… Misinterpretation of Constitutional Safeguards
By Francis Maingaila
Lusaka, Zambia24 (22-06-2024) – In the midst of the unfolding legal saga surrounding Petauke Member of Parliament Emmanuel JJ Banda, a contentious debate has emerged over the interpretation of Zambia’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
Deputy Media Director of the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND), Cheelo Katambo, has taken a firm stance against what he perceives as a misinterpretation of Article 18(5) of Zambia’s Constitution by Emmanuel Mwamba.
At the heart of the issue lies Mwamba’s assertion that the charges leveled against Banda—aggravated robbery and attempted murder—are unconstitutional under Article 18(5).
This provision, as Katambo articulates, is designed to shield individuals from facing repeated trials for the same offense, thereby safeguarding them against double jeopardy.
However, Katambo emphasizes that this constitutional shield does not extend to preventing the prosecution for distinct offenses arising from the same incident.
In a statement to Zambia24, Katambo elucidated that while Banda had previously been convicted of assault stemming from a specific incident, the current charges of aggravated robbery and attempted murder are qualitatively different offenses.
Each charge, Katambo asserts, is based on new evidence or findings from ongoing investigations, distinctly separate from the initial assault charge.
“The essence of Article 18(5) is to prevent individuals from enduring successive trials for identical offenses,” Katambo affirmed. “It does not, however, prohibit authorities from pursuing justice for different crimes arising from the same incident.”
Katambo’s remarks underscore a fundamental misunderstanding in Mwamba’s interpretation of constitutional safeguards.
He argues that Mwamba’s assertion—that subsequent charges stemming from the same incident are unconstitutional—fails to recognize the legal distinction between offenses.
According to Katambo, such interpretations overlook the complexities of prosecutorial decisions and the evolving nature of criminal investigations.
“While Mwamba’s concern for upholding constitutional rights is commendable, his interpretation of Article 18(5) in this context appears misguided,” Katambo concluded.
“It is crucial for our legal system to operate independently and judiciously, guided by factual evidence and a nuanced understanding of constitutional provisions.”
As the legal proceedings against Emmanuel JJ Banda continue to unfold, Katambo’s clarion call for a comprehensive understanding of constitutional protections serves as a stark reminder.
Upholding the integrity of legal processes and avoiding premature conclusions based on misinterpretations are imperative in ensuring justice and maintaining public confidence in Zambia’s judicial system.