Banning Sangwa highlights the immortality of Savenda v Stanbic case

Banning Sangwa highlights the immortality of Savenda v Stanbic case


The inventor of the guillotine sought to facilitate the swift beheading of citizens who were sentenced to death. As fate would have it, he too was brought before the same guillotine of his own making when he was sentenced to death.

The banning of the Most Learned John Sangwa, SC, by the Judiciary, which he praised for the most “classic” judgment in the Savenda v Stanbic Bank matter, is a very big lesson to all Zambians.

We, in the United Progressive People (UPP), pride ourselves in being the most policy-intense political movement with a nationalistic and revolutionary programme to transform the entire justice system in Zambia. We are a nation under the captivity of archaic systems across all the three branches of government. Belief in human beings in the executive, judiciary and legislature as the source of hope for our nation has created gods in ordinary mortals that hold offices at any particular time.

The Bembas say “KOLWE ASHILABENGWA ENDA UWATANGALALA” (a male monkey whose “central gear” has never been cut/incised walks with open legs). There is another saying “UWENDA NA NGOSHE NO KUMUBEYA EUMUBEYA AMASO” (Whoever sojourns with a cobra is shaved by the cobra). The fall from grace of the learned counsel is a very important language from above to all Zambians. A snake is a snake.

The Most Learned John Sangwa, SC, was a key witness in which judges sat as prosecutors and judges in their own case against Bishop John Mambo, Gregory Cifire and Derrick Sinjela. No doubt, the sitting of judges in which they prosecuted and judged their own case, was in accordance with the provisions of the power vested in them. England, which is the sources of some of the laws that we continue to keep in our volume of statutes cannot entertain such in a democratic state that they are.

Apparently, the learned counsel wrote a letter to the Chief Justice in which he praised the three Supreme Court judges who reversed the ruling of the High Court that awarded Savenda damages and costs.

Whereas, John Sangwa, SC, praised the judges, public opinion on the matter was generally in favour of the Zambian owned company, Savenda. The media took keen interest to investigate the basis of the Stanbic Bank’s successful appeal. Before long, the media reports allegedly made revelations that showed that some named judges were bribed to overturn the judgment of the High Court.

Bishop John Mambo wrote to the Chief Justice to inquire into the alleged bribery issues in the matter. Likewise, Journalist Derrick Sinjela and activist Gregory Cifire published several articles that questioned the integrity of judges and the fairness of the judgment.

In response, the Court prosecuted the trio for “contempt of court’. To help in securing the convictions, John Sangwa, SC, was called as witness to show how impartial the Court was in the matter. The Court, as prosecutor, led him (as a witness) is cataloguing his credentials as a lawyer. To be sure, the Court presented their witness (John Sangwa) as a credible authority on matters of law. He then went on to explain before court how “excellent” the judgment was.

Tragically, like all other major cases of suspected corruption, eg, Zambia-Malawi maizegate, fire tenders, 48 houses, Lusaka – Ndola road project, various Ministry of Health corruption scandals, the Social Cash Transfer saga in which the state used public funds to repay donors the millions of dollars that they stole (as revealed by US Ambassador Foote), too numerous, but only a few itemise, the alleged corruption in the Savenda v Stanbic Bank remain a mystery.

The only consolation to all Zambians is that “UMULANDU MUME TAUBOLA” (A case is like dew that never rots). One day, justice will prevail. Whatever begins ends!

Saviour Chishimba

#VOTE on the staff #Pankonto! for No PAYE; No Sales Tax; No Market & TV levies; No tolls on Public Roads; Land redistribution & houses for all Zambians.


Share this post