The arrest, detention and illegal interrogation of Aide-De-Camp of former President Lungu – Chisanga Chanda from a human rights and law enforcement perspective
Without interfering with the laid charges, let me submit that the arrest, detention and illegal interrogation of Aide-De-Camp of former President Edgar Lungu – Mr Chisanga Chanda raises some serious human rights and law enforcement issues that require very sober interrogation.
a. Denial to consult Counsel
Learned Senior Counsel Makebi Zulu discloses that Mr Chanda was denied access to legal representation while in detention and under interrogation. This was a clear violation of a detained suspect’s right to be afforded reasonable facilities to consult a legal representative of his own choice.
Article 26 (1) (d) of the Constitution, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia is instructive on this matter. It provides as follows:
“26. (1) Where a person’s freedom of movement is restricted, or he is detained, under the authority of any such law as is referred to in Article 22 or 25, as the case may be, the following provisions shall apply–
(d) he shall be afforded reasonable facilities to consult a legal representative of his own choice who shall be permitted to make representations to the authority by which the restriction or detention was ordered or to any tribunal established for the review of his case.”
The above provision further overrides what is contained in Article 18 (11)-(12) of the Constitution (Article 26(6)). This entails that a detained suspect’s right be afforded reasonable facilities to consult a legal representative of his own choice cannot be derogated from.
b. Interrogation panel involving non-law enforcement person
Law enforcement agencies in the exercise of their interrogation powers are guided by the Judges’ Rules. Judges’ Rules are rules of practice drawn up by the English High Court governing the questioning and charging of suspects by the police.
In Chilufya v The People (1975) Z.R. 138 (S.C.), the Supreme Court guided that Judges’ Rules are not rules of law: they are rules of practice drawn up for the guidance of police officers and a statement made in breach of such rules is not ipso facto [because of the fact mentioned] inadmissible if it is a voluntary statement although the court has a discretion to disallow it.
In their very opening words, the Judges’ Rules state that they are published for the instruction of members of the Force when they are interrogating suspects and accused persons. This entails that members of the Police Service (formerly, Police Force) and other law enforcement officers cannot allow non-members of their number to interrogate suspects or accused persons. This is because civilians are generally not persons in authority for purposes of law enforcement interrogations.
In the recent Ruling of the High Court in the case of Maxwell Chungu v the People (2021)/HP/13A/23, the Court reprimanded Enforcement Officers to refrain from unlawfully punishing, humiliating and degrading suspects during the course of executing their mandate of enforcing the law which is critical in the criminal justice system of our society.
Signed:
Hon Sunday Chilufya Chanda, LLB
Member of Parliament
Kanchibiya Constituency
08.02.22