Analysis of the Law Association of Zambia president’s press statement
THE press statement led by the Law Association of Zambia president Lungisani Zulu brought forth compelling issues, yet certain aspects appear to lack coherence, prompting consideration for another session to enhance clarity.
Key concerns include:
1. Mr. Zulu expressed dismay at the increased arrests of leaders from Opposition Parties, deeming it counterproductive for the nation. However, he failed to specify that these arrests occurred without the commission of an offense.
Instead, he focused on the sluggish pace of justice, advocating for a remedy through the avoidance of arrests. This raises questions about the approach to achieving the desired outcome without addressing potential legal transgressions.
It is perplexing that a legal professional criticizes the extended duration of certain cases in the Zambian court system. The acknowledgement of prolonged litigation processes and delayed judgments is a reality known to all, irrespective of their legal background.
If Mr. Zulu is relatively new to Zambia, a warm welcome is extended, along with the hope that he contributes to rectifying the prevalent issue of justice delayed.
2. Learned Counsel Zulu dedicated a significant portion of his discourse to matters concerning the Patriotic Front, evoking expectations of a well-considered opinion on the events. Unfortunately, these expectations were not met.
Mr. Zulu claims a Commonwealth Parliamentary tradition dictates that Parliament refrains from acting on sub judice matters. While the public generally refrains from commenting on such issues, Mr. Zulu’s divergence from this norm invites attention.
His interpretation of Article 74 of the Zambian Constitution, asserting that the election of the Leader of the Opposition transcends internal party matters to become a constitutional concern, is met with skepticism.
Article 74(2) explicitly states that the opposition political party with the largest number of seats in the National Assembly elects the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Zulu’s insistence on constitutionalizing this process is challenged, asserting that it remains an internal party matter by constitutional design.
Ridiculously, Mr. Zulu expects the Speaker to conduct an exhaustive legal inquiry into the election process, disregarding the absence of procedural guidance in the Constitution. This unrealistic expectation could lead to potential embarrassment, contrary to Mr. Zulu’s objectives.
Upon reaching the discussion about the Chief Registrar of Societies, amusement ensued.
Mr. Zulu intriguingly discusses the subpoena ad testificandum but overlooks its subpoena duces tecum aspect, indicating that the Registrar was summoned to testify and produce documents. Mr. Zulu’s statement on the Registrar’s compliance with the subpoena, coupled with discrepancies regarding the date of her appearance in court, raises eyebrows.
It is astounding that Legal Counsel could say this because he is fully aware that the subpoena is for the Registrar to appear in Court on the 16th of November 2023. He has now publicly proclaimed on a LAZ letterhead that she had complained with the order by the 15th of November 2023. Does he mean that she had appeared before the court and produced her document to the in advance or what?
The observed lapses suggest a conflict of interest, emphasizing the need for legal practitioners to maintain objectivity by abstaining from matters in which they have personal connections.
In conclusion, the analysis will be continued, balancing scrutiny with levity.
By Chikobo Muleya Mudenda-
The Zambian Citizen