WHY THE AGITATION OVER THE CALLS TO LIFT ECL’S IMMUNITY: ONLY PRESIDENT HH CAN PRESERVE LUNGU’S ALLEGED OFFENCES WHILE IN STATE HOUSE.
Some people have taken it personally and emotionally in the defence of former president EDGAR CHAGWA Lungu immunity not be lifted.
Others have assumed political vindictiveness, malice, politically sponsored and persecution as the drive for the calls to lift his immunity.
But why should a former head of state’s immunity be lifted and how should a president conduct himself during his/her tenure of office to avoid such calls on leaving office?
Art 92 guides those who assume the office of President how to conduct themselves thus;
The president SHALL perform, with dignity, leadership and integrity, the acts that are necessary and expedient for, or reasonably incidental to the exercise of the executive authority
The lifting of former president’s immunity is provided for in the law (Art 98(5) just like the immunity itself enjoyed by a former president on assumption of office, before and after office is provided in Art 98(1-4)
With suspicions awash in Zambia that our former President might not have fulfilled the provisions of Art 92 above, Article 98(5) is summoned to the fore of this immunity debate help guide the debate and avoid its politicisation.
With petitions already flying around and airwaves polluted with calls to lift the former president’s immunity, Art 98(5) guides that
where there is prima facie evidence that a former president committed an offence whilst in office, the incumbent president has a constitutional duty to submit a report to the National Assembly.
Note that a prima facie evidence is soley established not by the courts but the incumbent president who comes into possession evidence of alleged offences.
The presidential report to the National Assembly must outline the grounds relating to the offence allegedly committed by his predecessor, warrantly the removal of the immunity from criminal proceedings.
Once the National Assembly is in receipt of the Presidential report, a Select Committee is constituted to scrutinise the alleged grounds in the Presidential report to determine a prima facie case or not.
The former president has the right to appear, be represented and be heard before the Select Committee so constituted and the committee recommends its decision to the National Assembly.
The former President has this window at select committee stage to cleanse himself before even allowing the National Assembly to vote for the lifting of his immunity.
The vote in the National Assembly to lift his immunity will demand for a 2/3 resolution support from the Members of Parliament (Art 98(😎 and, if garnered, the former president shall stand charged with the offence for which the immunity from criminal proceedings was removed. (Art 98(9)
If acquitted by the courts, the immunity of that person shall, for all purposes, be deemed not to have been removed, without further proceedings (Art 98(10).
Therefore, for people to not to know what former president, EDGAR CHAGWA Lungu did while in office is at the mercy of his successor, President HH who may or may not submit a report of his offences to the National Assembly
However, former president EDGAR CHAGWA Lungu’s preservation of his immunity is at the mercy of the NationalAssembly which may block its lifting after a prima facie case has been established and not AGITATION, emotions and shouts from cadres.
I submit
McDonald Chipenzi