Former Director of public prosecutions Mutembo Nchito says the Constitutional Court should subpoena former chief justices Ernest Sakala and Mathew Ngulube because they both have prior negative dealings and connections that should have excluded them from sitting on the Tribunal that recommended his removal as DPP.
And Mutembo has disclosed that the reason he will never expect Justice Ngulube to treat him fairly is because he had exposed the irregular receipt of payments from the Zamtrop Account that led to his fall as Chief Justice.
He also wants Justice Ngulube to explain why he did not disclose that, while the Terms of Reference for the Tribunal included questions that had to do with Dr Mahtani and the Nolle Prosequi entered in his matters, the former Chief Justice Ngulube was driving a Range Rover Sport ABR 3600 owned by Dr Mahtani.
In a further affidavit in support of ex-parte summons for leave to issue summons for the attendance of witnesses filed in the Constitutional Court, Friday, Mutembo stated that both Justices Sakala and Ngulube had prior negative dealings with him and connections that should have excluded them from sitting on that Tribunal for reasons of bias and conflict of interest.
Mutembo stated that he wanted justice Ngulube to explain why he had not disclosed to the parties that he was employed by Dr Rahjan Mathani as a legal consultant when the Terms of Reference included questions that had to do with Dr Mahtani.
Mutembo further disclosed that the reason he would never expect Justice Ngulube to treat him fairly was because he had exposed his irregular receipt of payments from the Zamtrop Account that led to his fall as Chief Justice.
“It is also my intention in relation to Justice Ngulube, to raise questions about his untimely departure from the high office of Chief Justice which came on the back of my exposure as Defence Counsel in the matter of the now infamous Zamtrop Account, where he received illicit payments. This has left me apprehensive as to whether he was able to hear me and participate in the Tribunal dispassionately.” read the affidavit.
“At the time of the exposure of the Zamtrop Account and the suspicious payments to Justice Ngulube as a sitting Chief Justice of the Republic, I had the displeasure of having to confront him in his office with these illicit payments and inform him that the payments he received would be made public. Justice Ngulube was forced to resign his high post of Chief Justice, following the public outcry that followed the exposure of his irregular receipt of payments from the Zamtrop Account.”
Meanwhile Mutembo stated that Justice Sakala just like Justice Ngulube, was conflicted and should never have accepted the appointment to the Mutembo Nchito SC Tribunal after reviewing the Terms of Reference.
“One of the Terms of Reference the Tribunal had to deal with was the allegation that I walked out of Justice Mutuna’s Court in the case of Development Bank of Zambia Vs JCN Holdings Limited, The Post Newspapers Limited and Mutembo Nchito notwithstanding that I had sought leave to be excused. The day on which I was alleged to have walked out of court was March 26, 2012. On that day I and other Defendants in that action had complained to the Minister of Justice against the conduct of several judges in relation to the matter because of the apparent Perversion of Justice that resulted in our case being unlawfully taken away from Mr Justice Albert Mark Wood and irregularly allocated to Mr Justice Mutuna,” read the affidavit.
“On the morning that I asked to be excused from the proceedings, we had submitted a letter with an extensive analysis of what appeared to be underhanded ways in which multiple Judges were involved in the case. One of the Judges we complained about was Mr. Justice Ernest Sakala, who was later to sit on the Mutembo Nchito SC Tribunal in 2015, to determine a question arising of the case of Development Bank of Zambia vs JCN Holdings Limited, The Post Newspapers Limited and Mutembo Nchito, a matter in relation to which we complained about him in 2012. It is my intention to elicit evidence from Justice Sakala that confirms that he was involved in matters surrounding this Term of Reference, which will go to prove my complaint on bias or conflict of interest under paragraph 31 (iv) of my petition that he should never have been involved in the Tribunal.”