By Agness Changala
The wife of businessman Lombe Okpara who has been petitioned for divorce for allegedly engaging in adultery with Ministry of Foreign Affairs permanent secretary Ronald Simwinga and ex-Central Province permanent secretary Patrick Mwanawasa has objected to the production of some of the documents specified in husband’s list of documents.
Musamba Mulenga, an investments officer at the Development Bank of Zambia has objected to recordings and transcripts between her and Simwinga, Mwanawasa and a witch doctor, among others.
In this matter, Okpara has dragged his wife Mulenga, to the Lusaka High Court for dissolution of their eight-year marriage for allegedly engaging in adultery with Simwinga and Mwanawasa.
He has also cited Simwinga and Mwanawasa as first and second co-respondents in the case.
According to a notice of non-admission of documents specified in the petitioner’s list of documents drawn by her lawyers from Nkusuwila Nachalwe Advocates, Mulenga has argued that her husband Okpara lacks the personal knowledge required to properly identify the parties to the recordings and that the said transcripts do not represent an accurate and verbatim depiction of the phone conversation recordings as Okpara has added his own interpretation of the recordings to the transcripts.
“Take notice that the respondent (Mulenga) admits all documents specified in the petitioner’s list of documents served herein on August 5, 2020 (saving all just exceptions as to admissibility of all such documents as evidence in her cause), except the following; recordings and transcripts of a phone conversation between the respondent and a witch doctor; between the respondent and Anthony; between the respondent and first co-respondent (Simwinga); between the respondent and George; between the respondent and the petitioner; between the respondent and second co-respondent (Mwanawasa); between the respondent and a friend and Whatsapp conversations,” Mulenga stated.
She submitted that she raised an objection to the production of the said documents on the grounds that Okpara had failed to lay sufficient foundation for the production of an audio recording in line with Section 8 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act No. 21 of 2009.
Mulenga added that the recordings that Okpara sought to adduce together with their transcripts were irrelevant and offered no probative value in support of his allegations and particulars of adultery.
“The transcripts do not represent an accurate and verbatim depiction of the phone conversation recordings as the petitioner has taken creative liberties by adding his own interpretation of the recordings to the transcripts. The petitioner failed to make the Whatsapp conversations available for inspection, thereby making it impossible for the respondent to admit the authenticity of the same,” she stated.
In her skeleton arguments in support of the notice of non-admission of documents specified in the petitioners list of documents, Mulenga submitted that these were divorce proceedings wherein the only relevant issue to prove to the Court was that the marriage had broken