Judge Chisanga says minister Sebastian’s conduct embarrassing to legal profession

Judge Chisanga says minister Sebastian’s conduct embarrassing to legal profession

Lusaka High Court Judge Flugency Chisanga has blasted PF minister of Justice Sebastian Zulu for his ignorance in stating that decisions of the state can not be reviewed by the court.

Judge Chisanga said that Zulu’s behavior is an embarassment to the legal profession in general and demeaning to the status of State Counsel.

Sebastian Zulu is a State Cousel, an honory status for senior laawyers.

Judge Chisanga made the remarks Thursday afternoon when she delivered her ruling in the matter in which the government was trying to challenge the granting of stay if execution in the case of three sespended judges>

She made the remarks below:

I wish to take this opportunity to comment on misguided statements made by the Honorable Minister of Justice through the media, judicial notice of which I   take, following the grant of leave.

The said minister has made pronouncements to the effect that decisions made by the state are not amenable to be stayed  in judicial review proceedings under 0.53.

The correct position is  that although the effect admittedly is one restraining state actions yet, stays can and have been granted in Zambia and England in judicial review proceedings. Case law on the issue abounds.

See R V Secretary of State for Education and Science Ex – parte Avon Country Council[1] and Kabimba vs Attorney General and Lusaka City Council.[2] The law is settled. It is likewise elementary that judges are entitled to enjoy fundamental human rights under the Republican Constitution. They may seek redress from a court of law when they have a justiciable grievance.

It is therefore misguided to characterize the consideration by the Court, of a matter duly issued out of the High Court as anarchy.

It is of particular concern that the Honourable Minister of Justice, State Counsel, launched an attack on the court without verifying the applicable law on stay of state decisions in judicial review proceedings.

This conduct is unbecoming of a person on whom the lofty status of state counsel has been conferred and in fact demeans that eminent status.

The statements were un reservedly contemptuous of the court and the fact that the matter is subjudice was no deterrent at all .Professional ethics were seemingly sacrificed on the alter of expediency. Such conduct must be condemned strongly for it is demeaning to the Legal profession.

Share this post