Solwezi Court: No Oral Evidence in Mundubile, Zulu Jurisdiction Case

The Solwezi Magistrates Court in Zambia has refused to allow opposition figures Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu to present oral evidence in support of their challenge to the court’s jurisdiction in a case where they face two counts of seditious practices.

This decision carries significant legal implications for criminal defence practitioners and constitutional law experts in Zambia, as it directly impacts the procedural aspects of challenging court jurisdiction and potentially the fundamental right to a fair hearing. The refusal to hear oral evidence on a jurisdictional point, especially in a criminal matter involving serious charges, can be a contentious issue, raising questions about the adequacy of the opportunity for the accused to fully articulate their arguments. It highlights the court's discretion in managing proceedings and the specific rules governing interlocutory applications, particularly those challenging the court's authority to hear a case.

The legal context for this matter involves the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Cap 88 of the Laws of Zambia, and the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 28, which govern criminal proceedings and the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. Challenges to jurisdiction can be based on various grounds, including territorial limits, subject matter, or the legal capacity of the court. The charges of seditious practices are brought under Section 57 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 of the Laws of Zambia, which has significant implications for freedom of expression. The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016, particularly Article 18, guarantees the right to a fair hearing, which includes the right to present one's case. The court's decision on whether to allow oral evidence for a jurisdictional challenge often depends on whether the issue is purely a point of law or requires factual determination.

The key parties involved are Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu, the opposition figures and accused persons, the Solwezi Magistrates Court, which made the ruling, and the State, as the prosecution. The excerpt indicates that a ruling on the jurisdictional challenge is expected on October 13, but does not report the outcome of that ruling or the overall case.

Attorneys representing clients in criminal matters, particularly those involving politically sensitive charges like sedition, must be prepared for robust challenges to jurisdiction. This case underscores the importance of carefully assessing whether a jurisdictional challenge can be adequately argued based solely on written submissions and legal arguments, or if oral evidence is genuinely indispensable for a fair determination. Practitioners should be ready to articulate compelling reasons why oral evidence is necessary and be aware of the court's discretion in such matters, while also preparing for potential appeals if due process concerns arise from the refusal to hear evidence.