KAIZAR Zulu has asked the Lusaka High Court to set aside the contempt of court proceedings against him for being defective and irregular.
Zulu, in a notice of motion to raise preliminary issue on a point of law, has argued that the notice of motion for an order for committal to prison does not state exactly what he had done or omitted to do which constituted contempt of court to enable him meet the charges.
This is in a matter were two soldiers accused of conspiring to murder Zulu want the Lusaka High Court to commit him to prison for contempt of court.
Steven Phiri and Steven Chiiba Chooka asked the court to cite Zulu for contempt of court for commenting on the matter in which they were accused of conspiring to murder him, which was still active before court.
Zulu, in his skeleton arguments in support of notice of motion to raise preliminary issues, said the notice of motion for committal was not in line with legal requirements and was therefore defective and irregular.
He submitted that the law was clear on how to draft the notice of motion for committal for contempt of court, adding that the applicants’ notice of motion did not give any particulars of what he (Zulu) allegedly uttered.
Zulu argued that contempt of court proceedings were criminal in nature and he should be given sufficient information in the notice of motion for him to respond to the charge without second guessing the allegations.
He said he was not party to the proceedings and he had been taken to o court at great expense and inconvenience.
In a notice of motion to raise preliminary issues on a point of law filed in the Lusaka High Court principal registry (Criminal Jurisdiction) by Zulu’s lawyers from Dickson Jere and Associates.
“Take notice that the alleged contemnor (Zulu) shall at the next hearing raise a preliminary issue on point of law that: (i) The notice of motion for an order for committal filed herein does not state exactly what the alleged contemnor has done or omitted to do which constitutes a contempt of court with sufficient particularity to enable him meet the charge as required by Order 52 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England (White Book). (ii) The notice of motion for an order for committal issued herein be set aside for being defective and irregular for reasons set out above,” read the notice of motion.
Zulu suggested that costs of and occasioned by the said application shall be for him in any event and would be paid before Phiri and Chooka take out any further steps in the proceedings.
“The notice of motion is defective at law and cannot be cured by way of amendments. This court has no option but to set aside the notice of motion with costs in any event. We, therefore, pray that this honourable court will grant the alleged contemnor the relief as prayed-that is to say- setting side the notice of motion which is defective.” said Zulu
Phiri and Chiiba, in their summons for leave to apply for an order of committal for contempt of court, said that on November 27, 2019 Zulu made utterances and used speech that was in breach of the rules of the court when he featured on a Diamond TV Programme dubbed “COSTA”, which was broadcast to the general public across the nation from about 21:00 hours.
They said during the programme, Zulu made remarks that were sub judice and prejudicial to the proceedings before court.
“In response to a question as to whether he had ever fired a gun to protect himself, the alleged contemnor responded in the affirmative,” they said.
Phiri and Chooka said Zulu was quoted saying; ‘there are the two military officers who the police actually arrested. They actually drove to my house. They had two targets, myself and former president Rupiah Banda. Was it necessary for me to fire with these trained marksmen or to let me die?”
They stated that Zulu further alleged that his life was under threat.
Phiri and Chooka contended that the words uttered by Zulu were aimed at portraying them as being guilty of a crime in the eyes of the general public, including in the eyes of potential witnesses that were yet to give evidence before court, be it for the prosecution or for the defence.