ABOUT ZP DETAINING A MOTHER AS A HOSTAGE TO FORCE HER SON TO SURRENDER
Ms. Ngalabeka resided in Luanshya and was employed by the Luanshya Municipal Council. She was the mother of a 21 year old young man. One Tuesday morning, while Ms. Ngalabeka was visiting her mother, a woman police constable named Munyonsi from Luanshya Police Station arrived, stating that she was looking for Ms. Ngalabeka’s son. Officer Munyonsi alleged that the son had stolen some items and was wanted in connection with the theft.
She then picked up Ms. Ngalabeka and took her to her house. At the house, Officer Munyonsi searched for the items purportedly stolen by Ms. Ngalabeka’s son. After nothing was found, the officer demanded that Ms. Ngalabeka disclose the whereabouts of her son. In response, Ms. Ngalabeka explained that her son had left her home and was living with friends. Officer Munyonsi rejected this explanation and ordered her to accompany her to the police station.
Ms. Ngalabeka was detained in the police cells without being charged and was told that she would only be released if she produced her son. She remained in custody until 17:00 hours the following day, when she was released.
Upon her release, she was instructed to find money to search for her son. Consequently, Ms. Ngalabeka went to her employer, obtained a salary advance of K70,000.00, and began searching for him. She first went to Lusaka, where she suspected he might be staying with his uncle, but without success. She then travelled to an area in Ndola rural and later to Serenje, also without success. She had to take 14 days of leave to conduct this search, but despite her efforts, she did not find him.
Four weeks later, Ms. Ngalabeka received a call from Officer Munyonsi instructing her to report to Luanshya Central Police Station. When she arrived, Officer Munyonsi asked whether she had found her son. After she answered that she had not, the officer handcuffed her and threatened her with assault if she did not produce him. Ms. Ngalabeka was detained again in the police cells for three days before being transferred to Remand Prison.
During her detention, she spent nights in dirty and filthy cells with blocked toilets, urine, and human waste on the floor. She was not provided with any bedding and had to use her chitenge to cover herself. She could not sleep and spent most of the night standing, only sitting when exhausted. She was not given food, nor was she allowed to receive food from relatives. She was also not given an opportunity to bathe. When her mother requested her release on police bond, the police refused. Ms. Ngalabeka was almost suspended from her employment, but instead, urgent leave was approved.
After several days in Remand Prison, Ms. Ngalabeka was released. Immediately upon her release, she sued Officer Munyonsi and the Government of Zambia, claiming damages for false imprisonment and unlawful detention.
The High Court found that the circumstances surrounding Ms. Ngalabeka’s detention were “undoubtedly very grave” and revealed a gross violation of her rights by an over zealous woman constable. The Court awarded her K15 million in compensatory damages.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the damages awarded were excessive and too high, and further contending that exemplary damages served no purpose since the individual officer would not personally bear the cost—the Government would.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs and upheld the High Court’s judgment. It held that this was the worst case of false imprisonment and unlawful detention involving a woman plaintiff at the hands of a woman constable who should have acted more humanely.
The Court further held that Ms. Ngalabeka was not duty bound to look for her son at any cost; that responsibility lay with the police. It emphasized that the police may only arrest for offences known to law and have no authority to arrest persons merely to make inquiries.
The Court also reaffirmed that there is no law in Zambia permitting the detention of anyone as a hostage or ransom to force a suspect to surrender at a police station.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that unlawful detention for investigative convenience or coercion is unconstitutional, and the State will be held liable, potentially with exemplary damages, when police officers violate human rights through oppressive or inhuman conduct.
Case Citation: Munyonsi & Another v Ngalabeka (S.C.Z. Judgment 23 of 1999) [1999] ZMSC 37 (21 July 1999)
This is disgusting, that officer must be disciplined or fired NOW!!! First, she had no right to search the woman s house, and she never committed the crime. She’s a public worker just like the foolish police officer.
Yuyi, CB police command, I want to hear you’ve done something already about this officer, disgusting
The author is revisiting an old court case from 1999. This case involved Gertrude Munyonsi against Attorney and Catherine Ngalabeka, with the judgment delivered by J.S. Sakala on May 21, 1999.