PF WINS CASE IN FUNDING OF ELECTIONS

PF WINS CASE IN FUNDING OF ELECTIONS

…funding of elections cannot be deemed to be money laundering and source of funding need not be disclosed…

In a major milestone court decision, the Court of Appeal has ruled that there is no law in Zambia that compels a political party to disclose source of funding for participating in national elections.

Further, court has determined that funding used in elections cannot be deemed to be money laundering.

The State proceeded to charge and arrest former Secretary General, Davies Mwila and Lawyer Ann Mwitwa on allegations that money used in elections by the Party were proceeds of crime and constituted a case of money laundering.

The State also seized motor vehicles and other party assets from the Patriotic Front and its affiliates alleging that the money used in acquiring these assets constituted proceeds of crime and money laundering.

The High Court dismissed the action when lawyers for the Patriotic Front raised the matter that there was no law that regulates or compels political parties to disclose source of funding in Zambia and that such funds could not be deemed to be proceeds of crime or money laundering.

Following this setback, the Patriotic Party appealed to the Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court has also stated that the High Court Judge misdirected himself when he dismissed the case on a preliminary issue without considering the main case or the law on the matter.

The Patriotic Front raised a statement of
claim, seeking the following reliefs from the Court:

1. Damages harassing intimidating and members of the Patriotic Front Party;
2. Damages for misrepresentation and defamation of character;
3. Damages for discrimination,
4. A declaratory Order declaring that the Appellant cannot be compelled to disclose its
   source of funds used in the 2021 General Elections;
5. A declaration that funding of the 2021 General Elections is not money laundering;
6. Any relief the court may deem fit; and costs
   The Attorney General purported that the court action was an attempt to stop or stall criminal investigations against the Party and its officials.

The preliminary application before the learned Judge was at the instance of the Respondent dealing with the following question:

“Whether the plaintiffs action is an attempt to
circumvent the Drug Enforcement Commission’s statutory authority to conduct criminal investigations relating, inter alia, to allegations of money laundering against members of the public, through the use of civil proceedings.”

A panel of three judges; Hon. Justin Chashi, Hon. C.K Makingu and Hon. Dominic Sichinga ruled that;

“The issue, in our view, was not suitable for determination without the full trial of the action as provided under Order 14A. That notwithstanding, we hold the view that, after the learned Judge considered and determined the preliminary issue as having been improperly raised for citing an inappropriate Order to challenge the proceedings, it would have been judicious for the Judge to conclude at that juncture.”

“However, the learned Judge proceeded to examine the main action and dismiss it without giving the parties an opportunity to present their arguments on the issues.”

“We believe that grounds two and five will sufficiently enable us to attain the desired outcome that would have been achieved through the consideration of all grounds of
appeal.”

“The essence of these two grounds centers on
whether the learned Judge acted justifiably
in considering the main action while rendering a ruling on the preliminary application whether the learned Judge acted justifably
considering the main action while rendering a ruling on the preliminary application.”