By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
MILINGO Lungu’s lawyers have asked the Constitutional Court to dismiss the cross petition filed by the state, contending that the action by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) binds the state and, thus, it cannot challenge its own decisions.
The State has cross petitioned demanding that the ConCourt declare as illegal the purported immunity from prosecution dated March 22, 2022, granted to former Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) Provisional Liquidator Mr. Milingo Lungu as it is against the public interest and an abuse of the court process.
It also wants the said immunity agreement declared unconstitutional.
But Mr. Lungu filed a motion to have the cross-petition dismissed on grounds that it was incompetently before the court.
During the hearing of the motion before three judges – Professor Margaret Munalula, Annie Sitali, and Mungeni Mulenga – Mr. Lungu’s advocates submitted that the cross petition was misconceived and ought to be dismissed.
State Counsel Sakwiba Sikota argued that under the constitution, the DPP was part of the government, therefore, the Attorney General claiming relief from the DPP was like a civil war.
“What the state is trying to do is have the state’s right arm wrestle with its left arm. It would be absurd to have the Attorney General be the plaintiff and also the respondent in the same matter. It would be professional misconduct for a lawyer to act for a party they have acted for before. Allowing this cross petition will be sanctioning professional misconduct among lawyers,” he argued.
Mr. Sikota told the court that the Attorney General was trying to be his own adversary by filing the cross petition.
Lawyer Jonas Zimba argued that Zambia as a Republic is guided by the principles of separation of power and article 91(2) speaks to the exercise of the executive authority.
But the Attorney General, represented by State Counsel Robert Simeza, argued that he could not shy away from challenging a decision which is illegal merely because the party to the immunity was an officer (DPP).
“Arguments that this action is like the Attorney General suing himself or that it’s a civil war are totally unfounded. In any event, the Attorney General’s position is very clear and founded on Article 1 of the Constitution. If an act is illegal, it is illegal irrespective of who has committed that act,” he stated.
The court reserved ruling on the motion.
