ConCourt to rule on reopening ‘payback’ case

THE Constitutional Court has reserved ruling on a preliminary issue where the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) wants to block the reopening of a case in which ministers who continued to earn a salary after dissolution of parliament in May 2016 have asked the court to reverse parts of its judgement.

In this matter, LAZ and UPND through its secretary-general Steven Katuka, challenged the continued stay in office of the ministers and the ConCourt in its judgement ordered the ministers to payback emoluments accrued during that period.

Former Home Affairs minister Davis Mwila, who is now PF secretary-general, then Justice minister Ngosa Simbyakula and 62 others were petitioned in their personal capacities.

And now Mr Mwila on behalf of the others asked the court to set aside parts of that judgment, arguing that it was unjust, claiming that their stay in office was not their fault.

When the matter came up before the full bench of the court headed by court president Hilda Chibomba yesterday, LAZ through its lawyer Joffrey Chimankanta told the court that Mr Mwila’s pleadings were improperly before court as no leave was sought to reopen the case.

Mr Chimankanta said it was clear from Mr Mwila’s application that no leave was sought and that it was an injustice for him to seek re-opening of the case.

But Mr Bonaventure Mutale, counsel for Mr Mwila and 63 others, opposed to LAZ’s preliminary issue, arguing that they were properly before court.

Mr Mutale said the court had an exceptional exercise of jurisdiction and that he and the 62 others must not be driven from the seat of justice without their application being dealt with.

He said there would be no prejudice that would be suffered to LAZ and the UPND if his application was determined on its merits without undue regard to procedural technicalities.

“There is absolutely no prejudice that will be occasioned to the petitioners if our application is determined on its merits.

An opportunity will and has been accorded to us to be heard on the application by none other than this court.

“The requirement to do justice has been put on the pedestal by the constitution without undue regard to procedural technicalities,” Mr Mutale said.