Mutembo dismissal case fails to take off
HEARING of for mer Director of Public Prosecutions( D PP) Mute mb oN chit o’ s case in which he wants to subpoena retired justices that recommended for his dismissal from office failed to take off in the Lusaka High Court yesterday.
This was because Solicitor General A bra hamMwa mb a was not present in court.
This is in a matter in which Mr Nchi to petitioned his lleging that there had never been an investigation against him before the Judicial Complaints Commission pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution.
Mr Nchi to wants the court to allow his subpoenas on retired justices that recommended his dismissal togoa he ad.
He says that he was deprived of the report of the investigative tribunal that led to his removal and that if he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses to aid his case, justice will have been deni ed tohi m.
“The subpoenas in question were issued after a duly filed practice was dealt with by the court. There is no prejudice to be suffered by the State regarding the subpoenas that have be en issued to aid me who ha s been denied his right to view the repor t,
“It is onl y the pe titione r who stands to suffer if he is not allow ed to call the witne sses he requi res,” Mr Nchi tos aid.
Earlier, Mr Nchi to ha d subpoe na ed retired Chi ef Justice Ane l Silungw e, cha irpe rson, retired Chi ef Justice Matthe w Ngul ube as the secretary and Justice Cha rles Zulu who was vi ce-secretary of the tribuna l whi ch recom mende d for hi s dismissal.
He accused Justice Ngul ube and Erne st Saka la of ha vi ng embarrassing conflicts of interest and bi ases in the matter in whi ch the y did not declare to the pa rties but chos e toc ont inue .
But in an affidavit in support of summon to set aside the subpoe na s, the Sol icitor -Gene ral said the subpoe na s shoul d not be allow ed as the y were issued without leave of the cour t.
Mr Mwans a argue d tha t the Cons titutiona l Cour t did not pr ovi de pr oc edure of how a witne ss ought to be subpoenaed but that order 1 rule 2 of the Constitutional court referred to the rules of the Supreme Court for practice and procedure.
He relied on or der 38 rule 19 sub rule 3 of the rules of the Supreme Court which provided that before a subpoena can be issued for attendance in the court of appeal, leave must first be obtained from the court by motion or not ice.
Mr Nchi to however, indicated in his affidavit in opposition that it would be difficult for him to challenge the tribunal whose report he does not have and whose members he ca not call tot estify.
He argued that the court was sitting as a court of first instance and there was therefore no need to seek leave to subpoena witnesses in his case.
The matter which came up before the full bench of the Constitutional Court was adjourned to August 9 for continued hearing.