CHILUBA JUDGE QUITS IN SHAME3
TWO days before facing a disciplinary committee the infamous London judge who presided over second republican President Frederick Chiluba “corruption trial” has quit the bench in shame.
Mark Chona and disgraced former Director of Public Prosecution Mutembo Nchito had taken President Chiluba to Judge Peter Smith’s court through the equally infamous and disbanded Task Force on corruption.
President Chiluba refused to appear before Judge Smith in the London High Court, Chancery Division, in what he described as a sham process which did not have legitimacy or authority to try a Zambian matter.
The Judge has now quit following institution of an enquiry into his conduct by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
At the very time of passing the racially biased judgment against Dr. Fredrick Chiluba and 18 others in the infamous Zamtrop case which President Mwanawasa was forced to take to the London court in 2007, the renowned major British daily newspaper, the Telegraph, insinuated that “though he has made no public announcement about his health, it is widely known within legal circles that Sir Peter has been having tests for a “serious illness”.
Since then Sir Peter Smith’s mental state has been questioned by many and his injudicious actions and bad and biased judgments have been heavily criticised by his peers.
He has now resigned to avoid disciplinary hearings during which he would have been more exposed.
Earlier the Judge had been suspended although he feigned ignorance: “As no one in the Court of Appeal or anyone else in the Ministry of Justice has yet actually told me I have been removed (although I discerned this when I prepared to sit on Tuesday but nobody turned up) and no one has given me any reasons for my removal I am unable to comment save to say that I will not be resigning. When I am informed officially of the decision and the reasons I willconsider what if anything I need to do or say then.”
The legal review stated again, this shows an extraordinary lack of judgment. Sir Peter knew perfectly well why he had been removed from the case: all the arguments had been put to him less than a week earlier. Sir Igor Judge, president of the Queen’s Bench division, summed it up later in a sentence: “The judge had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity.”