Mulilo Kabesha is a Danger to our Democracy
Amb. Emmanuel Mwamba Wrote;
Zambia Police can detained as suspects as long as investigations are on-going.
Yet the Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. It also provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.
We know he is UPND.
But when he was appointed as Attorney General, we expected him to be professional and discharge his duties with a sacred responsibility imposed by the Constitution.
L
But under his office, he has facilitated over K47million illegal compensations to be paid to UPND cadres who were facing criminal cases that were discontinued on a Nolle Prosequi basis and stand an active chance to be reopened.
But it is his false claim in the latest United States Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Zambia that the Constitution of Zambia allows prolonged detentions and allows the Zambia Police to detain suspects as long as investigations were on-going and remained inconclusive!
The Report states that;
“In August Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha claimed that the law allowed authorities
to detain a suspect for as long as investigations remained inconclusive and
stated that detained individuals only had to be presented before court 48hours after conclusion of the investigation, rather than after arrest”
Article 13 (3) of the Constitution states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
The Criminal Procedure Code (Section 33) also stipulates that suspects must be brought before court within 24hrs.
“33. Detention of persons arrested without warrant
When any person has been taken into custody without a warrant for an offence other than an
offence punishable with death, the officer in charge of the police station to which such person shall be brought may, in any case, and shall, if it does not appear practicable to bring such person before an appropriate competent court within twenty-four hours after he was so taken into custody, inquire into the case, and, unless the offence appears to the officer to be of a serious nature, release the person, on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, for a reasonable amount, to appear before a competent court at a time and place to be named in the bond: but, where any person is retained in custody, he shall be brought before a competent court as soon as practicable”.
This matter has been resolved and settled by the Supreme Court in the cases of;
1. Daniel Chizoka Mbandagoma v Attorney General (1979)
Z.R. 45 (H.C.).
2. In Re Siuluta & Three Others (1979) Z.R. 18 (H.C.).
3. Attorney General and Others v Masauso Phiri (SCZ Appeal
No. 161 of 2014).
4. Simposya v Eric Masauso Phiri and others (SCZ Appeal No.
158 of 2009).
“It is improper for the police to detain persons pending further investigations without
bringing them before court as soon as practicable, but it is equally improper to require
persons released on bond to present themselves at the police station for the same purpose…”
