Maravi

LAZ finds Chiluba’s request strange

LAZ finds Chiluba’s request strange
Written by Patson Chilemba and Chibaula Silwamba
Friday, September 04, 2009 5:12:30 PM

THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) yesterday said it is strange that Frederick Chiluba is asking the association’s interpretation on constitutional provisions over his immunity, saying he failed to do so when he wrote to Parliament. And Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) has challenged Chiluba to raise specific legal provisions in the Constitution to back his demands for the restoration of his legal immunity.

Commenting on former president Chiluba's reaction to FODEP to stop abusing its position and allow legal experts like LAZ to interpret constitutional provisions on the lifting of his immunity, LAZ president Stephen Lungu wondered why Chiluba should be concerned about what people were saying.

Lungu said Chiluba wrote to Parliament because he realised that Parliament was an appropriate body to adjudicate over the lifting of his immunity.

"And therefore for us, we find it very, very strange. When they were writing that letter, there was no consultation with LAZ, and now they are asking that LAZ should interpret the law," he said.

Lungu said FODEP had come up with a legal position over the matter, and they reserved the right to speak, saying no one could say that they should not speak.

He said LAZ was not an adjudicating body but could express its views on respective issues.

"I notice, I think in one of the articles, I am being told that they [Chiluba and his team] are saying that 'let the lawyers interpret'. But if they have written to Parliament, then I do believe that they believe that Parliament is the right adjudicator, the right body to decide the issue of his immunity and not anybody else," Lungu said. "So, with regard to that, I would say since they have written to Parliament, let them deal with Parliament, and they should not concern themselves with what people are saying. Because you see, everybody has got the right to express themselves."

On the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) withdrawal of the appeal against Chiluba's acquittal by the magistrates’ court, Lungu said LAZ had deliberately remained quiet because most of the issues touched on the law and the matters were still in court.

He said he could not say anything on the matter because the stipulated 14 days had not yet elapsed and was still waiting to study the judgment.

"Because you see, once we read the judgment, we are going to look at the issues that have been raised, and will come up with a position as to what we think based on the evidence that was before the court," Lungu said.

And FODEP legal committee chairperson Charles Chanda challenged Chiluba to use legal provisions in the Constitution in his arguments.

He wondered why Chiluba's spokesperson Emmanuel Mwamba could not point out the perceived mistakes that FODEP made in its interpretation of the Constitution.

"In what sense did they say we are misinterpreting the Constitution? Are they saying those provisions [we quoted] are not there in the Constitution or what? It would have made more sense if Mr Mwamba was being specific on specific issues to enable us respond accordingly. But he has not addressed anything specifically," Chanda argued. "FODEP has got a mandate to comment on the Constitution; it's a constitutional right for any Zambian, for that matter, to express themselves freely. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in our Constitution."

Chanda said Chiluba's demand for his legal immunity against prosecution to be restored was a constitutional issue and everyone was free to comment on it.

"If we have made any misinterpretation, they are free to specifically interpret the constitutional provisions in the manner that is specific; we have raised specific issues, we are not talking about personalities, and so let them also raise specific issues about our interpretation of the Constitution," argued Chanda.

On Wednesday, Mwamba asked FODEP to stop abusing its position and allow legal experts like LAZ to interpret constitutional provisions on the lifting of his immunity.

Mwamba said FODEP's interpretation was wrong and misdirected.

He said Chiluba's immunity was lifted by a motion of Parliament and it could be restored by such a motion.

"And Dr Chiluba feels very strongly that FODEP should remain, FODEP and other organisations should remain focused on their specific areas of competence. In this case, FODEP's area of competence is election monitoring, voter awareness," Mwamba said. "Let LAZ interpret that. Let us allow LAZ to interpret that, or eminent constitutional officers or constitutional lawyers. Let the court interpret that. FODEP is assuming to be constitutional experts when their role and their specific area of competence is well known.

"They are abusing their position in this country. What we hold is that Dr Chiluba's immunity should be restored. That is what we hold. And I don't think that there is any strong ground not to restore [the immunity]," said Mwamba. "We emphasise that the immunity was lifted by a motion of Parliament, and it can be restored by a motion in Parliament."

In an analysis of the legal provisions in relation to Chiluba's application to the Speaker of the National Assembly Amusaa Mwanamwambwa seeking the restoration of his legal immunity from prosecution, Chanda guided Speaker Mwanamwambwa to decline Chiluba's request because the Constitution had no provision for the National Assembly to confer immunity on a former president whose immunity was lifted.

Chanda stated that the jurisdiction of the National Assembly was only limited to removal of such immunity.

He said FODEP strongly opposed the idea of restoration of Chiluba's immunity because doing so would be unconstitutional.

"Article 43(3) of the Constitution provides as follows: (3) a person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall not be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the state.”

In this Article, the jurisdiction of the National Assembly with regard to the issue of immunity is clearly limited to the removal of such immunity only and nothing can be read into it empowering conferment of the same. It is on this basis that we are urging the Speaker to respectfully decline such demand and call upon all the members of parliament not to even entertain the idea," stated Chanda.

Labels: CHILUBA, FODEP, LAZ

posted by MrK @ 4:14 PM