MUNDUBILE, MAKEBI PROTEST
MUNDUBILE, MAKEBI PROTEST
…..They believe the State has deliberately and intentionally set their trial in Solwezi to impose unreasonable burden, hardship, procedural unfairness, financial burden and difficulty in securing witnesses not based in the area.
BRIAN Mundubile and his running mate Makebi Zulu have protested being tried in the Solwezi Magistrate Court, challenging its jurisdiction and have accused the State of deliberately choosing the venue for their prosecution to burden their defence with transport costs, difficulties in securing witnesses, among other practical obstacles.
And Solwezi Principal Resident Magistrate Mambwe Mukonde yesterday denied Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu’s application to make their oral submissions challenging the jurisdiction of the court to preside of their sedition case on grounds that their arguments were already adequately addressed in their documents.
Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu told the Solwezi Magistrate Court that their seditious practices case, for which they are yet to take plea is improperly before the subordinate Court in Solwezi and is in fact fraught with material irregularities.
“The choosing of the location of this (Solwezi) Court as the venue for the trial is merely intended to deprive us of easily accessing our witnesses, putting us at unnecessary financial hardship and denying us timely opportunity of adequately preparing our defence thereby impeding our right to a fair trial,” Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu submitted.
“We verily believe to be true and correct, that this matter is improperly before this Court and is fraught with material irregularities,” the duo stated.
Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu have complained that the State had deliberately and intentionally set the Solwezi Magistrate Court as the locality for trial and inquiry of their seditious practice case so as to impose unreasonable burden, hardship, procedural unfairness, financial burden on them.
They submitted that on the scheduled date of 25th September 2026, the State represented by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) together with all the State witnesses flew in from Lusaka, as they were not based in Solwezi.
The duo said it was not making any administrative sense for public resources to be put towards such expenses when the State was fully aware that the alleged offence was not committed within Solwezi and was therefore supposed to be tried in Lusaka.
Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu have also told the Solwezi Magistrate Court that the particulars of their offence in the charge sheet for both counts had been changed to indicate that the acts were done at an unknown place contrary to what was recorded on the warn and caution statement and official arrest.
In their affidavit in support of notice of motion to raise a preliminary issue, Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu submitted that the State was fully aware that their alleged sedition offence was not committed within the Solwezi Court’s local limits of jurisdiction and was therefore supposed to be tried in Lusaka.
“It is unjust and unfair for this case to be tried in Solwezi, where neither the offence was allegedly committed nor the accused were apprehended. It is causing unjust burden and hardship to transport our legal team to this venue,” Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu submitted.
The duo contend that the State had set Solwezi Magistrate Court to preside over their case to make it difficult for them in securing their attendance of witnesses who were not based in Solwezi.
They told the court that they had been advised by their lawyers on record and verily believed that since they were in Lusaka at the time of the alleged offence when the Facebook posts were made, the Subordinate Court at Lusaka had the jurisdiction to hear and determine their matter.
“It is the requirement of the law that a Subordinate Courts should exercise jurisdiction within its local limits. The State is fully aware that we were both in Lusaka on the material date and that and not in Solwezi and neither were they apprehended within the district.
“That we verily believe that the particulars of offence in the charge sheet for both counts have been changed to indicate that the acts forming the charges were done at an unknown place contrary to what was recorded on the warn and caution statement and official arrest which we both signed showing that the acts complained of were done in Lusaka,” Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu said.
And lawyers representing Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu, Bonaventure Mutale and Sakwiba Sikota had earlier applied for oral submissions to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the alleged offence was committed in Lusaka and not Solwezi.
The Defence attorneys had asked the court to allow Mr Mundubile and Mr Zulu to give oral evidence on the jurisdiction of the Solwezi Magistrate Court to preside over the sedition case on grounds that the alleged offence, citing the contents of their-warn-and-caution statements.
The court is expected to determine the preliminary issues before any trial proceeds.
Credit: Daily Nation