By GEORGE CHOMBA
There is no doubt that armed with the new binoculars, Mr Raphael Nakacinda, the PF spokesperson, will not only be zooming in on activities of his political rivals, especially in Government in the name of checks and balances, but also on his impending legal battles.
For those at sea and have not followed Mr Nakacinda’s public life encounters lately, his earlier binoculars are no longer with him after a night sleep at Lusaka’s Chelston Police on Wednesday, December 15, 2021.
This was after he was summoned on allegation of defaming the President.
Mr Nakacinda’s trouble with the Police is that he accused President Hakainde Hichilema of summoning judges with the view of influencing them to rule against members of Parliament who lost their elections in the High Court but are now surviving on an appeal in the Constitutional Court.
The Police have preferred the charge of defamation of the President under Section 69 of the Penal Code.
“Any person who, with intent to bring the President into hatred, ridicule or contempt, publishes any defamatory or insulting matter, whether by writing, print, word of mouth or in any other manner, is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years,” so says Section 69 of the Penal Code.
But parallel to the Police action is Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha’s legal gymnastics in which he has asked the High Court for leave to commence contempt proceeding against Mr Nakacinda which he has been granted.
It, therefore, stands to reason that having acquired new binoculars, Mr Nakacinda will no doubt be also zooming into the finer details of his allegations, apart from holding Government accountable through his checks and balances.
For the uninitiated, the charge of defaming the President or contempt of court allegations are not done until justice is tested on the bench.
As the Police and the Attorney General prepare their document to probably nail Mr Nakacinda, social media with some users quoting legal precedents are engaged in the court of public opinion.
On the charge of defaming the President, some commenters have argued that upholding the allegation in court flies against the Article 20 of the Constitution of Zambia which promotes the Freedom of Expression.
“Except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in Protection of the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to impart and communicate ideas and information without interference, whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons, and freedom from interference with his correspondence,” says Article 20 in the Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, the Contempt of Court is being argued from the point of Mr Nakacinda neither having named any judge who could have been summoned by President Hichilema nor the court.
But court cases take a judicial process and Mr Nakacinda will have to use his newly acquired binoculars to use an appropriate lenses to zoom into finer defence legal jargon to probably set himself free.-Diamond TV