Kasebamashila Kaseba
WHERE HH MOURNS QUEEN ELIZABETH II OF 70 YEARS REIGN SINCE 1952 WHILE UPHOLDING HER 69 YEAR OLD COLONIAL PUBLIC ORDER ACT OF 1953
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), 96, (21.04.1926 – 8.09. 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms for 70 years from 6.02.52 to 8.09. 2022. – Wikipedia
The Public Order Act (POA) is reported to be first drafted in 1953 in the anti independence push for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland when Queen Elizabeth II, aged 27, was one year on the throne; ANC second President Nkumbula, aged 37,was two years on the seat and his Secretary General KK, aged 29, was weeks on the seat.
HH was about nine years yet to be born.
The first irony is that the POA was a colonial anti-independence act that lasted only about 11 years in the colonial Federal government but has lasted 58 years and seven Zambian independence presidents.
The second irony is that POA had about five amendments in the 11 colonial years and four amendments in the 58 independence years.
Third irony is that the independence amendments especially the 1996 amendments including the establishment of Bruce Munyama Human Rights Commission of 1993 that became the Permanent Human Rights Commission that became the Human Rights Commission were colonialist or donor sponsored and driven.
UPND and HH, who suffered perhaps the worst PF misapplication of the POA, plus honoured Christine Mulundika of The Supreme Court Judgement Christine Mulundika and 7 others, of 1996, with national mourning, in 2022, than repeal the POA have instead amended its position from cheaper and faster repeal to costly and slow amendment.
While POA failed to stop attainment of independence, it has succeeded to curtail freedom.
Here below is the POA time line and excerpts from The Supreme Court judgement Christine
Mulundika and 7 Others v People.
—-
1953
1955
38 Public Order . . . . . . . . . . . . Cap. 113
1956
17 Public Order (Amendment) . . . . . . . .
. .
Incorporated in
Cap. 113 1956
1959
28 Public Order (Amendment) (No. 2) . . . . . . Incorporated in Cap. 113
1960
51 Public Order (Amendment) . . . . . . . .
. .
Incorporated in
Cap. 113
1965
19 Public Order Ordinance (Amendment) . . . .
. . . .
Incorporated in
Cap. 113
1967
10 Public Order (Amendment) . . . . . . . . Incorporated in Cap. 113
1996
1 Public Order (Amendment) Act . . . . . .
. .
Incorporated
1996
36 Public Order (Amendment) Act . . . . . .
. .
Incorporated in Cap. 113
—-
Unfortunately, experience teaches and it is sadly not hypothetical that in this country, the requirement for a permit to gather and speak has been used since 1953 to muzzle critics and opponents as well as alleged troublemakers. It has also been used to deny permission on grounds that had nothing to do with securing public order and safety. For example, there was much litigation in our courts during the recent transition to plural politics engendered by denials of permits on spurious grounds.
The right to assemble and speak is too important to be conditioned upon subsection 4 as conceived and first drafted in 1953. The right to assemble and express views is so important to democracy that the Supreme Court of India was constrained to observe, rather aptly, in Rangrajan v Jagjivan ram and others (1990) L.R.C. (const.)412 at page 424:
“In a democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song ….Democracy is a government by the people via open discussion…. The public discussion with people’s participation is a basic feature…. of democracy …. democracy can neither work not prosper unless people go out to share their views. The truth is that public discussion on issues relating to administration has positive value.”
Of course, we do not share Mr Kinariwala’s view that the politicians in this country are immature and irresponsible…. On the contrary, the people of this country have come a long way and would not like ever again to be oppressed or caged by any other individual or group of individuals.
—–
In sum and for the reasons which we have given we hold that subsection 4 of section 5 the Public Order Act, CAP 104, contravenes Articles 20 and 21 of the constitution and is null and void, and therefore invalid for unconstitutionality.