By MILDRED KATONGO –
THE Supreme Court has upheld the High Court ruling that suspended Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Mutembo Nchito should not be represented by his brother, Nchima.
The ruling was made after Mr Nchima Nchito applied to represent Mr Mutembo Nchito during Supreme Court proceedings in Ndola yesterday.
But the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ireen Mambilima, Deputy Chief Justice Mervin Mwanamwambwa, Justice Evans Hamaundu, Justice Henry Chibomba and Justice Elizabeth Muyovwe, rejected the application.
Ms Justice Mambilima said that the ruling was not prejudice in any way.
“Considering the preliminary issue applied before the High Court, it was ruled that Mr Nchito should not be represented by Nchima, as such the Supreme Court upholds the ruling,” he said.
The State, through Attorney General Likando Kalaluka and Solicitor General Abraham Mwansa had submitted that the judicial review before the High Court should not be allowed.
The State noted that the application was disturbing the proceedings of the investigations by the tribunal set up to probe Mr Mutembo Nchito.
Mr Kalaluka said the Tribunal investigations should not be disturbed by the judicial review as it was investigative in nature.
He said the continued appeal for the judicial review by Mr Mutembo Nchito would prolong the investigations regarding the tribunal hearing and not be able to settle the case.
Mr Kalaluka said Mr Mutembo Nchito would be allowed to appeal for a judicial review, once the investigations in the tribunal hearing had been concluded.
“We implore the court to make an order and not to allow the judicial review in this matter because it is disturbing the process of investigations in the Tribunal. The investigations will never come to a conclusion, if the judicial review is allowed,” he said.
In his defence, Mr Mutembo Nchito argued that the move to stop his judicial appeal would hinder his enjoyment of rights to a fair hearing.
“I do not agree with the submission by the State, because that will infringe on my rights to be heard fairly. If I am aggrieved and not happy with the statement in the Tribunal I complain to the court. Not allowing me would not set a good precedent,” he said.