Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:05:05 +0000
IF INDEED the Law Association of Zambia is being unfairly treated or persecuted as some vested interests claim, we challenge Madam Linda Kasonde and her executive to prove that their decision to hire a defence lawyer for their member Nchima Nchito who is facing criminal prosecution was done in the public interest.
We concur with the observations of Mr Makebi Zulu, a senior legal practitioner, that the decision to pay a private lawyer to defend Mr Nchito, a wealthy businessman and a prominent State counsel capable of taking care of his troubles, is wrong and an abuse of the association’s resources and powers of attorney.
Mr Nchito is known to have been a lawyer for the Post Newspaper in liquidation, a media organisation with massive physical and liquid assets, many of which have simply vanished into thin air. Mr Nchito is a business mogul who cannot fail to pay his way out of any legal cul de sac.
To assume that all of a sudden Mr Nchito is financially strapped and needs the support of LAZ to bail him out, is stretching the imagination to the limit. What we strongly suspect is that there are more personal reasons for LAZ’s decision than mere membership.
No wonder those close to the association speculate that the overriding motive could be that Mr Nchito is related to one of the senior executive members of LAZ and that the lawyer appointed to defend him in fact belongs to the law firm of one of the two most senior officials of the association.
Let Ms Kasonde and her colleagues deny that over the years very prominent members of the association have faced serious criminal charges – one of them was charged with treason – and none was privileged to receive LAZ legal representation.
We have in mind the well publicised treason trial of lawyer Edward Jack Shamwana where we have no record of LAZ trying to help their beleaguered member who faced the death sentence. Other lawyers who were prosecuted but were not helped by LAZ included Sebastian Zulu, Keith Mweemba, Nsunka Sambo and the three court justices Nigel Mutuna, Charles Kajimanga and Philip Musonda.
These were high-profile cases where in some cases public opinion concluded that some of the lawyers were victims of political persecution. In most of these cases LAZ was silent and watched from a distance as members of the cartel, who are still prominent LAZ members today, used their political patronage to bring down their perceived enemies, assassinate their characters and use State power to seize their properties.
These modern-day martyrs had to dig deep into their pockets to pay for their defence and others in their desperation opted to ignore the elementary principle of law that anyone who represents himself or herself in a criminal matter, never mind how legally competent or experienced, has a fool for a lawyer. LAZ knew this but did nothing to help their comrades.
LAZ’s mandate demands that it will only be obliged to use its resources and services when the matter involves public interest. In other words it has no power to hire a lawyer to defend an individual who is in fact being prosecuted for conduct or actions against public interest.
Mr Nchito is alleged to have impersonated or misrepresented himself as a lawyer for the former Post Newspaper in its liquidation battle with the State. Lewis Mosho, as the Post liquidator, has been appointed by the High Court to protect public interest. Whose interest is LAZ serving or protecting by hiring a lawyer for Mr Nchito?
As Mr Makebi Zulu argues, objectively speaking, there is no public interest in defending Mr Nchito. It reflects poorly on the association’s reputation as an organisation mandated to protect public interest.
We find that LAZ’s current stance stinks of political patronage, a dangerous position that undermines the judicial process and compromises public interest. To all right-thinking Zambians, LAZ has failed the people of Zambia. It must disband.
