Africa-Press – Zambia. LUSAKA – A state witness in the case against Chienge Member of Parliament (MP) Given Katuta has admitted to serious procedural lapses in the police investigation, including the failure to record key witness statements and the continuation of inquiries even after the case was already before the court.
Taking the stand before the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court, Assistant Superintendent Harry Muyambango, the District Criminal Investigations Officer from Kabwe Police Camp, conceded that the investigation was incomplete and flawed, raising questions about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Muyambango further admitted that Times of Zambia photojournalist Henry Chunza, the complainant, may not have fled due to a direct physical threat from Katuta but rather out of fear of being removed from Parliament following her expulsion.
Background of the Case
Katuta is facing one count of threatening violence after an alleged altercation with Chunza at Parliament on July 21, 2023.
According to the complaint, after being expelled from Parliament, Katuta allegedly became angry when Chunza attempted to photograph her, rushed towards him, pointed at him, and demanded to know why he was taking her picture. Chunza further claimed that Katuta spat on him and chased him around the building, causing him to flee.
The matter was reported at Emmasdale Police Station on the same day, but investigations only began on July 24, 2023—three days later. Muyambango testified that he visited the scene at Parliament, where Chunza showed him the areas where the alleged events unfolded.
Investigation and Evidence
A 2.5-minute video recording retrieved from Parliament’s Director of Broadcasting is the primary evidence in the case. Muyambango stated that the footage, stored on a flash drive, captures the moment of Katuta’s expulsion, showing her in green chitenge attire.
However, under cross-examination, he admitted that the video does not show Katuta physically assaulting Chunza or making any verbal threats.
Further gaps in the investigation became apparent as Muyambango acknowledged that key witnesses who were present at the scene were not interviewed or had their statements recorded. Among the missing testimonies were those of security personnel at Parliament and journalists who may have witnessed the incident.
Muyambango also could not confirm whether a statement was taken from Andrew Sakala, but he noted that statements were recorded from Henry Chunza, Kashimbi Limata, Julius Tembo, and Chusa Sichone.
Arrest and Charges
Following the investigation, Katuta was summoned to Emmasdale Police Station, where she was:
Cautioned, interviewed, and recorded a warn-and-caution statement regarding the incident.
Formally charged with threatening violence.
Released on police bond due to her cooperation.
Legal Proceedings and Defense Objections
During court proceedings, Katuta’s defense lawyers, B. Mwelwa and Chifumu Banda, challenged the credibility of the evidence, arguing that the failure to interview key witnesses and the lack of direct evidence weakened the case against their client.
The prosecution, led by Public Prosecutor Michael Nundwe, sought to submit the video footage as evidence. However, the defense objected, arguing that:
The physical flash drive was presented, but the video itself was not shown to the court.
The source of the video should have been explained and verified before being admitted as evidence.
The prosecution, however, insisted that the flash drive and its content were legally admissible under electronic evidence regulations, and that the video content would be viewed later using a court-approved computer.
Court Ruling
After hearing both arguments, the court allowed the production of the video content, ruling that the witness met the evidentiary requirements for submission.
Cross-Examination: Investigation Credibility Questioned
During cross-examination, the defense team grilled Muyambango over several inconsistencies in the investigation:
1. Failure to Record Key Witness Statements
Muybango delegated statement recording to other officers and did not personally ensure all witnesses were interviewed.
He could not confirm if a statement was taken from Andrew Sakala.
He admitted that not all crucial witnesses were interviewed, including George Phiri.
2. Lack of Direct Evidence of Harassment
The officer was not present at the scene.
The video does not show Chunza being physically harassed, only Katuta moving toward his direction.
No physical contact between the accused and the complainant was captured in the footage.
3. Procedural Errors
Muyambango continued investigating even after the matter was in court, which is against standard legal procedures.
He failed to secure all relevant witness statements before bringing the case to trial.
4. Contradictions in Testimonies
Muyambango denied that Katuta used insulting language, despite allegations that she called Chunza “son of a dog” and “son of a bitch”.
He admitted that asking someone “Who are you to take my photo?” does not constitute threatening violence.
He conceded that Chunza may have run due to fear of being removed from Parliament, rather than out of immediate danger from Katuta.
Key Takeaways and Next Steps
The prosecution maintains that the video supports the charge, though it does not show direct harassment.
The defense argues that procedural errors and lack of direct evidence undermine the credibility of the case.
The case now hinges on whether Katuta’s actions constituted a credible criminal threat of violence.
Adjournment and Future Court Dates
The court has adjourned the matter to April 5, 2025, for the defense to make its submissions. The state will respond on April 21, 2025, after which the court will deliberate.
The ruling on whether Katuta has a case to answer or not has been scheduled for May 8, 2025.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
