarily punish such conduct using its inherent power and wide discretion conferred upon it under Order 52 of the White Book.
The brief facts in the Masiye Motels case are that one Chilekwa, an executive director of Rescue Shoulders Ltd and his lawyer Nsunka Sambo, were facing charges of contempt of court after they allegedly insulted the court following their loss on appeal before the Supreme Court. Chilekwa was facing three charges arising from three contemptuous letters he wrote addressed to the Chief Justice, the Honourable Ernest Sakala after he lost the case in the Supreme Court.
In his letter, Chilekwa alleged nepotism by the Supreme Court bench in reaching its decision, similar to sentiments alleged to have been expressed by Mr. Hakainde Hichilema after he lost the 2016 Presidential Election Petition in the Constitutional Court. In the case under reference, it was reported that after the court received the first letter, it instructed the appellant’s lawyer, Mr. Sambo, to advise his client not to write such letters to the court but, instead of ceasing, the appellant Mr. Chilekwa again wrote to the Supreme Court whose content and language were even more contemptuous than his first letter.
At this point the Supreme Court decided to cite Chilekwa for contempt, so that he would show cause as to why he should not be punished. Before summons were finalised, the court received a third letter referenced, “Pay us our money, maintain integrity, and root out nepotism from the Supreme Court” which was more scathing and in which Chilekwa alleged, “In fact, when handing us the judgment, your own officer of the court, respondent counsel with more than 15 years of legal practice who you interviewed for the High Court judge position said, ‘it is a stupid judgment by the stupid judges.’” Following this, both Sambo and Chilekwa were arraigned by the court to answer charges pursuant to Order 52/1/23 of RSC.
Sambo apologised to the court for having failed it as an officer of the court after it directed him to deal with his client while Chilekwa did not budge but continued to attack the court, accusing the judges of delivering judgments only in favour of their relatives while stating that other judges were corrupt.
In passing judgment, the Supreme Court sentenced the two to three years in prison each, suspended for one year, after finding them guilty of grave contempt of court. The court found that Chilekwa and his lawyer were attacking the integrity of the court. It held that to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against the bench could not be condoned as it was intended to scandalise the court, and thus found it highly contemptuous.
This Masiye Motels case, does indeed demonstrate what his Lordship the Acting Chief Justice, Marvin Mwanamwamba said in his recent letter, “the Supreme Court does not tolerate attacks and insults on it.”
The question, though is, does the failure by the Constitutional Court to cite Mr. Hichilema, imply the Constitutional Court does in fact tolerate attacks and insults on it? How does the Constitutional Court interpret the words uttered by Mr. Hichilema, stating that three honourable judges of that court are “corrupt, three musketeers that are agents of evil who got 30 pieces of silver to throw out a petition before they could hear it?” Can it be said that the words “shameful that female judges are getting corrupt to an extent of almost setting the country ablaze just over money, nepotism and unprofessionalism, controlled by Republican President”? Do these words constitute contempt of scandalising the court and the judges individually, and if so, what should Mr. Hichilema do to fight possible contempt proceedings?
What should the public make of the words by the Acting Chief Justice, Mwanamwamba when he wrote, “In this particular case, it was the Constitutional Court that was attacked. They are aware of the attacks and insults. But for unexplained reasons, they did not charge the culprit (Hakainde Hichilema) with contempt”? What are these unexplained reasons?
Should Mr. Hichilema not be given an opportunity which he and his supporters have been waiting for to prove the allegations that the Judges are corrupt and in the pockets of President Lungu? Is the use of young people to pour more scorn on the courts and judges by terming them as “morally bankrupt and corrupt” the best way to fight these allegations of contempt? My humble view is that those are normally faced with such situations are better off humbling themselves, publicly make amends with the courts less they send out a perception that they are untouchable, no matter what they do? I do not wish to see a day when Mr. Hichilema may be arraigned but the continued attacks on the courts by his members may just be a catalyst for the court to act and put this impunity to an end.
Conclusion
In Zambia, a complaint of any criminal offence, including contempt, can be made by any citizen of Zambia, as did the complainant in the instant case, Mr. Henry Chilombo of Lufwanyama. The decision to prosecute the contempt ex facie curiae lies with the State through office of the DPP or the aggrieved parties with consent from DPP. On its own motion, the Court may initiate contempt proceedings for contempt committed in the face of the court although precedent has extended this practice to contempt committed outside the face of the court.
There is indeed no time limit under which criminal contempt proceedings can be brought under Zambian laws. The Supreme Court has indeed demonstrated that it does not tolerate attacks or insults on it while fair criticisms of the decisions of the court or its conduct are permitted by law. With the United Party for National Development, or at least, its National Youth Chairman maintaining the position that it stands by Mr. Hichilema’s allegations of corruption on the part of the judges of the Constitutional Court, one has to stand and watch from the terraces as to how this perception will be corrected.
(Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation, association or institution the author may be affiliated to and neither do they represent the views of this media but those of the author. The article does not seek to provide legal advice to anyone but those wishing to get such legal advice can contact institutions such as Law Association of Zambia).
This is a case whose time for limelight has already passed and its driven by the fragile ego of the judges. Let’s instead hear more weighty and important cases about murderers ,fraudsters ,GRZ thieves and corruption cartels.
Hichilema must take time to reflect. Way he wishes others bad and evil is same way they also will wish him bad. Sincerely, he must take the advice from this article seriously. Let him also tame the anger in his supporters. The more they open their mouths to the public, the more mistakes they are making past insults on judges real
First step towards forgetting this case is to sober up and stop issuing more statements. Second is to acknowledge calling judges corrupt was very wrong. People are daily being cited for contempt for cases that were already closed and HH must count himself luck to be treated as sacred cow. Finally, we all have sinned and need forgiveness but HH behaviour and his supporters of responding daily to these issues and name calling others doesnt appear to make him like he has respect for judges or other people.
Zambians must learn to truly forgive one another and put past mistakes behind them. Thats only way this country will develop. Look at countries like US, politicians make terrible mistakes against each other but when have u ever heard America surrendering its past leader to Hague or other places for prosecution?
This forgiveness must start with Lungu, HH and others showing we can move this country forward. The opposition in thks country appear more disgruntled and bitter while the ruling party has no direction. We need sober opposition leaders who can take criticism than just go on calling their friends thieves or criminals even when no one is guilty. HH seem to be tasting his own medicines with this case.
Hope HH escapes this net this time around. That statement by Liswaniso just made things more worse for HH and UPND. HH advisors must tell them to stop answering back, the more u call others criminals and accuse them, they get energised to act against you.
Problem is HH doesnt see things beyond himself. He is as self centred as PF politicians. So instead of focusing on getting best advice from this nice piece, he will be all over throwing mud on this man using his watch dogs within the party. HH apologise and move on. Your political carear is on line. Stop using that Liswaniso boy, he’s no brainer at all
Well said my brother. In life we all need forgiveness. Even God does not keep thing we do in our past for the Bible says in Psalm 130 versus 3 and 4:
3 If you, Lord, kept a record of sins,
Lord, who could stand?
4 But with you there is forgiveness,
so that we can, with reverence, serve you.
So the Judges must just forgive HH, Mambo and Chifire. What is important is to confess our sins for Psalm 32 verse 5 says:
5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
I encourage Brother HH to come out publicly and confess he was wrong. This will save his political career from getting ruined with this case. Arrogance won’t help anyone.
In our province we say, “munthu akankhala pa bwino, poipa pa itana”. the recent statement by this Liswaniso was made in bad taste on behalf of HH and UPND. Which party that wants to rule Zambia would pride itself in calling Judges as ” morally bankrupt and corrupt”? Does it show the UPND leadership is remorseful or they are continuing on a path to incite members and their youths to disrespect the court? Is it because Judge Chibamba does not want to send a warning signal in protecting the judiciary?
The powers-that-be behind this move are way ahead of UPND and have put the UPND in a very precarious position. I hear Mr. Nkombo is working with them to upset the tables in the UPND leadership. This is not about PF. CHILOMBO has been funded by our party delinquents
What I do not understand is how the acting Chief Justice has time to look at things of the past not even related to him. They are bigger things to follow than HH. Please focus on judicial reforms rather than HH and his talking. If the named judges are not corrupt then let them simply prove it.
All these debates by PF-aligned Briefcase NGOs are aimed at distracting citizens from debating the ills of this Government such as the 30ngwee levy slapped on internet calls. This is a trend under this government: whenever they announce an unpopular policy, they immediately send their NGOs to flood the media with press briefings and articles where they bring about unrelated and irrelevant topics. But because we don’t have a strong opposition party coupled with most of our citizens being gullible, who can’t read between the lines, this government is not held to account
Solution to all this is for HH and his youths to tame their anger. That statement by Bo Liswaniso has added salt to the scar that was healing. Surely, how do our leaders allow him to issue such a statement against Judges.
On this article, I think wisdom just demands that one picks something from it and leave out what he doesn’t like. Timely advice really.
The Problems Is Bigger Than Ngos, These Ngos Are Divided. We Have Pf Aligned Ngos And Upnd Aligned Ngos. Worse, Hh And His Supporters Ain’t Only Weak But Lack Direction. No One Is Inspired By The Current Opposition We Have. It Makes Pf Look More Angelic And The Pf Machinery Knows How To Do Its Work. Now They Are Putting Hh On His Toes Because They Know Its Illiterate Youth Leaders Don’t Mind Being Used To Busha Mulilo. Hh Needs To Go On Retreat In Mfuwe And Come Back To The Real World Of Politics
Do not use the Trump methodology of distraction when there is something of material to address. Write exhaustively about the moral bankruptcy of deciding to charge the population, nay, the electorate extra-legislative taxes that have no meaning to the extent that you fail to even apply an appropriate term to them. Let’s stick with the current issue of championing Internet calls. Those contempt things are kind of cold now… awe shuwa. Neo cinikanga mwe…
A leader must learn to choose their words carefully!
Sadists won’t let you off the hook!
Just when we thought we can do away with the past and have peace through the Dialogue Process and to focus our attention on the failing economy, here we go again with more of the same! No chill pa Zed. Maybe it’s time to write off this country and move on. Better to be a foreigner in another land with the peace of mind than to be in your home country where there is no rest from political strife!
I SAID IT, THE ONLY WAY FOR HICHILEMA TO COME TO DIALOGUE TABLE IS TO REMIND HIM OF THE CRIMINAL MATTER HANGING ON HIS HEAD. THIS WON’T GO AWAY AS LONG AS HICHILEMA IS PLAYING IT BITTER. UPND AND HH DAILY LONGS FOR STATE POWER TO CAGE EDGAR AND EVERYONE IN THIS GOVT, INCLUDING ITS SUPPORTERS BUT THEY DONT FEEL NICE BEING REMINDED OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL ACTS. YOU CAN’T GO ON CALLING PEOPLE CRIMINALS WHEN U ALSO HAVE CRIMINAL TAG ON YOU.
if you want to hide something from a black man,simply hide it in a book or a long article like this one.
People, especially those that aspire for public office must learn to control their temper. The manner in which Hichilema and his supporters reacted to the election results wasn’t good. Those of us who lost our relatives in Southern Province in UPND instigated violence are still hurt, we no longer look at Tongas as we used to. Therefore, to support the UPND is to endorse their murder. I look forward to seeing Hichilema answer for that one day, I pray that it comes soon
Question: “How and when should we overlook an offense (Proverbs 19:11)?”
Answer: Proverbs 19:11 teaches, “A person’s wisdom yields patience; / it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense.” To “overlook” an offense is to take no notice of wrongs done against oneself, to refuse to retaliate or seek revenge, to let affronts go, or, in a word, to forgive for the sake of PEACE!
First go get beaten and killed by bitter UPND cadres, forgive and forget, then I will hear you
We have three groups in Zambia! Two thirds of Zambia’s population is women and children! A small fraction of the remainder is MMD-PF and UPND! Men are in the forefront of violence! Both political camps have killed, assaulted, insulted the Judiciary, etc in the name of their parties! If this tit for tat, eye for an eye attitude between political players is allowed to take root, the whole nation will be blinded by hatred! Dialogue is the only way out of this imbroglio that has engulfed the nation!
HH was slanderous, libellous and contemptous. He keeps pushing his party to show disdain and contempt against Judges, and the judges have folded their arms? What scares them most about HH?His money? Little boys like Liswaniso should surely say the party stands by HH that judges are morally bankrupt and corrupt? Isn’t this Hakainde speaking through him. If Dialogue was only way to address matters, our prisons will have been empty but they are full of poor prisoners while rich persons like HH remains untouchable. Gilbert must withdraw his remarks which HH gave him to give.
Vengeance can not be justified with legal jargon, the article is just too lengthy! Zambia needs real constitutional judges and not make-do substitutes! The legal system is a disappointment I wonder what thread of confidence the general public still have in the legal system
You have nailed it and spot on. Very educative indeed but these contempt of Court cases are treated on the cases by case basis, my thought
HH was correct and is still correct. If a judge is corrupt, what do you suppose HH was supposed to say? Let them sue him as individuals and be questioned as witnesses to the lawsuit. You will see what will come out and on that day, you will never respect any judge in Zambia. Let them not hide in the robes. That’s how cases of this sort are supposed to be adjudicated. If he said so in the court while the judges were on the bench, that would carry water. This was after they determined a case without hearing it. That is a corrupt system and anyone with eyes can see where HH was coming from. Most corrupt systems are corrupt because the President, the court system, and the police are corrupt. Lungu is corrupt because he knows the police and courts stink like him, skank perfume.
Spot on Kalos2020 I could not add anymore
The political carear of HH is on the line with this case. Sooner as he makes peace with everyone, tame the tongue of his supporters and show he is ready for leadership and criticism the better. Everyone who criticises HH is treated as an enemy of UPND. That’s not wise. Starting with UPND, this who issue of name calling other leaders in PF criminals, even when no one has been found guilty is dangerous. Look at it now, people are also saying HH is criminal even when he has not been found guilty. We can do much as opposition by providing constructive voice instead of bitterness every day
Malarkey, Malabishi!
The way you put your energy in trying to get those in opposition persecuted over clumsy and trumped up issues, I wish you brought the same energy to making Lungu and his minions accountable to the people. You pursue s!lly things while your paid masters who yield real power and influence over the destiny of this country r@pe the economy and loot its resources unchecked.
Contempt of court after the case was concluded, who said you have to go cry in the corner when these corrupt agents of Lungu have just committed injustice to you by throwing out a case in dubious circumstances?
If they are that thin skinned, let them sue in their individual capacity for defamation. They were singled out as individuals not as a court. How shallow can a country stoop!
It is amazing to read the bloggers here justifying contempt against Concourt by HH and Liswaniso. Some are even linking this to the 30 ngwee Internet tariff while others are complaining that the article is too long. To me, this is symptomatic of what has gone wrong with Zambians: you have people with no moral bearings justifying HH and Lisiswaniso’s wayward behaviour; some see a logical connection between a contempt case and the infamous Internet tariffs; and others find such a lucidly and intelligently written legal exegesis by Alick Mwanza as too long and boring. Cry my beloved country!
We know who wrote this Article. It was written by Lungu’s Aide for Legal hiding behind this guy. Doubt if this guy has this kind of intelligence. He is one of thkse strategists in the PF and we shall come after him.
Sound piece of advice. But leaders don’t need to shift blame on others. HH must just take responsibility for the attacks and insults on Constitutional Court. Liswaniso making situation worser for HH. Silence is golden.
By Mweemba Habazoka
The United Party for National Development (UPND) was formed in December 1998. The Party turns 20 years old in December 2018. Today its desperation has reached an all-time high because time is running out for them to either deliver the country or their soul. The patience of their 20-year-old-financiers have continued to wear thin and thin by the failure of the party to deliver as per their promise despite the financiers’ unwavering financial commitments that resulted in its leaders’ immense wealth which they stand to lose as per deal they signed almost 22 years ago in the run up to infamous privatisation exercise in Zambia. The UPND is fixed between the rock and the hard place as on one hand, Zambians have refused to toll their line while on the other, UPND’s top…
Silence is golden indeed. HH has my support and vote but he better begin paying more than usual attention to detail. He is not sorrounded by strategists. His media team is horrible and only know how to slander people instead of pacifying things. You can’t play Sata politics in 2018. Even the PF new strategy utilises Sata strategy no more. They get intelligent Brian’s, put them ahead to strategise. This Sunday Chanda, Mundubile and the guy at State House are miles ahead in planning and execution
this article are works of the PF legal committee. we the author sits on that committee
ECL is quite a sharp leader, he has pulled the best brains to send shivers into HH bone marrow. But HH always has a way of getting out, he will run to the international community to cry he is being persecuted for calling judges corrupt. Britain and America will scare ECL by telling him they are withdrawing aid. This game is interesting. HH has support of foreigners and ECL has support of Zambians. That’s reason why HH can’t rule Zambia. He plays politics on international gala.
THIS ADVICE WILL FALL ON THE DEAF EARS OF HH AND HIS COHORTS.
MEANWHILE ZAMBIA IS WATCHING AND TAKING NOTE
Hakainde does not take advice. Money has beclouded his vision. He seeks to shut up those who advise him. Loves praise singers. Anyway, this is more money in pockets of UPND lawyers. Keep reaping guys
HH must listen more and do self reflection. How come PF attract best brains to analyse these issues while he keeps in his ranks and file people who are dull to do analysis and media? And is there anything he can learn from these intelligently written articles or he will continue to just play dumb?
Like Justice Marvin Mwanamwambwa, Isaac Mwanza has made a fundamental flaw on evidence. None of the constitutional court judges has been availed evidence of HH maligning the judges. All the judges have is hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in criminal liability. It will be shocking if the judges of the constitutional court were to move on their own motion, motivated by current debate, to cite HH for contempt. Evidence in criminal prosecutions must be presented to court in a prescribed manner otherwise, it is rendered worthless. It will be shocking if judges are moved by hearsay. As Isaac has rightly stated, ordinarily, judges ought not be police, prosecutors, judges and jury in their won case. This approach pollutes the stream of justice and thereby defeats justice itself.
Spot on Ze Biggy. I just love this beauitful analysis also by Isaac despite its minor flows. They guy can be thorough; he looks into the law lenses with care. Zambia needs people like him. LAZ can do better.
Marvin Mwanamwamba is also entitled to his opinion but he has already found HH guilty. He needs to be reported to JCC.
HH on the other hand must take this advice seriously. His own boys are issuing careless statements that ain’t quenching the fire. Those statements will become a basis for Judges to summon HH and send message to the public that it won’t tolerate insults anymore. Let HH, PF, and these boys sit down and resolve differences
Thanks for the compliment SAMBO. Overall, I think that Concourt justices have so far acted with dignity and decorum befitting judges on this issue of contempt. They have excersized maximum judicial restraint and simply let bye-gones be by-gones. Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. I only hope that they continue at rate. The petition really messed their standing in the public eye. If they do, they may win back the support of the masses. They should religiously continue upholding the principle of judicial restraint, regardless pressure from the public and the Supreme Court. The Constitution is on their side so far…..
As regard to the case where Justice Mwanamwambwa copied the letter to the DPP, I think is is a serious contravention of the constitution. Such an act can be said to be court interferrence with the independence of the DPP. According to the constitution, the DPP must not be influenced by anybody to prosecute anyone. Not even a judge of any court must do so. By trying to influence the DPP to take action against HH, justice Mwanamwambwa breached the constitution of Zambia. More so when Justice Mwanamwambwa called HH as a culprit. A culprit is proven criminal. So, how can HH recieve justice if already proven guilty by the Supreme Court before any trial? Perhaps, this could probably a good case for the Judicial Complaints Commission.
A failure to obey a lawful court order is ALSO contempt. What has PF done with the Ministers who have refused to pay back money they ‘stole’ from GRZ? What has happened to the guy who leaked a list of Judges and the payments they had received? Is it not insulting to those judges? Sunday Chanda disrespects a magistrate, nothing happens! Sh^thole country indeed!
The Judges and President Lungu have been so tolerant over these accusations levelled by them from Mr. Hichilema and its members. The Judges have been patient enough and so has the President. But this patience is being abused by the UPND as seen from recent statement by Mr. Liswaniso. Who accuses judges and the court of being morally bankrupt and corrupt? Nepotistic and love of money? Why does Mr. Hichilema feel he is so above the law while others are being punished for same offence? What makes the Court grow such cold feet to cite Mr. Hichilema and Liswaniso for contempt? Is the Court afraid of Keith Mweemba that they pay deaf ear to what is going on? Ain’t they just inviting more scorn on themselves?
In our province we say, “munthu akankhala pa bwino, poipa pa itana”. the recent statement by this Liswaniso was made in bad taste on behalf of HH and UPND. Which party that wants to rule Zambia would pride itself in calling Judges as ” morally bankrupt and corrupt”? Does it show the UPND leadership is remorseful or they are continuing on a path to incite members and their youths to disrespect the court? Is it because Judge Chibamba does not want to send a warning signal in protecting the judiciary?
This case was last October why make noise now? Why not that time? Almost a year has passed. Don’t we have more important issues to concentrate on?
Mulandu suola. Wanyeka Munzi!!!!
So as long as one is powerful HH, he or she can commit a criminal offence and after a year or two claim it can not be handled?
Why is HH losing public sympathy at such a faster rate? He has not invested in building teams that gets his image right way Lungu has. HH has invested in having bitter people like Pondamali, Liswaniso and Hamasaka spread bitterness instead of embracing opposers. You reap what u sow
Zambia has a big problem today! Too many educated Zambians and many unresolved problems! Zambia today has too many Economists but our Economy continues to nose dive! We have many Zambian Engineers and yet we have to ask foreign Engineers to do the work because our leaders have no faith in their own. We have many doctors and yet everyone wants to go to India! We have many educated Lawyers and yet our constitution remains a going concern requiring Amendment after amendment! At Independence, we had leaders with humble education backgrounds and yet their performance was better than that of our leaders today who are very educated – both ruling and opposition! The difference is our educated people today only have head knowledge but no WISDOM! Wisdom is not Vindictive! What Dialogue were people…
What Dialogue were people talking about? You need Wisdom to have successful Dialogue process! Sadly both ECL and HH are not showing leadership! Don’t forget that when Elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers! When politicians engage in tit for tat, it is the Economy that suffers! Leaders need to have BIG HEARTS! When you call for National Dialogue and Reconciliation, the focus should be Progress! If we continue dwelling in the past, we shall all remain backward! Since Easterners are in the driving seat, you must take the lead in promoting peace in this country! The Cho Chise kind of existence is dangerous!
Mark my words- one day he will have his laugh. This is just a cycle, if he is patient and resolute, he will win an election.
Zambia needs political hygiene.Corruption is in Zambia .Thus why 10 years from now the Chinese will saturate ,and Zambians will be homeless.
HH can’t fool anyone at this point. The man will humble himself when a matter affects him but he always call for others to face trial. Today, he may want to fool ECL by speaking dialogue but deep down, the man won’t let Lungu enjoy is time peacefully after he leaves office, and if by any chance he takes over office. He is vindictive, angry. Be forewarned
Those of us who had worked with HH in the party know him best, he is eager to make Lungu pay one day but a leader should not have such a heart of a stone. These calls for HH to face contempt will soften his heart to dialogue but HH will hit Edgar one day
n any case corruption in international circles is “perception”. The guys who do the Corruption Index for Zambia only stand outside intercontinental hotel at night to observe how many cars move with one light on in front and at the back and it is very easy to form a “perception” or “opinion” that the Zambia Traffic Police is corrupt.
Equally, when someone says Judges are corrupt, it means they have formed a “perception”, from the Judges behaviour and attitude that they are corrupt. This should be HH’s defense on the matter. It does not mean Judges are corrupt.
If someone says PF ministers are corrupt, it is the “perception” formed by seeing ministers behaviour and attitude. It does not mean that for sure, they are corrupt.