
LUSAKA lawyer Patrick Mvunga yesterday argued that Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Act should be removed because it gives unrestrained power to the court to convict an accused person who has chosen to remain silent in a corruption case.
Maintaining his position that the section was unconstitutional, Professor Mvunga said the decision to amend it was long overdue and the country must seek solace in the Penal Code which had not been severed from the statutes.
In a statement released in Lusaka yesterday, Prof Mvunga, who chaired the 1990 constitutional review commission, said the wording in the Act made the accused person guilty unless he gave a satisfactory explanation to the court.
He said the law was against the general values of delivering fair justice where people were found guilty for them to explain their side of the story.
Prof Mvunga said he objected to the provision because it required the accused to give an explanation on oath and if the accused person remained silent, he would have failed to give the satisfactory explanation.
“In the instance of keeping silent, the effect of the provision is for the court to find the person guilty. This is contrary to Article (18) 7 of the Constitution which states that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence at his trial,” he said.
Prof Mvunga contested that his decision was consistent with the ruling by High Court Judge Dennis Chirwa in a corruption case in 1984 in which he ruled that a person could not be compelled to give evidence on oath if he elected to make an unsworn statement.
Judge Chirwa ruled that an accused person had the choice of remaining silent or saying something and if he chose to say something, he did so on oath or say something by way of an unsworn statement.
[pullquote]“In the instance of keeping silent, the effect of the provision is for the court to find the person guilty. This is contrary to Article (18) 7 of the Constitution which states that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence at his trial,” he said.[/pullquote]
He said to argue its case, the State had stated that article 53 (1) which was now ACC Act (37) was in direct conflict with the Constitution.
Prof Mvunga said Judge Chirwa described the Act as null and void and should be severed from the Act.
This is in a matter involving Thomas Mumba versus the People in the 1984 case when the judge ruled that an accused person should not be compelled to give evidence on oath if he elects to make an unsworn statement.
“This is why I take the position that Section 99 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 on the offence of abuse of authority of office as a better formulation and that in fact, this offence has not been abolished,” Prof Mvunga said.
The Government’s position is that the State should not find innocent people guilty but the prosecution should provide evidence indicating that the accused is guilty as provided for in the Penal Code section 99.
[Times of Zambia]