Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:19:27 +0000
By CHARLES MUSONDA
SYLVIA Masebo must thank the magistrates’ court for acquitting her because the acquittal proves that the Judiciary is truly independent, the PF has charged.
Last Friday Ms. Masebo was acquitted of abuse of authority of office relating to cancellations of hunting concession procurement but the former Chongwe MP claimed that her prosecution amounted to political persecution resulting from her support for incarcerated UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema in the 2015 presidential election.
But PF media director Sunday Chanda said in an interview yesterday that Ms. Masebo’s claim was unfortunate and regrettable because her acquittal proved that the PF government did not interfere with matters that were before courts.
“If the Judiciary was held hostage by the Executive, her case could have gone in the direction of a conviction but she has been acquitted and she is a member of the opposition. Let’s give credit where it is due that we have courts in this country that do not look at one’s political leaning but at the merits and demerits of a case.
“We never should want to play politics with her acquittal because what every Zambian should know is that what her acquittal means is that the Judiciary is free from interference by the Executive. Had that not been the case, she would have been convicted,” Mr. Chanda said
He said there were cases where PF members had been convicted and UPND members had been acquitted, a situation that demonstrated the independence of the three arms of government in Zambia.
“It is unfortunate that in one breath the UPND would call the Judiciary names and label judges and magistrates as corrupt but in another breath we don’t know how the corrupt Judiciary has managed to acquit Ms. Masebo.
“These are the distortions and flip flopping of the UPND. Let our colleagues be consistent, let them commend the Judiciary and other institutions that we have in this country. These institutions are not for PF, they are there for all Zambians. When Ms. Masebo’s case was being heard it was heard as a case involving a citizen and not a member of a particular party.”
