THE PRESIDENT SHOULD SUSPEND THE DPP IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE: THE PIOUS STREAM OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE POLLUTED
I understand from press reports that following guidance by the Attorney General (AG) to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) that her request for the President to lift her oath of office has been denied, she has rejected the guidance and wants only the President to reply to her.
Now, according to Article 177(5) of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment 2016, the AG is the chief legal adviser to Government. The AG represents Government in civil proceedings to which Government is a party, and gives advice on any agreement, treaty or convention to which Government intends to become a party or in respect of which Government has an interest before they are concluded.
In this case, there is a purported agreement which was entered into by the DPP and the former Provisional Liquidator for KCM. The legality of the purported agreement has been challenged before court, and for that matter, contested by the State through the AG.
Now, since the request by the DPP concerns issues that are before court, in particular, a purported agreement involving the State, then according to Article 177(5) of the Constitution, the most appropriate person to respond to the DPP’s request is the AG who is handling the matter in court.
As I have indicated several times in my previous posts, and echoed by Professor Muna Ndulo, who is a distinguished expert on Constitutional Law, the DPP does not require a waiver from the President to testify before a lawfully constituted tribunal like JCC. The President lacks power to do so. Thus, insisting to get the President to give the perceived waiver is pushing an open door. Since the matter at hand involves a purported agreement that has been contested by the State in court, it is very unlikely that the President will directly assist her to push an already open door.
Under the circumstances, and in the interest of protecting the integrity of the justice system, I call upon the President to invoke Article 181 of the Constitution by suspending the DPP.
Article 181 provides as follows:
“Where the Director of Public Prosecutions is absent from Zambia or is unable to perform the functions of office due to illness or other cause, the President shall appoint a person qualified to perform the functions of Director of Public Prosecutions to perform those functions until that appointment is revoked or until the Director of Public Prosecutions returns to office.”
Clearly, the relationship between the DPP and the AG is toxic. With such a toxic relationship, there is no way that the AG would be seen to justly represent the State in the matter of the purported agreement that is before court, where the DPP is a State witness.
It is in the best interest of justice that the State witness is not hostile. In other words, the State witness should not have a toxic relationship with the AG, who is representing the State. This entails that the witness to represent the DPP’s office in the purported agreement case should be another person because the pious stream of justice must not be polluted.
Meantime, I retaliate my humble advice to the DPP to resign with honour. The space remaining for honourable departure has extremely shrunk.
I think praise singer are brainless.
Do you think that if Hakainde thought for one minute that the DPP was wrong, or has been compromised, she would still be in the job?
Why is is so difficult to deduce this?
Do you really want the President to embarrass himself in this matter?
I think he is doing the best damage limitation by keeping her in the job.
But what has she done to warrant this. Don’t just suspend but tell us the reason.