ZDDM to deliver protest letter against police brutality to IG and risk being beaten

ZDDM to deliver protest letter against police brutality to IG and risk being beaten

Please be informed that we are delivering the attached to the IG tomorrow morning at 9.30hrs.Those wishing to see us beaten and locked up for truth and justice are welcome to witness.

P O Box 34553


Ms. Stella Libongami

Charity Katanga: she has declared war against citizens

Inspector General of Police

Police Service Headquarters



Dear madam IG

Ref: Protest Against Police Action-Ourselves

We write to inform you that, we take great exception to the police action that took place on 06th June 2011 in Lusaka whereas yours police beat up innocent youths that went to demonstrate against Director for Public Prosecutors (DPP) Mutembo Nchito’s continued stay in office despite him knowing that, he has issues of which some of them are criminal in nature before the courts of law. Our youths still believe that, full information was not given to President Michael Sata before appointing Mutembo Nchito DPP. His appointment based on deception is null and void. This was the basis of the demonstration which saw our youths dehumanised by officers under your charge.

Although, we are aware that sections 5(4) of the Public Order Act Cap.104 of the Laws of Zambia was challenged in the case of Christine Mulundika And 7 Others v The People (1995) S.J, we nonetheless, notified the police under your charge of our intended peaceful demonstration against the DPP for the already said reasons. But the police in their own wisdom decided to violate the constitutional right as provided for in Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia which provide for freedom of assembly and association.

The police further violated Article 20 of the Constitution which reads in parts- ‘(1)  Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to impart and communicate ideas and information without interference, whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.   (3) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extend that held it is shown that the law in question makes provisions – (a)  that is reasonably required in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; and except so far as that provision, or the thing done under the authority thereof as the case may be, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society’

Obvious, the police ought to have known that by using excessive force against peaceful but innocent citizen, they were violating their constitutional rights. In their own wisdom, the police violated Article 28 of the Constitution of Zambia which provides for enforcement of protective provisions.

The court rightly observed in the case of Christine Mulundika And 7 Others v The People (1995) S.J, rightly observed:

Although not guided by concern for the administrative consequences, we readily accept and acknowledge that there are many regulatory features in CAP 104 which are perfectly constitutional and very necessary for the sake of public peace and order.  This was common cause.  For instance, there are subsections authorising the issuing of directions and conditions for the purpose of regulating the route of a procession; the date, place and time of an assembly or a procession; their duration and any other matter designed to preserve public peace order. 

These regulatory functions of the police can only be in the highest interest of peace and order.  Though therefore the police can no longer deny a permit because the requirement for one is about to be pronounced against, they will be entitled– indeed they are under a duty in terms of the remainder of the Public Order Act — to regulate public meetings, assemblies and processions strictly for the purpose of preserving public peace and order. 

The police and any other regulating authority can only perform this other very necessary function of giving directions and imposing conditions if they are notified, in advance, of any gathering proposed to he held.  Such notification would necessarily differ in form and content from an application for permission under the subsection challenged in these proceedings.”

The court further observed that:

It would not be unlawful for the Inspector General of Police, as the appropriate authority under the Act, to devise some simple and practical method of receiving notifications. Quite clearly, all those organising meetings and processions have corresponding obligations to enable the police to carry out the regulatory function by giving notice.  The people of this country have long since come of political age and they will not fail to cooperate to make workable the remainder of the Public Order Act.

In sum and for the reasons which we have given we hold that subsection 4 of section 5 the Public Order Act, CAP 104, contravenes Articles 20 and 21 of the constitution and is null and void, and therefore invalid for unconstitutionality.  It follows also that the invalidity and the constitutional guarantee of the rights of assembly and expression preclude the prosecution of persons and the criminalisation of gatherings in contravention of the subsection pronounced against.”

In our view, since your office were notified in good time for the aforesaid reason but for reasons unknown, the officers decided to over look the action made in good faith, your office’s action was to the contrary, your officers erred and we urge you to order or cause the release of the five youths that were arrested as a result of your officers negligence.

Our Ladies trusted with the responsibility of looking after our security must not be seen to be part of the axis of evil shielding public officers bent on writing off taxpayer’s money which they stole.Please be assured that nobody including police brutality and intimidation will stop us from seeking justice. This money will be paid back to the people.

As for the youth beaten, we respect them as Patriots and HEROs for their courage to stand against this evil scheme. They will surely go down Zambian history as “Modern Freedom fighters” who deserve to be honoured when Zambia gets back on the path of respecting the law and justice.Persecuting the young people will not help because this may spell the beginning of evil expectations and crimes by the police against humanity and innocent citizens. You never know, future governments may demand that those who are used to inflict injustice on citizens should stand trial.

Today it’s our youth brutally savaged by those who are supposed to protect us but believe us when we say that we and a number of citizens are ready to be beaten or even killed for the sake of Zambian interest. President Michael Sata has special reason why he is failing to fire the DPP and playing a deaf ear but in national interest we shall not allow taxpayer’s money to be written off just like that and we are ready for the worst in this attempt to uncover all those using public offices to shield the DPP and his accomplishes.

The DPP must go and Taxpayers money paid back and we expect our police to be professional in protecting national interest. Looking at the footage on television-It is a shame not only to the profession but the cry for gender. How can an officer speak like she is in a market squabble on such a serious national matter where kids are asked to sit down and heavily armed officers asked to beat them up.

Our political fraternity will be grateful to you for quick action on this matter. It is a matter of life and death.

Yours faithfully

Edwin Sakala

ZDDM National Coordinator

For/on behalf of concerned Zambians

Share this post