UPND lawyer Keith Mweemba and his team yesterday returned to court to humiliate another State Witness in a case where Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba is facing a charge of proposing violence by threatening to go for President Edgar Lungu’s throat.

The matter came up for commencement of trail before Lusaka Magistrate Ntandose Chabala.

Although Celestine Mukandila, a self-proclaimed lawyer, went to testify against the opposition leader, he ended up going away having told the court that the UPND vice-president did not commit any offence when he said he would go for President Lungu’s throat.

Mukandila who was later discovered to be a member of the PF information committee, narrated that on March 2, 2016, he heard a GBM statement on Hot FM Radio and decided to report the issue to his boss PF deputy spokesperson Frank Bwalya, because he thought the remarks were a danger to national security.

Mukandila said Bwalya reported the matter to Central Police the next morning and he too gave a statement to police.

But in cross examination, Mukandila told the court that the statement he heard on radio was different from the statement which was on the indictment.

Below is the verbatim report:

Examination in Chief
Prosecutor: What are your full names?
Witness: Celestine Mwambula Mukandila
Prosecutor: Age?
Witness: 27 years
Prosecutor: Where do you stay?
Witness: Matero East, Lusaka
Prosecutor: What do you do for a living?
Witness: I am a lawyer by profession and a businessman
Prosecutor: What do you remember about the 2nd day of March 2016 in relation to the matter?

Witness: On the particular day, I was driving along Addis Ababa drive heading towards Manda Hill. [It] should have been between 17:30 to 18:30, I was listening to Hot Fm [Radio] and at that time, the news had started and there came a point when in the news it was reported that a statement was being made as was reported by the news caster by Mr Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba and the statement that was said was “Edgar Lungu, if you are listening now, I am coming for your throat”. That was in reference to the Republican President and of course he further urged his supporters not to hesitate to attack, of course that was in reference to either PF members or Edgar Lungu. From that time onwards, I decided to call Mr Frank Bwalya having been the National Information committee chairperson for the Patriotic Front because I thought that the threats were eminent and it ought to have been put into contemplation. And as I called him, I advised him to listen to the news as such threats could be termed as inchoate offenses and that we ought not wait for the offense to be committed because such threats pose to be a danger to national security.
Then when I told him that, he responded by advising that he shall listen to the news. From there, I cut the line. The next morning, he must have reported to the police, at Central Police. I was called in to give my statement.

(Witness is made to identify GBM in the dock)

Prosecutor: Witness, if you heard the same recording that you heard that particular day on Hot FM, are you in a position to recognize it?

Witness: Yes I am.

Prosecutor: Your honor at this point in time, we will seek an adjournment your honor for the reason that the said recording that was retrieved from Hot FM be brought to court.

Defense lawyer Keith Mweemba rises to object: There is no such procedure in a criminal prosecution. This witness has told the court that he was driving along Addis Ababa road and he listened to the news. He cannot start talking about a recording of which he was not the author…And an item which has not yet been produced into evidence, a witness on the stand cannot be allowed to start reading its contents and therefore this witness cannot competently talk about a recording because first of all, he is incompetent to produce. As things stands, it is in the realm of hearsay. This court cannot be invited to listen to this recording until it is produced. We want to proceed with this witness without an adjournment because this witness is not one to produce anything. At no point has he said that he took the recording to the police because he is not the custodian. The court cannot be invited to listen before production, the rules of evidence do not permit that.

Gilbert Phiri supports Keith’s arguments: And just briefly Your Honour, no foundation was laid by the witness to precede production of the recording…He has not said what software was used to record, what airwaves were used to transmit, and the type of evidence is computer generated and the learned PP is well aware of the prerequisites of producing such evidence. The time has come to subject this interesting witness to cross examination.

Prosecutor: Your Honour at this point in time, the state will withdraw the application for an adjournment…

Cross examination

Jack Mwiimbu- Where were you trained as a lawyer?

Witness: Livingstone International University of Tourism, Excellence and Business Management.

Mwiimbu: I see. By virtue of that training in Livingstone at that college you claim that you are a lawyer?

Witness: Yes

Mwiimbu: Have you been called to the bar?

Witness: No, I have not

Mwiimbu: Why?

Witness: Because I have not sat for my bar exams

Mwiimbu: I presume that you are well vested in the English language, is that correct?

Witness: Yes, I am

Mwiimbu: Can you confirm that you have not produced any evidence to this court to back up your claims?

Witness: No, I have not

Mwiimbu: You have just told the court that you are very conversant with the English language. I just want to find out from you whether you are aware of a number of idioms in the English language or figurative speech?

Witness: Yes I am

Mwiimbu: If I told you to go to hell, would you pack your bags and go to hell?

Witness: No, highly infeasible.

Mwiimbu: Why? Why wouldn’t you go to hell?

Witness: Ummm, because hell is hypothetical

Mwiimbu: Is that not a figure of speech? That go to hell?

Witness: Yes it is

Mwiimbu: If I say you have been hit below the belt, would that be a physical beating?

Witness: No it would not be

Mwiimbu: It is a figure of speech you have conceded?

Witness: Unless at that particular material moment you are referring to the fact that I was hit below the belt.

Mwiimbu: Are you also aware of the figure of speech which states ‘I will go for your throat’?

Witness: No, I am not aware

Mwiimbu: That one you are not aware?

Witness: No

Mwiimbu: You are not very conversant with figurative speeches in English isn’t it?

Witness: That one I only heard it on that particular day

Mwiimbu: That’s the only time you heard it?

Witness, Not that I have been paying attention

Mwiimbu: President Lungu is fond of using a term that ‘I will fall on you like a tonne of bricks”. Have you ever heard him say that?

Witness: Yes, I have heard it at a public rally.

Mwiimbu: Is he like a tonne of bricks?

Witness: Figurative speech Your Honour

Mwiimbu: You confirm that that is figurative speech?

Witness: Yes, I do

Mwiimbu: And if I tell you that even going for someone’s throat is figurative speech, will you deny considering that you do not know about that figure of speech, would you deny?

Witness: considering that…

Mwiimbu: Would you deny?

Witness: I would

Mwiimbu: Why would you deny when you do not know?

Witness: Like you said, considering the time of…

Mwiimbu: No, answer the question, do you deny if you don’t know? Do you know all the figures of speech in English?

Witness: No, I don’t know

Mwiimbu: I put it to you that that is one of the figures of speech. You belong to the PF not so?

Witness: Yes I do

Mwiimbu: And you were annoyed by the alleged statement that PF members would be harmed because you are a member?

Witness: Not annoyed but cautioned

Mwiimbu: Cautioned? By who?

Witness: The statement

Mwiimbu: The statement cautioned you?

Witness: Yes, it encouraged people to be violent.

Mwiimbu: You told the court that you are not well conversant with the English language and I told you that going for someone’s throat is a figure of speech

Witness: Not to my knowledge.

Mwiimbu: Are you aware that the person you reported to, Frank Bwalya, was arrested and charged with a similar offense?

Witness: No I’m not aware

Mwiimbu: Are you aware that some time back, Father Frank Bwalya, I don’t know whether he is still a father, that he appeared in the Kasama magistrates court for stating that the late president Sata was Chumbu Munshololwa, you are aware of that? And that he was acquitted? Because it was a figure of speech?

Witness: Yes I am

Mwiimbu: So you confirm that if it is not a figure of speech it is not an offense?

Witness: That is not up to me to confirm but the court

Mwiimbu: But I put it to you that if it is proved by the court that it is a figure of speech like in the case of Frank Bwalya, it does not make it an offense isn’t it?

Witness: Exactly

Mwiimbu: Lastly from me, do you know the accused very well?

Witness: Yes, because he is a prominent figure in the Zambian political circles

Mwiimbu: Do you know the position he holds in the Zambian politics?

Witness: Yes I do, he is vice-president for the UPND

Mwiimbu: And as a leader of a political party he is allowed to make political statements not so?

Witness: Yes he is.

Mwiimbu: According to you, is it an offense to make political statements in Zambia?

Witness: According to me, it is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution

Mwiimbu: No further questions

GBM with his supporters at court – picture by Tenson Mkhala

Martha Mushipe take over cross examination

Martha Mushipe: you said you were a graduate of a certain university. Did you bring any documents to prove you are a graduate?

Witness: Yes, a bachelor of laws

Mushipe: According to you, what is your understanding of a proverb?

Witness: According to me, it is either a story of phrase that would carry a certain meaning.

Mushipe: With regard to the same phrase, does it mean exactly what it sounds like?

Witness: Proverbs are meant to give teachings

Mushipe: What is your tribe?

Witness: I am Kasai by tribe

Mushipe: You come from which country?

W: I’m Zambian by nationality.

Mushipe: And your parents?

Witness: My father was Congolese, my mother is Zambian and Bemba by tribe

Mushipe: Are you aware that Bemba is very rich with proverbs?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: If I say that chumbu munshololwa, what does it mean?

Witness: It means a sweet potato cannot be straightened because it can break

Mushipe: When Frank was arrested, are you the one who did the investigations like you did in this case?

Witness: No

Mushipe: At the time, did it worry you that Frank would straighten the late Sata like a potato?

Witness: At the time I was still in college and I did not follow politics to the later. I was more concerned with education.

Mushipe: Was Sata a potato?

Witness: No, he was not

Mushipe: Are you aware that Sata made several statements like that against Mwanawasa?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: You recall some of the statements that he made?

Witness: Yes, he called him a cabbage

Mushipe: Was late Micheal Sata arrested?

Witness: Not to my recollection.

Mushipe: If someone told you that you had no brains what would that mean? Is it a straight statement?

Witness: It’s hypothetical

Mushipe: What does that mean? Does it mean that that individual doesn’t have brains?

Witness: A person with no brains cannot be alive

Mushipe: Do you agree with me that the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: Do you also agree that it protects the fundamental right of an individual?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: Do you also agree that in the Bill of Rights there is the rights to freedom of expression and association?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: Would you also agree that the statement made by the accused was within his rights?

Witness: Yes I agree

Mushipe: Would I also be right to say that the accused was expressing an opinion and so he didn’t commit any crime?

Witness: Like I stated earlier, it’s not up to me to decide but the court.

Mushipe: Did he commit any crime?

Witness: To my interpretation yes

Mushipe: Did he say anything further according to your recollection?

Witness: Yes he said Edgar Lungu if you are listening I will go for your throats and make sure you are out of State House.

Mushipe: Did he say he would follow him to Eastern Province?

Witness: Not that I recall

Mushipe: Can anyone gain access to Nkwazi House?

Witness: With clearance yes

Mushipe: You agree with me that this is the man who is highly protected with state security?

Witness: Yes

Mushipe: So according to you, this ordinary Zambian would have breached that security?

Witness: He is not an ordinary Zambian

Mushipe: When you see Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu isn’t he always surrounded by the army men?

Witness: Not always

Mushipe: This is interesting. Which instances wasn’t he surrounded?

Witness: He is always surrounded by security men

Mushipe: If those security men are always armed, what made you think that the accused would breach that security?

Witness: Like I said, he is not an ordinary politician, he is a prominent opposition figure who commands a huge following.

Mushipe: Have you ever seen him with a battalion of security men?

Witness: Yes I have, when he was defense minister

(People in the gallery laugh)

Mushipe: If I told you to Google right now, I’m sure you have a phone, you would find that that phrase is an idiom

Witness: I wouldn’t know unless I Googled.

Mushipe: Google right now, you have a phone

Witness: I don’t have bundles

(Court laughs)

Mushipe: So why report to Frank and not the police?

Witness: Because he is a senior member of the party

Mushipe: You are a member of the PF, would I be right if I put it to you that your intention was to sort out personal vendettas?

Witness: I have never crossed paths with Mr Mwamba and therefore I don’t think that there are any personal vendettas

Mweemba takes over cross examination

Mweemba: I believe you are literate not so?

Witness: Yes I am

(Hands him the indictment)

Mweemba: Read the words as they appear on the indictment

Witness reads: “I want to remind Edgar Lungu today that now, I will go for your throat”.

Mweemba: Those words are completely different from what you have told the court in examination in chief. Correct?

Witness: Correct

Mweemba: So as far as you are concerned the words on the charge sheet, you did not hear, but only what you have told the court not so?

Witness: As far as I am concerned, I was reporting…

Mweemba cuts him off: Only what you have told the court in chief is what you heard?

Witness: As reported speech yes

Mweemba: Do not volunteer answers. You will put yourself in very serious trouble and I am not going to give you another warning, this is the last one so just answer my question. I will repeat the question. The words as they appear on the indictment, as far as you are concerned you did not hear them but all that you heard is what you have told the court in chief right?

Witness: Yes

Mweemba: And you said you are a lawyer?

Witness: Yes

Mweemba: Does that university quality to take you to ZIALE?

Witness: Yes it does

Mweemba: Who taught you criminal law?

Witness: That time it was uh… Mr…uh…Mr Mwewa if I recall well.

Mweemba: Which Mwewa?

Witness: By then he was assistant commissioner of police, something like that.

Mweemba: Are you sure

Witness: He was working with Zambia Police

Mweemba: And he taught you that this offense is an inchoate offense?

Witness: Ummm, my…

Mweemba: Is that what he taught you?

Witness: My interpretations is…

Mweemba: Is that what he taught you sir?


Witness: My recollection is that…

Mweemba: Answer the question. You are a lawyer, you claim to be a lawyer

Witness: No

Mweemba: So you just dreamed of this out of your own figment of imagination that this offense is an inchoate offense right?

Witness: No

Mweemba: How many inchoate offenses do you know as a lawyer?

Witness: Quite a number sir

Mweemba: And you are serious about that as a lawyer that there are a number of inchoate offenses? That is what you want this court to believe?

Witness: Because…

Mweemba: Answer the question, no one has asked you for a reason. (repeats question)

Witness: Yes

Mweemba: Ummmm, give us examples of inchoate offenses. And as you answer that question, remember that ignorance is not a defense.

Witness: May I be availed with the Penal Code so that I refer to it?

Mweemba: No, you are a lawyer, you do not need the Penal Code. You were speaking with confidence in chief that you advised the police that this is an inchoate offense so you don’t need the Penal Code.

Witness: Like I said, if I am availed a Penal Code, I will point at them.

Mweemba: The question is very simple, it is either you know or you don’t know. Okay, what did you mean when you told the police that this is an inchoate offense?

Witness: An inchoate offense basically would be an offense where the police don’t need to wait for the actual act to be committed.

Mweemba: And you passed your criminal law?

Witness: Yes I did.

Mweemba: With that definition of an inchoate offense in mind?

(laughter in courtroom)

Witness: That’s the basic definition

Mweemba: What is your authority for that? Because that is not what an inchoate offense means.

Mweemba: Inchoate offense sir, are preparatory stages of offenses. Not what you are saying. Don’t you agree?

Witness: Like I said…

Mweemba: Don’t you agree with me?

Witness: Yes I do

Mweemba: Good. And you tried to mislead the court that they are many. There are only three categories don’t you agree with me again? They are not many as you put it, they are only three.

Witness: Mumbles something

Mweemba: Answer my question (repeats)

Witness: On that one, I…

(Mweemba continues trying to get witness to answer his question for a little while longer)

Mweemba: Look sir, I don’t want to send you to prison. You are a lawyer, don’t be evasive. I don’t want to apply that you are sent to prison, that can happen. (repeats question)

Prosecutor intervenes: Just answer

Witness: Yes I do

Mweemba: Do you know the three categories?

Witness: I might have to refer to the Penal Code

Mweemba: Do you know?

Witness: Not at the top of my head

Mweemba: You don’t know. So you were telling police what you didn’t know?

Witness: No

Mweemba: Okay, since you don’t know, I will not go there. Let us go to the offenses themselves…you did not see the accused addressing a particular assembly not so?

Witness: No

Mweemba hands witness the indictment: Read the statement of the offence and the particulars of offense loudly.

Witness: “Proposing violence or breaches of the law to assembly contrary to section 91 (a) of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia. Particulars of offense being Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba on 2nd March 2016, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia without lawful excuse to an assembly did make a statement indicating or implying that it would be incumbent or desirable to do an act calculated to bring death or physical injury to His Excellency Edgar Lungu the President of the Republic of Zambia to which he said ‘I want to remind Edgar Lungu today that now, I will go for your throat’”.

Mweemba: Did you see him addressing an assembly?

Witness: No

Mweemba: You don’t even know where this so called speech was made from do you?

Witness: No

Mweemba: And you do agree with me that there can be no offense of this nature if the address is not to the assembly not so?

Witness: Yes

Mweemba: There was no assembly so this case has collapsed. Let’s go to Frank Bwalya. Frank Bwalya did not even address the assembly, you simply told him not so?

Witness: I called him, for him to listen to the news

Mweemba: Yes, as far as you are concerned, he did not see the accused addressing an assembly?

Witness: No

Mweemba: Let’s go to the radio station. This case is confined to the radio station, Frank Bwalya and yourself. Police are simply recipients of the report. So the radio station did not witness this assembly right? You simply heard it on the news

Witness: Exactly

Mweemba: Let’s go to the police. The officer who recorded your statement was simply listening to you, he did not witness the accused addressing the assembly not so?

Witness: Yes

Mweemba: So why are we here? None of these people saw the accused addressing an assembly. This offense, you have already agreed, cannot stand without an assembly not so?

Witness: Is that a question?


Mweemba: Yes. You are a good man, just answer

Witness: It depends on the definition of the word assembly

Mweemba: Don’t say depending, that’s hypothetical. Let’s talk about facts, you know that this offense cannot stand without an assembly right?

Witness: Depending on the definition of assembly, yes.

Mweemba: Yes what?

Witness: Yes, it will not stand if there is no assembly

Mweemba: Yes…so from your evidence, maybe there are other institutional people that we don’t know, which people were addressed by the accused?

Witness: Journalists

Mweemba: Where?

Witness: Ummmm, I am not aware of where, but I listened to the radio. (laughs) because there was a recording.

Mweemba: So you came to address the court without knowing your facts as to which assembly was addressed? Am I right?

Witness: No

Mweemba: Give us an example of someone who was addressed as a matter of fact.

Witness: As a matter of fact, I only know that it was recorded and I listened

Mweemba: But you didn’t witness the assembly yourself

Witness: No

Mweemba: You didn’t even make an effort to speak to anyone from Hot Fm not so?

Witness: No

Mweemba: Apart from Hot FM, you did not speak to any journalist?

Witness: No I did not

Mweemba: The accused, apart from the statement you heard, he did not take any action in confronting the president?

Witness: Not that I am aware of

Mweemba: He did not even meet anybody to actualize the words?

Witness: Not that I am aware of

Mweemba: Now to your knowledge, going for anybody’s throat is it an offense?

Witness: To my knowledge it is threatening

Mweemba: Is it an offense? I haven’t said is it threatening. Is it an offense?

Witness: Yes it is

Mweemba: Contrary to which provision?

Witness: It is an offense in that…

Mweemba: Contrary to which provision? You are a lawyer sir, that’s what you told us.

Witness: By definition, it is not an offense, I withdraw

Mweemba: Thank you. You said you have withdrawn, what have you withdrawn?

Witness: The previous answer I gave

Mweemba: ohoo? You are a good man sir. It is not an offense, very good.
I would have loved to continue but I have quoted these words ‘I will go for your throat’ and you have told the Court that it is not an offense so there is no need for me to continue, it is not an offense. I end here.

Gilbert Phiri takes over cross examination

Gilbert: I was going to say that I have no questions because the witness has in fact ended this case but just to make sure, I have a few nails to put in the coffin. (laughter in court) Witness, good morning. You are a member of the PF right?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: What position do you hold in the party?

Witness: I’m a member of the information committee

Gilbert: That is the one headed by Frank Bwalya not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: One Sunday Chanda is a member of that committee not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: Yes, very fond of interesting statements. So you were not elected but appointed right?

Witness: No

Gilbert: In fact, you were appointed to that position by Frank Bwalya not so?

Witness: Yes I was

Gilbert: Exactly, so it is very clear now. Very good man. Now, this is not a paid position right?

Witness: No

Gilbert: But you invest your time and effort in executing your duties not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: So, naturally there’s got to be some form of payment not so?

Witness: Yes…(mumbles something)

Gilbert: You said yes, I will take the yes. Now, you remember the petition that was filed in the ConCourt by the accused person and his colleague that is in prison Mr Hakainde Hichilema?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: You were involved in some curious way in that petition do you recall?

Witness: Curious? I don’t understand

Gilbert: Okay, you were involved in some way in that petition not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: In fact, you filed an application in the ConCourt while the petition was pending not so?

Witness: Yes I did

Gilbert: What was your application about?

Witness: About the interpretation of certain provisions

Gilbert: No, there was one provision, tell the court

Witness: About the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution

Gilbert: No, there was one provision that you wanted the court to…

Witness: Which one would you like me to point out?

Gilbert: There was only one. Were they several?

Witness: May you be specific

Gilbert: It appears things are done for you Mr Celestine. Is it you that filed the application? Or you are used to do things? Someone uses you to do things?

Witness: Silent

Gilbert: Did you file the application?

Witness: Yes I did

Gilbert: So tell the court what it was about.

Witness: There’s one provision that was uuumh… talking about whether Edgar Lungu could seek power from the Speaker of the National Assembly. Specifically that provision.

Gilbert: Whether Edgar Lungu should vacate State house while the accused’s petition was being heard not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: In fact. Your position was that Edgar Lungu should not vacate State House right?

Witness: (hesitates) yes sir

Gilbert: Now, this is my interest, who gave you those instructions?

Witness: uh, I decided to apply because we needed the Zambians to know because it was contentious.

Gilbert: Yes. This is very interesting. Who was your lawyer?

Witness: uh, it was…

Gilbert: it was a State Counsel

Witness: uh…

Gilbert: even a lawyer you do not remember? Someone hired a lawyer for you
(laughter in court)

Witness: No

Gilbert: Tell the court who was your lawyer

Witness: It was Shamwana and Associates

Gilbert: Yes, who in Shamwana and Associates? He is a State Counsel. It was Shonga not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: But I am curious, you don’t even know…

Witness: I actually wanted to say Shonga but you cut me

Gilbert: Someone paid legal fees for you right?

Witness: No

Gilbert: Who paid?

Witness: I did

Gilbert: ah, good. You said you are a businessman right?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: What business?

Witness: I do general business

Gilbert: for example, you get a contract and you execute it right?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: So you agree with me that you are awarded some contracts that you execute?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: And these contracts are awarded by the PF not so?

Witness: I mostly do my business with the private sector

Gilbert: Just answer my questions, we know what this is all about

Witness: No

Gilbert: No to what?

Witness: They are not awarded by the PF

Gilbert: Who awards those contracts?

Witness: Private companies

Gilbert: Associated with the PF government not so?

Witness: Not that I am aware of

Gilbert: I respect business so I will not expose

Witness: Thank you

Gilbert: But I think I have made a point. You are quite a successful business man right? At 27 years old.

Witness: Not that I am aware of
(Laughter in courtroom)

Gilbert: you are successful businessman?

Witness: No I am not.

Gilbert: What is the name of your business?

Witness: Rockywell Zambia

Gilbert: What works have you done before?

Witness: Just simple graphics designing

Gilbert: For example banners for the PF?

Witness: Not for PF, for different companies.

Gilbert: Have you ever done work for the Patriotic Front?

Witness: Not in the line of my business, no

Gilbert: What work have you done for the PF?

Witness: Only that which is in line with my duties as a member of the information committee

Gilbert: Like? Propaganda?

Witness: It depends on what you call propaganda

Gilbert: How much did you pay your lawyer for the petition?

Witness: I wish not to answer that one

Gilbert: So you are not a successful businessman but somehow you managed to retain State Counsel whom you paid in a petition involving the accused person?

Witness: No in the petition involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

Gilbert: You strike me as a person who really hates threats.

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: Recount to the court how many threats you have reported to the police before.

Witness: ummm, I think once I reported a threat to the police where someone…some three years ago and thereafter I also reported a threat just recently someone threatening violence on me.

Gilbert: So the threats you have reported are the threats directed to you?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: How about threats directed to a third party? In your 27 years of existence?

Witness: Not to the police

Gilbert: Have you ever heard Kennedy Kamba threatening on TV?

Witness: Not to the best of my recollection

Gilbert: Mumbi Phiri? Have you ever heard her threaten anyone on TV or in person?

Witness: (hesitation) I think during the NCC, but it is not really…

Gilbert: She threatened huh?

Witness: Not to the best of my recollection

Gilbert: But you heard something like a threat?

Witness: I think so

Gilbert: Did you report to Father Bwalya or the police?

Witness: No

Gilbert: You must have heard Kaizer Zulu threaten people right?

Witness: Not to the best of my recollection

Gilbert: The Africa Cup of Nations U20, didn’t you see him threaten a police officer?

Witness: Not to the best of my recollection but I saw social media reporting

Gilbert: So it appears in your life you have only heard one threat right?

Witness: No

Gilbert: But this is the only one you decided to report involving a third party?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: I think the court gets the gist. Now, let me conclude, you did not see the accused person…

Witness: No

Gilbert: No to what? Wait for me to finish


Gilbert: You did not see the accused say the words attributed to him?

Witness: No

Gilbert: You did not see the accused person subsequently on video or on TV make a statement?

Witness: No

Gilbert: The accused person did not directly communicate these words to Edgar Lungu right? Whichever Edgar Lungu this is

Witness: No

Gilbert: Now, let us assume that this Edgar Lungu is the President, you agree with me that you have no evidence that this Edgar Lungu was adversely affected by the purported statement?

Witness: Ummm, the statement I heard..

Gilbert: You don’t have evidence that Edgar Lungu was adversely affected by the purported statement. Do you have evidence?

Witness: No

Gilbert: So, agree with me that this court has no way of knowing how the president perceived this threat?

Witness: I agree

Gilbert: So the only way we would know how Edgar Lungu felt and perceived this threat would be if he came and stood where you are standing in that dock not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: You agree with me that it is only fair that he needs to come and stand in that dock and tell us how he perceived these threats not so?

Witness: My report was based on…

Gilbert: Answer my question (repeats question)

Witness: No

Gilbert: How else can we know how he perceived the threats?

Witness: By determining whether such threats were…

Gilbert: Who determines?

Witness: The court

Gilbert: Using what?

Witness: The evidence

Gilbert: The court has to use facts

Witness: Exactly

Gilbert: So I repeat the question, it is only fair that only when Edgar Lungu comes and stands in that dock and tells us how he perceived the threats can we know how he perceived the threats not so?

Witness: Yes

Gilbert: Exactly. I doubt if he is likely to come in that dock to face us, so we will never know how he perceived those threats. In fact, he would need to explain whether he is the Edgar Lungu that was being talked about not so?

Witness: No

Gilbert: This ends cross examination

Prosecutor: Witness, the defense put it to you that the accused person said “Edgar Lungu if you are listening” and there are so many Edgar Lungu’s in this country, how did you come to the conclusion that he meant the President?

Witness: Because he went on and said “I will not rest until you are out of State House” to the best of my recollection.
Prosecutor: clarify before court if you have ever heard Kennedy Kamba threatening.

Witness: Not to the best of my recollection

Prosecutor: Clarify before court why you decided to tell Father Frank Bwalya about this incident instead of going to police directly

Witness: Because he is a senior member of the party and I thought it would be best to inform him to listen to news.

Prosecutor: That will be all from this witness. And as we earlier stated, we only have one witness today…therefore we seek for an adjournment.

Magistrate Chabala granted the adjournment and the case will come up on July 20 for mention and August 14 for continued trial.