06/02/2023
MILINGO LUNGU vs ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL
By New Dawn Reporter
And here is the verbatim of what transpired in Court on the last sitting of the 31st January, 2023, in a matter in which, former Konkola Copper Mines Provisional Liquidator Milingo Lungu is challenging his rearrest by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) breaching the immunity he enjoys.
Court: Can we have appearances, please?
Jonas Zimba: If it may please you may ladies and my lords. I have been permitted to place State Counsel, Sakwiba Sikota S.C of Central Chambers on record, and I am J. Zimba of Messrs, Makebi Zulu Advocates appearing for the petitioner. Also included on the record will be Mr. M. Zulu for the petitioner. Most obliged.
Robert Simeza: For the 1st respondent, R. M Simeza appearing with Mr. Joe Simachela, Chief State Advocate, N. Mwiya, principle State Advocate both from the Attorney General’s chambers and I also have Mr. M Nkunika from Simenza Sangwa and Associates, most obliged.
Court: This matter is coming up for trial, are the parries ready to proceed? My apologies, 2nd Respondent? There is no 2nd respondent president? In that case are the parties ready to proceed?
Makebi Zulu: Most obliged. My ladies and My lords, we were of the considered view that there being contempt proceedings on record, the said proceedings would take precedence before we can proceed to trial as has been the case in all matters where contempt proceedings are at issue. We also have on record two applications, one to amend the proceedings and another filed by our colleagues to dismiss the petition. We thus seek the guidance of the court as to how we can proceed to address those matters in their rightful order, I am much obliged.
Jonas Zimba: Just to add and in furtherance of the submissions as regards an instance where there are contempt proceedings before court, I do recall this would not be the first time Court would be faced with such an instance, as the Court did consider such an instance in the case of Mutembo Nchito S.C versus Attorney General, 29/2016 wherein an application for contempt proceedings against one Mr. Chanoda Ngwira were issued during the subsistence of the main matter, and the court determined those proceedings before going into the main matter, and to add context, the contempt proceedings were determined in about 2019 and the main matter was determined in about 2020 and the judgement was delivered on the 17th of October, 2020. My ladies and my lords, your guidance will be highly appreciated. Most obliged.
Court: Is there anything from Mr. Simeza?
Simeza S.C: My ladies and my lords, perhaps starting from the question raised by the Court, are the parties ready for trial? From the 1st respondent’s position, yes, we are ready for trial. My colleagues have raised the issue relating to the pending applications, the first being the committal proceedings against the DPP and it has been suggested that where there are contempt proceedings, those proceedings out to take precedence over the main matter. Our reaction to that is that we are not aware of any rule in the Constitutional Court rules or indeed in the Act or perhaps even in the rules of the Supreme Court which are applicable in this court which says committal proceedings out to take precedence. The case of Mutembo Nchito have been cited at authority for the proposition. We must concede that we have not had the opportunity to read that decision. Therefore, we are not able to comment on the circumstances that the court took into account in proceedings in the manner they did. Whether the contempt proceedings had a direct bearing on the issue before the court or not, is a matter which I believe may have been a consideration. Yes, there is an application we have made to dismiss the petition. We are happy to argue that application, which we believe is pretty straightfiward but in our view should not be the basis upon which this matter should be adjourned this morning. The application to amend, made by the petitioner, we are not aware of it, we have not been served, so, we are unable to comment on that application. Most obliged.
Court: Mr. Zulu, do you wish to say anything?
Makebi Zulu: Yes, my ladies and my lords, it appears to us that so far, the applications before you, the applications to dismiss the petition, the application for amendment or the petition as well as the contempt proceedings would not render it appropriate to commence trial. State Counsel alluded to their application to dismiss the petition, it was only filed yesterday although it suggested that it is straightforward, it is procedural that we out to respond to it and an application for amendment having been filed yesterday, we are certain that by the time state counsel returns to his chambers, service would have been affected, hence giving them an opportunity to respond as well. The amendment goes to the very root of the matter or the proposed amendment goes to the very root of the matter in view of the prevailing circumstance so that the petition before you, is not rendered academic. We, thus pray that this court guides in the order that we deal with the application that are before you, before we can go to the trial of the main matter. Much obliged.
Jonas Zimba: Just briefly in addition, State Counsel Mr. Simeza, did ask as regards the circumstances surrounding the contempt application before the court, and the Court will note that the contempt application before this court speaks to the contempt that goes to the root of these proceedings and as such these proceedings cannot proceed without the issue of contempt being addressed. My ladies and my, lords, a litigant appearing before this court cannot be quick to commit contempt slow to deal with it and be quick to be heard in a main matter. As regards the readiness to proceed with the motion indicated by the State Counsel, the motion to dismiss the petition in its current form is not ready for hearing. The court will note, once the motion is filed the court schedules that motion by giving direction to the parties and subsequently directions for filling in the record of motion. There are no such directions before this court and there is no record of motion before this court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the motion to dismiss the petition in State Counsel’s word is straightforward is ready for hearing. I must also add that, with the law the words straightforward does not apply because the law deal with either meting out justice or ensuring that the playing filed is leveled. I submit that this matter is not one that can proceed today as there is likelihood of prejudice on the petitioner given the circumstance that surrounding the matter today, we are therefore, not ready to proceed. Most obliged.
Court: We will stand down the matter for 15minutes.
Matter stood down.
Matter resumes:
Justice Prof. Munalula: We rose to consider the guidance asked for in relation to the issues which have been raised this morning and we took a little longer than we had thought because the court is not of one mind. I shall, therefore, intimate my own views because I am not in agreement with the guidance that the rest of the Court is going to give. I will start with that, and then my brother, Mr. Justice Chisunka will give the directions on the part of the remaining judges who are in the majority.
My position is as follows, I will not stand down the hearing of the main matter, on the basis of the application which have been made in the eleventh hour, I am not swayed by the reference to the contempt proceedings as in my view, those matters can be delt with at any time. The application served to delay the determination of the question which has been pending before this court for close to a year while this court was back and forth on procedural questions, this is not how a constitutional Court is supposed to function by not acting timely to dispose of important questions before it. This Court fails to do its work and it is my hope that this is not the way this court is going to continue to operate. I shall now ask my brother, Justice Chisunka to give directions on the part of the Court.
Justice Chisunka: Before we rose, the parties raised three issues, once relating to the contempt issue, the suggestion that it be heard first and two an application to dismiss the case and three the matter relating to the application to amend the proceedings. We rule as follows, on the contempt issue, as you are all aware, as parties to this case, the motion for contempt is being scheduled, and therefore, not ready for hearing. Two, on the motion to dismiss this must be scheduled before it can be heard.
We therefore, give the following directions, one, the petitioner to respond by filing affidavits and skeleton arguments by 3rd February, 2023, two, the first respondent to file affidavits in reply to any with the record of motion by 7th February, 2023. Three, the motion will be heard on the 9th February, 2023 at 9 hours.
Ad regards the application to amend, we give the following directions, the petitioner to serve the respondent, today. Two, the respondent to file the affidavit in position plus skeleton arguments by 3rd February, 2023. Three, the petitioner to file an affidavit in reply as well as the record of motion by 7th February, 2023, the motion will be heard by 7th February, 2023 at 9 hours.
We make no orders, to costs.
Lawyers from both parties: Most obliged
Court: Will now adjourn.
Jonas Zimba: Before the court could adjourn, I seek clarification, I have looked at the notice of motion to dismiss the petition fore being an academic exercise and I note that there is no affidavit accompanying the same. May the court guide as to whether there should be an affidavit on the part of the first respondent that have made that application?
Court: State Counsel?
Simeza S.C: The rules don’t provide for the filing of an affidavit, they simply provide for the filing of the summons or motions, so an affidavit is not mandatory requirement.
Court: Do you wish to say something Mr. Zimba before the Court responds?
Makebi Zulu: My lady if the applicants are of the opinion that they don’t need an affidavit then we are constrained, we shall make the necessary applications, most obliged.
Court: Lady Justice Sitali will respond to that.
Justice Sitali: Our guidance essentially counsel, is that you have been served or you will be served and we expect that you will respond as you consider appropriate based in the process that will be served before you.
Counsels, Most obliged.
Court: the court is now adjourned.
Credit: The New Dawn Newspaper