JUDGE MUMA QUESTIONS JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO HEAR HIS MATTER

FORMER High Court Judge Wilfred Muma has raised preliminary issues questioning the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine the matter he is charged with, willful failure to comply with the law and applicable procedure.

It is alleged that on dates unknown but between April 1 and December 31, 2018, Muma when he served as Commissioner of Land instructed his subordinates to cancel a certificate of title for a public property number LN8426/1 in Lusaka.

The action was contrary to Section 84 clause “F” of the Lands and Deeds Registry Act of the Laws of Zambia.

When the matter came up for plea, Muma wondered why his matter was to be heard by a panel of three judges and not a single judge, as his case was a criminal matter and not an appeal from the subordinate court.

The former fudge also raised issue as to whether it was proper for the State to obtain an exparte order dated April 12, 2023 under cause no. 2023/HP/09, and if the certificate to commit the case to the High Court which was signed by the Principal State Advocate pursuant to section 254 and 82 of the CPC, dated May 30, 2023, was in order.

Muma made the oral application through his lawyer Honest Chizu, when he appeared before Justices Ms Pixie Yangailo, Ms Ann Malata-Ononuju and Mr Ian Mabbolobolo, yesterday.

Counsel Chizu contended that failure to comply with the law and also abuse of authority of office are not listed to those offices, the High Court should determine as the court of first instance.

"We believe, unless otherwise, we are corrected, there has never been an order or Statutory Instrument or order by the Chief Justice within the provision of Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 68(3) of the same CPC to the effect that these offences which our client is now facing should be tried by the High Court as a court of first instance,"

"Why this matter should be tried by the High Court as the court of first instance and even have three judges. In line with section 261 of the CPC, this court is improperly constituted for the reason that we are coming for a trial and not an appeal from the sub court.

Mr Chizu submitted that the accused nor the defence lawyers were not party to the proceedings in cause no.2023/HP/09, granting an exparte order.

"We don't see anything which would affect this matter for the State to rush to the High Court when the matter was properly before the Subordinate court.

The defence and the accused never participated in those proceedings. The order was signed by a single judge but now, we are appearing before a panel of judges. This court is improperly constituted," Mr Chizu contended.

The court adjourned the matter to February 5, for the State to respond to the preliminary issues raised.