The Government owes the people of Zambia an explanation, not just for the killing of Nsama Nsama and Joseph Kaunda but for the circumstances surrounding any form of criminality, before, during and after the fatal events of the day.
Zambians want to know the truth, nothing but the truth.
First and foremost; what compelling circumstances led to the summoning of UPND president to Police Headquarters for questioning, in the very highly publicized manner that politicized and drew national attention. Could the questioning not have been done discreetly?
Secondly and most importantly; what was the outcome of the questioning?
It is on record that HH was very pleased with the professional manner in which the officers conducted the interview. If indeed the questioning was civil, Police must allay growing cynicism and suspicion that the exercise was a mischievous gimmick intended for obfuscation.
What is emerging from alternative sources including court documentation and recent revelations by FDD President Edith Nawakwi, make it imperative that the Police own up and tell the nation the truth.
It will not be fair for HH and ultimately indeed the electorate to enter the election campaign season in August with the issue of fraud hanging over his head.
The civil matter before the High Court was not determined on its merit but rather on a technicality, the Judge ruled that “the correct date of accrual of the right of action with regards to the disputed property begun to run in 2005 when the Defendant became the registered proprietor and took possession of the farm.”
The claim was being made more than 12 years later, therefore according to statutes the claim was time barred. An important consideration is that the matter was a civil claim.
The critical issue now concerns the criminal allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. Does this matter reported to the Police expire on account of the civil bar?
We say so because the Judge was very clear when she said ”Suffice to say that I find as a fact, from the documentation presented both by the Plaintiff and the Defendant that there was an assignment that led to the transfer of property from the Plaintiff in her representative capacity as Administrator. Whether or not there was a fraud occasioned would be a matter for further investigation.”
To this extent we entirely agree with the judgment considering that the parties involved cannot by any stretch of imagination be equated, in understanding the complexity of land law let alone the complications of transfer of property at the Lands Registry.
To suggest that the complainants should have exercised due diligence to determine the fact, belies the integrity and purpose of the entire action, which was based on the understanding that any transaction based on fraud and misrepresentation is a void, regardless of the time in which adverse discovery was made.
Fortunately, the papers are in the public domain and therefore not a mystery. The contention being that the administrator of the Estate did not sign any legal papers to transfer Subdivision A of Farm 1924, Kalamo in the extent of 2222.6549 hectares which was issued to HH sometime in 2005.
