Defense Counsel in the case of Human Trafficking involving a Namibian national says the case of human trafficking does not exist.
This is in a matter where a Namibian national Raymond Basinka Matiti 61 and Likando Likando 27 are facing charges of Human Trafficking.
Police in Nangweshi arrested Matiti and Likando Likando after they allegedly attempted to traffic four people to Namibia via Sesheke.
Basinka allegedly bundled four children in his Toyota Hilux registration number N50 KM with the intention of making them farm laborers.
The recovered children include Memory Kailu 9, Mushe Likando 10, Ndala Sinabu 15 and a Nakushowa Ngodo 27 all of Sinungu village.
And before Magistrate Immanuel Mukoma in Senanga, Matiti said he saw nothing wrong in recruiting farm laborers from Zambia to Namibia because his country and Zambia were both members of the Southern Africa Development Community, SADC.
Defense Counsel Osborne Ngoma, who is also Assistant Senior Legal Aid Counsel at the Legal Aid Board in Mongu, said the case of Human Trafficking was inexistent.
Ngoma said the charge of Human Trafficking on Matiti and Likando contradicted what was contained in Cap 87 section 143 read together with Act 15 of 2005 of the Laws of Zambia.
Ngoma said Human Trafficking did not appear anywhere in the Act and that no one was even able to give its definition.
He said going by the facts that the prosecution have presented before the court the charge of Human Trafficking was misconceived and that the indictment represented nothing but bar gal law.
Counsel Ngoma added that in an event that the court adopts Cap 87, section 143 as read with Act 15 of 2005; still it would be unsafe to convict the two accused persons as the section emphasized the aspect of selling.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Matiti and Likando were selling humans.
Ngoma said the parents to the allegedly rescued children were the ones to be cited for an offence for accepting and approving that their children be taken abroad.
And on count two where Matiti was charged with Concealing Information contrary to section 22 (1) as read with Section E (iv) of the second schedule and Section 30 (1) chapter 123 as amended by Act number 25 of 1997 of the Immigration and Deportation Act of the Laws of Zambia, Ngoma said it would be unsafe for the court to convict his clients as no Immigration Officers were brought to testify.
Matiti declared at Katimamulilo Border Post in Sesheke that he was going to Sioma to visit but was found in Sinungu area in Senanga district.
And Likando Likando was on the second count charged with failing to appear before an Immigration Officer.
Counsel Ngoma who quoted a number of recorded cases in the Zambia Law Reports said the prosecution had failed to prove anything and that Matiti and Likando should be acquitted.
And Matiti has said he came to recruit laborers in Zambia because he liked the hard work Zambians put in. He added that Namibia and Zambia were like one country because they all belonged to SADC.
And when asked whether it was lawful for him to employ children, Matiti said he accepted to go with the two juveniles not as workers but simply as dependents.
But this was contrary to earlier testimony were Mushe Likando 10, told the court that Matiti would employ him as herds boy. Matiti’s submission equally differed with Memory Kailu’s testimony earlier that she was to be employed as house servant.
And when asked how he could have crossed the boarder and employed children who had no travel documents or work permits, Matiti said his intention was to go and get boarder passes for them at Katimamulilo, and later organize for their work permits.
He admitted having recruited Nakushuwa Ngondo and Sinabu Ndala as herds’ boys.
On 1st October 2009 Senanga Magistrates court did put Matiti and Likando on their defense for Human Trafficking.
Magistrate Mukoma said based on the testimony from the six witnesses that were called by the state, a prima-facie case had been established thereby putting the accused on their defense according to Cap 207 of the Criminal Procedure Cord.
The court adjourned to 5th November 2009 for mention and 19th November 2009 as Judgment day.
Once convicted, the accused would be liable to a jail sentence of not less than 20 years.
ZANIS
Learned counsel? Dont use law education to suppress those defenceless villagers. The Legal Aid was infact supposed to be prosecuting this case. God have mercy.
This counsel must have his brain checked. There two different scenarios here.The intention to traffic the four persons and making them farm labourers. Its absolutely to force people in this error to become farm labourer without reaching an agreement. Those 3 children are quite young and international labour laws do not condone that. Both chaps must remain inside for human traffiking. Actually thats were they belong.
Ba defense counsel nabena chikopo bad kind ka?
lawyers and morals, what a shame
He is arguing about the deficiency in Zambian laws, if he is right. If the law doesn’t mention human trafficking, how can you charge people with that crime? Social justice is different, we would lynch the evil bastards. How can we allow children to be used like this? the same goes for those people in our towns who employ children to clean and cook for them. some practices we have are just disgusting. Unfortunately our weak laws have to be used in this case. calls for a review of our laws in parliament.
Sometimes Law lacks common sense!
Defense Counsel, you will believe human trafficking exists once one of your children is being trafficked. Just get a life man.
No matter how bad lawyers are, and there are some out there, one day we shall all need a lawyer. Ask KK and FTJ.
One of the children bundled into the car was 27yrs old?????
The recovered children include Memory Kailu 9, Mushe Likando 10, Ndala Sinabu 15 and a Nakushowa Ngodo 27 all of Sinungu village.
Are all these children. No wonder he said there’s no human trafficking. LOL.
Anyway, please protect our children. The 27yr old adult can go and work at the farm.
Is defence counsel aware that there is a new anti human trafficking act 2008 whose definition, particularly for children, is not limited to selling??? Secondly, what morality is there in a man of his standing defending such criminality? Ala limo nangu indalama shalilowa tuleibwela mo!
immorality is what we can to this lawyer…
It’s not how the law is written but how it is interpreted and in this case defence counsel has failed.