The Editor Zambia
There is a growing tendency among some opposition politicians and their sympathisers to portray every development in the ongoing court proceedings involving Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance leaders Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, and 16 others as evidence of political persecution.
The temptation to turn every court appearance into a political spectacle must be resisted. Zambia has an independent judiciary whose responsibility is to interpret the law and ensure that justice is served.
Neither the prosecution nor the defence should dictate how judicial proceedings are conducted outside the established legal framework. 
First, the withdrawal of lawyers representing Mundubile and Zulu should not automatically be portrayed as a victory for the State or evidence of an orchestrated attempt to deny the accused a fair trial.
According to the proceedings, the lawyers indicated that they were professionally constrained from continuing because they lacked adequate instructions from their clients. The court subsequently granted them leave to withdraw.
More importantly, the magistrate allowed the two accused persons time to engage new lawyers and prepare their preliminary legal arguments.
The matter was adjourned to November 24 in the interest of justice. Where, then, is the evidence that the court deliberately denied them legal representation?
Indeed, the decision demonstrates that the court recognised the importance of allowing the accused adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence. That is precisely what a functioning judicial system should do.
However, the right to a fair trial must not be confused with an unlimited licence to delay proceedings. The rights of accused persons must be balanced against the public interest in the timely administration of justice.
The prosecution also has a responsibility to ensure that cases proceed in accordance with the law. The DPP was therefore entitled to advance the State’s position, while the magistrate retained the final authority to decide.
The second issue concerns the State’s application to expunge portions of the affidavit relating to video footage allegedly showing a raid at Zulu’s residence.
The State argues that the paragraphs introduce material not contained in the applicants’ initial response, while the defence maintains that the footage explains why the applicants feared for their lives and sought refuge at a United Nations facility.
These are competing legal arguments that must be determined by the judges. Challenging the admissibility or inclusion of evidence does not, in itself, establish an attempt to conceal wrongdoing. Equally, if the footage is relevant and admissible, the applicants should be allowed to rely on it.
The unresolved circumstances surrounding former Cabinet minister Mutotwe Kafwaya’s death also deserve a transparent and credible investigation.
However, that matter should not automatically determine the separate criminal proceedings involving Mundubile, Zulu, and their co-accused.
It is also worth recalling that the High Court recently dismissed the State’s preliminary objection against the constitutional bail application.
This demonstrates that the judiciary is not simply rubber-stamping the prosecution’s arguments. Where an objection is found legally unsustainable, it is dismissed.
The bail application must now be determined on its substantive merits. The accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence, while the State is entitled to oppose their release on legitimate legal grounds.
Ultimately, justice cannot be determined by political sympathy, social media commentary, or newspaper headlines. It must be determined by evidence, the Constitution, and the law.
Mundubile and Zulu have every right to defend themselves vigorously. The State has every right to prosecute its case lawfully. The courts must be allowed to do their work without political intimidation or pressure.
That is the real test of Zambia’s democracy: respecting the judicial process even when its decisions do not serve one’s political interests.
