Q FM Africa's Modern Radio
THE State has enter a nolle prosequi against UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema and five of his co accused on the charge of disobedience of lawful orders contrary to Section 127 of the Penal Code Act, Chapter 87 of the Law of Zambia.
It was alleged that on 8th April,2017, at Limulunga district in Western province, Mr Hichilema and his co-accused willfully disobeyed a an order or command duly made by Inspector Ndalama in his public capacity and duly authorized to give way to the Presidential motorcade.
The charge is one of the two the UPND leader and his co-accused were expected to be t
ried for by the Magistrate Court, with the other being the charge of using insulting language.
This was after the treason charge was separated as it can only be tried by the High Court.
When the matter came up for trial this morning before Magistrate Greenwell Malumani, the State submitted a nolle prosequi document signed by Principal State advocate Gamaliel Zimba on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinuing the proceedings against the accused persons.
But the Defence objected to the nolle prosequi entered by the state.
Defence lawyer Jack Mwiimbu submitted that if the state was genuine in their decision not to prosecute on count two, they should have allowed the court to acquit the accused.
He submitted that it was the defence team’s view that the State has no evidence against the accused, but to infringe on their human rights.
Another defence Lawyer Marshal Muchende submitted that the accused and the defence team have rejected the nolle prosequi as submitted by the state advocates.
He submitted that the nolle prosequi is invalid at law, as it has not been signed by the DPP.
Mr Muchende submitted that in order for the principal state advocate to sign for and on behalf of the DPP, he was supposed to show evidence from the DPP delegating the authority to him.
He said in view of that, the court cannot take it for granted that there was such an order.
But in reply the State argued that when legislators enacted laws such as the power of delegation in the DPP, they envisaged that the DPP could delegate nolle prosequi powers.
They argued that the decision by the DPP to enter a nolle prosequi is not questionable by the court or defence team.
They submitted that according to Zambia law reports 1982, the DPP may authorise another person to enter a nolle without his or her presence.
In his ruling, Magistrate Malumani noted that the court has no power to stop the nolle prosequi, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Hichilema and his co-accused have been in prison for 30 days.
He sustained the nolle prosequi and discharged the accused on the related charge.
Meanwhile trial has commenced on the other charge of using insulting language.