The Linda Presidency

In her inaugural speech, Ms Linda Kasonde, the Law Association of Zambia's first
female President stated that, "The work of the Association is to regulate the profession,
to promote and protect constitutionalism, the rule of law, good governance and social
justice and of course to look after the welfare of its members. This is no small task......"
Almost a year later, the Law Association of Zambia (“LAZ or the Association”) and
Linda Kasonde have been attacked by different sectors of the society and bear witness
to an incident in which the secretariat was besieged by alleged political cadres carrying
placards denouncing LAZ and the LAZ president. What is going on? Do the screaming
headlines say it all?
LAZ compromised
LAZ put on the spot over silence
Linda Kasonde in a Fix
Is LAZ under Linda Kasonde compromised or is it fulfilling its mandate as provided
for in section 4 of the Law Association of Zambia Act Cap 31 of the Laws of
Zambia? Our local correspondent went on the ground to investigate “the Linda
Presidency”.
Following the April 2016 election, LAZ has stated its position on many matters affecting the
profession and the Nation: from the appointment of the first female Director of Public
prosecution to the responding in the defence of the judiciary following criticism by various
stakeholders including the President’s press aide, the Secretary General of the Patriotic Front
Party. During this time, LAZ has also had itself joined to existing court actions as amicus curia
in cases it deemed required it to submit on matters of particular significance and has taken
out litigation in other cases such as when it successfully challenged the position advanced by
the executive wing of government as regards the continued stay of ministers in cabinet
following the dissolution of parliament. In these and other actions taken by the LAZ leadership,
were they serving their own sectarian interests or fulfilling the objects of the Association as
required of it?
Your views
A survey conducted by the Legal Indaba amongst members of the profession brought to the
fore various issues.
In support of the leadership, views received included the fact that the team led by Ms Kasonde
has displayed courage during the times that the Nation has faced following a largely polarised

election which was followed by the first presidential petition in over a decade. The period also
witnessed widespread attacks on the Judiciary by various stakeholders including members of
the Executive, Ruling party and the Opposition. Some pointed out that as a result of the
general polarisation that the country faced, all who spoke up against a position taken by either
political camp were seen as in support of the other camp. It is in this vein that while LAZ had
spoken and stood for issues deemed important to uphold good governance and
constitutionalism, they were viewed as having taken a side, and often if not at all times, a side
against the party in Government and the Government.
Other members pointed out that LAZ had been militant during the period but only on matters
that seemed to protect their own or certain sectorial interests. Their concerns include the
appointment of counsel by LAZ to represent Mr Nchima Nchito SC in the case in which he
was being prosecuted for impersonation, LAZ seeking to be joined in the matter of the
liquidation of the Post newspaper as amicus curiae and the apparent bias of members of the
executive to persons connected in the aforementioned matters.
The Post Limited (in Liquidation) Joinder - Defending the Independence and Integrity
of the Judiciary?
The Daily Mail Newspaper of 21 March 2017 reported under the headline, LAZ applies to
join Post case:
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has applied to join the winding up
petition involving the Post Newspapers Limited and some of its former
employees, saying the case has potential to affect public perception and
confidence in the Judiciary.
According to an affidavit in support for an order for joinder sworn by LAZ
president Linda Kasonde, the organisation argues that the case has
generated significant media attention and interest in the general public which
has become a concern for it.
Ms Kasonde says the decision to join the case was arrived at by the council
of LAZ which resolved that investigations were to be instituted and that if it
was suggested that it was needful, LAZ would apply to intervene.
“That the Law Association of Zambia, in keeping with its statutory objects,
has been consistent and steadfast in its defence of the Judiciary and of the
judicial independence in the Republic of Zambia,” she says.
Ms Kasonde submits in the affidavit that preliminary issues raised by one of
the interested parties, Post Newspapers editor-in-chief Fred M’membe
raises serious matters touching on the independence and objectivity of
commercial court Judge Sunday Nkonde, which may affect the proper
administration of justice.
A copy of the filed affidavit of the said Dr Fred M’membe is attached at the end of
this article for an appreciation of the allegations made against the Honourable
Judge.
In response to written questions sent to the Association’s Vice President, Mr Eddie
Mwitwa, the Legal Indaba was informed that:
“LAZ decided to join the case only in respect of the application that one of
the parties applied to make asking Judge Nkonde to recuse himself. The
application by LAZ was to join the case as Amicus Curiae and to provide a
brief to the Judge highlighting the pros and cons of the application for recusal.

Ultimately LAZ wanted to ensure that the integrity, independence and public
perception of the judiciary was maintained in the matter.”
If one were to disregard the parties that this case involves, one must ask oneself the question,
is this the sort of matter in which the Association ought to rise in the defence of the
independence of the Judiciary?
Selective representation of Individual lawyers in matters against them?
For some it speaks volumes that Mr Nchito SC having a sister in the LAZ executive is sufficient
to inform the reasons for the apparent bias in LAZ appointing him representation in the criminal
case against him. In highlighting the apparent bias, Mr Makebi Zulu in support of this allegation
is reported to have stated in The Daily Nation article of entitled LAZ Must Disband that:
THE decision by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to defend Nchima Nchito
facing criminal prosecution is not in public interest, says Eastern Province Minister
Makebi Zulu.
He said LAZ was creating a fertile ground for speculation because the association’s
honorary secretary Sashi Nchito Kateka was the biological sister of the Nchito
brothers………
Mr. Zulu added that LAZ vice president Eddie Mwitwa was a partner in the law firm
run by former Solicitor General Musa Mwenye who has been appointed by LAZ to
represent Nchima Nchito in his impersonation case.
“Should the money we contribute to LAZ go towards representing an individual?” he
asked.
Mr. Zulu, said though LAZ had a legal obligation to participate in matters of public
interest, the association’s stance to publicly defend individual members was not in
public interest.
“Provisions of the Law Association of Zambia Act or the Legal Practitioners Act allow
LAZ to take part in matters of public interest and not necessarily an individual’s
interest.
“Objectively speaking, there is no public interest in this matter,”
Mr. Zulu said LAZ had failed to intervene in the prosecution of other lawyers like the
late Edward Shamwana, Sebastian Size Zulu former Commissioner of Lands
Frightone Sichone, Lewis Mosho and Keith Mweemba who was still appearing in
court after then Director of Public Prosecutions Mutembo Nchito authorized his
prosecution.
He said LAZ’s decision to appoint lawyers to specifically represent lawyer Nchima
Nchito, in his impersonation case, did not reflect well on the association’s reputation
as an organisation intended to protect public interest.”
This begs the question what is the duty of LAZ? Section 4 sets out the objects of the
Association to include
(n) to represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in regard to their
conditions of practice, remuneration and otherwise;

Is there a distinction between the cases of members cited by Mr Makebi Zulu and that of Mr
Nchima Nchito SC? Without going into the merits of a case which is before court, can we
speak in the same breathe of the action against the late Mr Edward Shamwana SC in which
he was convicted of taking overt acts amounting to the offence of treason with the allegations
of alleging to be counsel for a client? Should LAZ rise to represent all lawyers who are sued
by their existing or past employers or disgruntled clients or is there a line to be drawn between
a lawyer acting as a lawyer and being faulted for that and a person being a lawyer whose
actions are called into question?
If, and just if, there is a distinction between the Nchito case and the previous cases and the
distinction is a principle that protects lawyers in their normal performance of that role as
counsel, should we as a body of learned persons stand by that principle regardless of the
possibility that the lawyer in question has the apparent misfortune of being related to a lawyer
in the LAZ Executive? Can we turn a blind eye to the principle till the case is over and the
executive has changed? Is this a principle that must be upheld at all and any cost as every
lawyer in the profession could, by mere virtue of their acting for a client, be faulted for having
performed it? Can one or two members of the council influence the remaining 16 to take
actions that are against the Association’s interests?
Please see below affidavit filed in the matter that forms the basis of the action that was
commenced against Mr Nchima Nchito SC.
The Choice of Counsel to represent the Association in Litigation
The survey revealed concerns about the lawyers the Association had appointed to represent
it in matters that it choose to litigate. Some alleged that this in itself spoke to a biased and
anti-government/pro-opposition stance on the basis that the lawyers had represented the
President of the United Party for National Development, Hakainde Hichilema in the
Presidential petition that had been presented following the August 2016 Presidential elections.
In response to our written questions to the LAZ Executive, the Legal Indaba was informed
that the Litigation Committee of the Law Association of Zambia only had two or three active
members due to member apathy. This had had the effect of limiting the effectiveness of the
committee. With the challenge that most State Counsel and senior lawyers declared conflicts
of interest or were just not willing when called upon to act for the Association, the Association
had as such opted to utilise State counsel and lawyers that were readily available. We were
also informed that the Association’s funds were not being paid to the lawyers as they opted to
handle the matters pro bono.
Is this not a call for all of us the armchair critics to rise to the occasion and be more active in
service to the Association?
In her interview of 23 March 2017 on Hot FM, in defence of LAZ’s decision to appoint Musa
Mwenye to represent State Counsel Nchima Nchito in the impersonation case brought against
him by former Post employee Abel Mboozi, Ms Kasonde said:
“…for Mr. Nchito, the matter was urgent. An arrest warrant had been issued and he
was going to go to jail,” Kasonde said.
“…Even when you are following the law, it doesn’t look as if you are because people
look at personalities rather than the principles. But rest assured that LAZ always follows
the right principle as we understand it according to the law…nobody is controlling LAZ.
We are 16 of us; I am not sure how you would control 16 lawyers, all with strong and

different opinions. I am not being controlled by anybody and I don’t think my colleagues
are. We do stand on the law irrespective of who is involved.”
Protecting Sectarian interests or fulfilling the Association’s Mandate?
The President of LAZ has been angrily advised to form a political party and not hide behind
the Association. Ms Kasonde in her Hot FM interview earlier referenced stated that LAZ was
“the voice of reason, voice of change and the voice for the voiceless”. Has LAZ been besieged
from within by individuals advancing their own political interests or is it an Association? Is the
LAZ President under attack for being the voice of the voiceless masses by calling the
Executive to order?
Has LAZ repeatedly taken a stand to support sectarian interests or has the stand been for
good governance and constitutionalism? Is it possible to take a stand for good governance
without being seen to be against those with the mandate to govern?
Has the time come and gone when the polarisation of views was on the basis of right and
wrong or can it now only be on the basis of political or ethnic affiliation? Should LAZ ever be
held to ransom by the politics of the day or have the times of Mr Christopher Mundia when
LAZ stood up to threats to good governance and constitutionalism come and gone and the
time to be “politically correct” and bury our heads in the sand arrived?
May posterity judge us all kindly.