
THE Lusaka High Court has dismissed Lusaka lawyer Kelvin Hang’andu’s petition over the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to withdraw an appeal involving former Republican president Frederick Chiluba.
High Court Judge Gregory Phiri said in his ruling that Mr Hang’andu’s petition was improperly taken to court and that its cause was speculative in nature, form and bore an unclear cause of action.
Mr Justice Phiri said the petitioner’s interest was too remote to sustain a challenge under Article 28 of the Constitution of Zambia.
Mr Hang’andu had petitioned the High Court over DPP Chalwe Mchenga’s withdrawal of the notice of appeal filed by dissolved Taskforce prosecutor, Mutembo Nchito against the acquittal of Dr Chiluba.
He said although the DPP had the authority to stop the appeal against Dr Chiluba’s acquittal, he should have consulted the attorney general before doing so.
“As regards the petitioner’s claim that this petition discloses a cause of action, in my view of my finding, the petition’s interest is too remote to sustain a challenge under Article 28, it will be purely academic to exhaustively discuss this claim and that it is improperly before this court and must be dismissed,” he said.
The judge wondered what facts the petitioner intended to prove in order to attach liabilities to the attorney general when seven of his nine proposed witnesses, including the AG were from the respondent’s side.
He said, according to Mr Hang’andu’s list of witnesses filed before the court, only two proposed witnesses were from outside the respondent’s realm like reporters from The Post newspapers George Chellah and Kennedy Phiri from Muvi TV.
Mr Justice Phiri wondered how the AG, who had been sued, could be the petitioner’s key witness, saying this clearly showed that the petitioner’s cause was speculative in nature.
Solicitor General Abyudi Shonga had submitted that the petitioner had failed to exhibit any proof that he had locus in this matter and that he also failed to show that the petitioner’s rights had been personally affected.
Mr Shonga said the petitioner also failed to show any cause of action he was attempting to disclose and therefore the liability, which he hoped to be attached to the respondents, could neither be seen nor identified.
But Mr Hang’andu, in response to Mr Shonga’s submissions, had argued that he had interest in the criminal trial and that he had shown the discontinuance of the said appeal filed by State prosecutor affected him as a citizen of Zambia.
The petitioner had also contended that when the State or prosecutor filed a criminal prosecution, he had no liberty to discontinue it at his will for it was not only his concern but that of every citizen because crimes were an injury against public welfare.
[Times of Zambia]