By LUCY PHIRI
The STATE has objected to the application made by the defense counsel that Zachariah Muya, a Lusaka lawyer cannot testify in the matter in which Konkola Copper Mines, provisional liquidator, Milingo Lungu faces charges of fraud, because he has a relationship with the accused.
In this matter, Lungu is accused of stealing K4.4 million, property of Konkola Copper Mine limited (KCM).
It is alleged in count one that Lungu between May 22, 2019 and September 28, 2021 being a provisional liquidator stole K4.4 million, the property of Konkola Copper Mines Plc.
In count two, allegations are that Lungu during the same period transferred K4.4 million knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be proceeds of crime.
When the matter came up on Tuesday for continuation of trial before Magistrate Felix Kaoma, Clever Hameja the second witness, an accountant and money laundering officer at First Alliance Bank, narrated how he received summons and documents in relation to the transfer of K4.4 million into an account belonging to Muya and company.
He informed the court that on 24th of September 2021 he received a warrant from the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) who requested for the bank statement and the transaction documents relating to the transaction amounting to K4.4 million
However, the defence counsel comprising Sakwiba Sikota, Makebi Zulu and Thomas Chitambala made an application yesterday that Zachariah Muya who was supposed to appear as third witness, stating that he cannot testify in the matter because there was a relationship between him and the accused.
The defense further states that the situation is further compounded that the witness before the court was also given a brief by the accused person specifically in relation with the charges before the court.
In response to the matter, the State objected to the application saying the defence was made prematurely as there is no evidence before the court that the communication that was passed between accused and Mr Muya was to either enable the client to obtain or give legal advice.
‘’The communication which was passed between the accused person was with reference to litigation that is actually taking place or was in contemplation of the client,’’ the State said.
It further states that what the court received on Tuesday was the speculative argument that the accused person did give a brief to Mr Muya for purposes of litigation related to the matter at hand.
‘’Therefore it is our submission that the court has not received sufficient information to enable it make an assessment whether the requirement set are met in the case of the accused,’’ the defence argued.
The defence team said the Court would be deprived of an opportunity to satisfy itself whether or no not the communication issue enjoys legal profession previlege.
The state asked the court to have the matter dismissed.
The matter is coming up on December 3, 8 and 10 2021 for substantial written facts, defence and ruling.
