Maravi

Malila justifies reversal of Zamtel sale

Malila justifies reversal of Zamtel sale
By Mwala Kalaluka
Sun 08 July 2012, 13:25 CAT

PRESIDENT Michael Sata's decision to reverse the sale of Zamtel to Lap GreenN was without malice and done in public interest, says Attorney General Mumba Malila in his skeleton arguments following the latter's petition against the transaction's reversal.

Malila said Lap GreenN's petition against the decision by government to compulsorily acquire 75 per cent shareholding in Zamtel should be dismissed with costs because it is premature. He said President Sata's action was done in the public interest, without malice and was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

This is in a matter where Libya's Lap GreenN has challenged a decision by the government to reverse the sale of 75 per cent shares in Zamtel.

According to skeleton arguments filed before Lusaka High Court judge Albert Wood on Friday afternoon, Malila said Lap GreenN commenced its action against the government without exhausting the legal procedures provided.

He submitted that the government's decision on Zamtel was legal and has met all the relevant procedural requirements.

Malila said the decision fell within a species of action called Eminent Dormain which exists in most democratic societies.

He said since President Michael Sata scrupulously followed the procedural steps, there was no ground on which LapGreenN could fault the government.

"The petitioner contends that there was procedural impropriety on the ground that it was not heard before the President made up his mind. The right to be heard is not absolute and must be considered in light of the provisions of the law," he said.

"We submit that on the authorities and upon a fair reading of the Act there was no procedural impropriety on the part of the President."

Malila said the acquisition of 75 per cent shareholding in Zamtel by LapGreenN was extremely controversial.
He submitted further that the issue of compensations was never discussed by the parties before the matter was brought to court.

"We submit that the petitioner has commenced this action without exhausting the procedure provided for under Section 5 2 and 11 of the Act," said Malila.

"It is only after that procedure has been exhausted that an aggrieved party can commence proceedings before Court. In short, this action is prematurely before this Court and it should therefore be dismissed with costs."

Labels: LAP GREEN, MICHAEL SATA, MUMBA MALILA, ZAMTEL

posted by MrK @ 5:36 PM