LAWYERS SUE LAZ

Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:21:47 +0000

IT is unconstitutional for the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to reprimand lawyers over their comments on a matter of public interest, three Lusaka lawyers have charged.

In a petition filed before the Lusaka High Court yesterday, Makebi Zulu together with two other lawyers, Hobday Kabwe and Anna Mwitwa-Mwewa, who have been summoned by the LAZ Council to answer to allegations of abrogating regulations on public commentary, said they were protected by the Republican Constitutional on their
freedom of expression.

The lawyers have criticised and decided to know the justification why LAZ is paying lagel fees for Nchima Nchito, SC who is represnting Fred M’membe in the liquidation of the POST Newspapers which has defulted in taxes by billions of kwacha.

They have also asked for justification for the politically partisan stance the
association has taken.

They have contested that freedom of expression was a constitutional right guaranteed under the Zambian Constitution as their right to hold an opinion and communicate ideas as legal practitioners and citizens respectively.

“That recently we on divers dates continued to exercise our constitutional right to freedom of expression by contributing to a debate on a matter of public interest and concern by criticising the respondents’ (LAZ) decision to use our Association finances to fund the legal costs in the defence of one of the legal practitioners namely Mr Nchima Nchito, SC who was facing criminal charges for alleged impersonation in the Subordinate Courts in Lusaka.

“That our criticism of the aforementioned decision by the respondent triggered a sharp reaction from the Legal Practitioners’ Committee of the Respondent’s executive who through undated correspondence, summoned us to appear before them on  24th March, 2017 for
allegedly contravening of the provisions of Rule 17(5) and (6) of the Legal Practitioner’s Practice Rules of 2002 and a circular  dated 24th August, 2016 which supposedly prohibits legal practitioners from discussing anything the committee considers a legal subject,” they submitted.

They argued that LAZ has failed to present them with copies of the minutes of a meeting that resolved to summon them, despite letters of request from the trio.

Mr Kabwe upon receipt of his summons had requested for further and better particulars on the legal practitioner’ committee’s considered ‘legal subject’ in the publications attributed to them in the LAZ complaint.

He said all they did in the media articles was criticise the Association’s handling of the Nchito case which was not an abrogation of the Legal Practitioners’ Practice Rules, and that “do not shield the respondent from criticism nor are the said provisions meant to justify limitations on any practitioners’ right to contributing to debate in a matter of public interest and concern”.

They argued that the Legal Practitioners’ Committee seemed to have adopted an arbitrary and capricious approach against the three lawyers when there was no set rules and procedures governing its proceedings.

They charged that there was no definition of a “legal subject” as indicated in the summons, which in effect would not annul the guaranteed freedom of expression under Article 20 of the Constitution of Zambia.

“That there was no justifiable reason for which the Legal Practitioners Committee has issued the said summons which summons were issued supposedly because the committee considers our criticism of the respondent’s decision a legal subject and that the effect of such summons as the Legal Practitioners Committee has issued almost inevitably results in a suspension whilst their recommendation to the Disciplinary Committee is pending,” they said.

They explained that provisions of the practice rules were in contravention of the Republican Constitution which was the law of the land, and therefore would be ultra vires the Constitution.

They believe the practice rules prevents them from taking part in any matter of public interest without prior permission from LAZ when the Constitution guaranteed them the right.

They charged that such action would be discriminatory to the legal practitioners and contrary to the law.