Gregory Chifire says the Law Association of Zambia has been sold to highest bidder in the ongoing debate relating to a questionable Supreme Court judgment in Savenda versus Stanbic Bank.
In this case, the High Court ordered Stanbic to compensate Savenda K192m for loss of contracts after Stanbic negligently and maliciously reported Savenda to the credit Reference Bureau. But the Supreme Court trashed the High court Judgement and instead ordered Savenda to pay costs from the time the case started, generating public outcry and suspicion that the Supreme Court has been bribed. The bill which Silwamba wants Savenda to pay the Bank is K10 million.
Instead of investigating the allegations of bribery, LAZ issued a statement condemning and threatening the media and members of the public who are questioning this judicial corruption.
But Chifire says:
I therefore find the reaction by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to come to the defence of the three Judges as a calculate move meant to subdue the course of Justice and grossly violets my rights as a citizen to have the matter I presented to the JCC heard and determined in a fair and objective manner bereft of the interference of LAZ.
Under normal circumstances, I could not have responded to the utterances by LAZ as the Association has departed from its original mandate of speaking for the down trodden and defending justice, but has become a subversive tool that beckons at a bidder’s price and whose ears are itching for a sledge hammer.
In the statement, the Association has, among others threatened the general public against commenting on court Judgments because according to LAZ, doing so would amount to contempt of court. Am sure the Association has competent Legal practitioners who can help advise the drafters of that statement to stop misleading the general public.
LAZ must be made to understand that Judicial Authority is derived from the people of Zambia.
The venom with which the Association has come to the defence of the named Judges in this case is shocking and highly suspicious. It is not the first time in the history of the Zambian Judiciary that some Judges have come under Public scrutiny, but the Association has not in the past come out in the manner it has this time around. Could it be that there is something LAZ is trying to help conceal?
I wish to remind LAZ that not long ago, one of the Judges on this case was subjected to a tribunal and the due process of the law was allowed to take course without being fettered. Why is LAZ so jittery about the public scrutiny of the concerned?.
The tone in the statement by LAZ is one of defence and intimidation.
Am persuaded beyond any shadow of doubt that justice was not properly dispensed in this matter, and if the matter is left unresolved, shall help create bad law.
I would advise LAZ to allow the JCC and other competent institutions of Jurisdiction to deliberate on this matter without undue influence from the Association.
In her conduct, it is clear that the Association is trying to obstruct justice. The association should have opened doors to the law enforcement agencies to help investigate this matter following glaring revelations regarding this case.
LAZ is not only for the mentioned individuals. LAZ must also be seen to stand for other members who may be in distress and also stand to defend public interest, otherwise the association is at the verge of losing the credibility which it has curved for herself spanning long years of service to the people.