Africa-Press – Zambia. Regarding the complaint lodged by Pilato that the DPP interfered with the power of DEC to arrest a suspect, given the documentary exchange between the two offices, which shows that DEC did not produce a new docket but re-arrested Milingo Lungu off the strength of the same docket which the DPP withdrew from court under nolle, it clearly proved that Mary Chirwa can be prosecuted for contempt and for abrogating the Constitution.
The chain of documentation clearly shows that it is DEC that has interfered with the DPP’s constitutional functions by rearresting on the same charges – without providing any new substantive evidence – the person who has been released on a nolle prosequi. (If the police had moved to rearrest Hichilema on the same treason charges he was arraigned on a few days after Siyunyi entered the nolle prosequi that freed him from a four-month prison ordeal in 2017, would such a move amount to the police carrying out their job or undermining the DPP?).
It is important to note that Siyunyi never took issue with the new charge of property suspected to be proceeds of crime. Her concern in the letter was about the same charges for which she had entered a nolle prosequi.
Before rearresting Lungu on the K4.4 million money-laundering indictment, the DEC did not obtained the docket from the DPP to consolidate the file with any new evidence that would warrant the rearrest. Neither did DEC even bother to produce a new docket, rather Mary Chirwa merely wrote to the DPP after arresting Milingo Lungu that she arrested him based on the same old docket which was already at DPP, which had already gone to court and was withdrawn on a nolle. Now one does not even need 5 common senses to see something wrong here!
By rearresting Milingo Lungu on the same charge without new evidence, the DEC has shown contempt for the DPP’s office and for the Constitution, more so by rushing to the public to leak the DPP’s letter.
Of course, this works to the UPND’s advantage as what matters to them is not whether the process and grounds of the DPP’s removal from office are proper. What the ruling party wants is for Siyunyi to go, by whatever means, so that the president can replace her with someone who will do their bidding, much in the same way that Siyunyi is generally seen as having done the bidding of the PF. Unlike the PF, who masked their interest in ousting Nchito from his position as DPP by using proxies of the ruling party, the UPND are blatantly using party officials and cadres to seek Siyunyi’s removal. This speaks to the political nature of the case more than the constitutional and legal merits of the allegations levelled against her.
In my view, the campaign for the removal of Siyunyi from her position as DPP is a political project that has little to do with her potential ability to frustrate the fight against corruption.
By remaining in her position, Siyunyi is making it difficult for the UPND to coordinate their effort to dismantle the main opposition party by using the courts of law and political offences targeted at potential PF presidential aspirants and other opposition leaders. On paper, the position of DPP is in some ways more powerful than the President of Zambia.
The fear of having an effective, independent, and professional incumbent chief public prosecutor explains the desire by successive presidents to have a pliant individual who can do their bidding.
This is what we are witnessing today. Siyunyi is being bullied to leave her post and Mary Chirwa is a pawn in the grand scheme. Will Mary be unfortunate enough to face the same fate if she ever fails to follow questionable political instructions?
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
