CASE AGAINST FAZ PRESIDENT ANDREW KAMANGA AND REUBEN KAMANGA IN HIGH COURT TO STOP THEM MANAGING THE FAZ AGM HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITH COSTS … LAWYERS WHO STOPPED THE FAZ AGM FOUND WITH CASE AND SHALL BE REPORTED TO LAZ FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
CASE AGAINST FAZ PRESIDENT ANDREW KAMANGA AND REUBEN KAMANGA IN HIGH COURT TO STOP THEM MANAGING THE FAZ AGM HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITH COSTS … LAWYERS WHO STOPPED THE FAZ AGM FOUND WITH CASE AND SHALL BE REPORTED TO LAZ FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
By Shalala Oliver Sepiso
The saga surrounding the aborted FAZ elections keeps on giving and giving with the latest episode being a very disturbing situation. The lawyers of the plaintiff, who was alleged to have started a case to remove Andrew Kamanga from chairing the elective FAZ Annual General Meeting in Livingstone last weekend and obtained a court order to stop the AGM from proceeding if Andrew Kamanga did not resign, failed to show cause why they should not be reported to the Legal Practitioners Committee at LAZ for professional misconduct and skullduggery.
When the inter-parte hearing for the injunction (which had a return date of Tuesday 2nd April 2025 but was discharged on Saturday in mysterious circumstances where the lawyer for the 3rd respondent seemed to act on behalf of all respondents but without instructions) came up before Hon Mr Justice Geoffrey Chilufya Mulenga in the High Court sitting in Lusaka, Humphrey Mwape Musonda stood by what he said in the video recording, which I was one of the first to share online over the weekend.
Before the matter could proceed , the Plaintiff asked to address the Court. Humphrey Musonda Mwape disassociated himself from the action taken before the court. Mwape told the court that he didn’t know the lawyers and that he had never met them before. He asserted that he never gave them instructions to procure an injunction in his name against FAZ president Mr Andrew Kamanga, stopping him from chairing the 2025 FAZ AGM and hence stopping the whole meeting from proceeding. Mwape further asked the lawyers, in the judge’s presence, to confirm if they knew him and whether they had met him before.
When the judge asked the lawyers to explain themselves in mitigation, the legal practitioners mumbled something inane but nothing plausible or in total penance and contrition. Hence, THERE BEING NO PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE, the Court had no option but to dismiss the whole matter altogether. The judge dismissed the matter with costs. “Who pays?” you may ask. Since there is no plaintiff. The matter has been dismissed with costs to be borne by the lawyers!
So FAZ (read Andrew Kamanga and Reuben Kamanga) is at liberty to file a claim for damages and legal costs against the lawyers.
Now this is where things get worse for the lawyers. You can even ask yourself why one would risk their career over such decisions all in the name of running or controlling football in Zambia. Is it worth it? Should we being seeing this level of greed and extreme exigence in the ‘Land of Work and Joy’ where we are taught that progress should be steady and measured and sense of entitlement is a problem we need to address through national values and morals?
The Judge, in her findings, said the lawyers, who had been disowned by the plaintiff, had misled the Court to obtain the injunction that stopped the FAZ AGM that was slated for Saturday 29th March 2025 in Livingstone.
Arising from that , the judge found the lawyers with a prima facie case of professional misconduct and advised them that he was proceeding to inform the Legal Practitioners Committee at LAZ to deal with the prima facie misconduct against the lawyers.
This was recorded as part of the proceedings. The aspect of the case and the part of the lawyers being reported to LAZ is on the Court record.
Apparently, in a bid to augment the Judge’s complaint, PF faction leader Miles Sampa, who reported the matter on his Facebook page, has also taken up the issue and is reporting the lawyers to LAZ for misconduct.
When I asked whether Miles Sampa had Locus Standi in the matter, a learned court advocate confirmed that Sampa was reporting as an affected party since the lawyers’ actions had affected the whole Football Association of Zambia family, including the team Sampa is affiliated with i.e. Matero United.
So apparently, it is one of the associates at Lewis Nathan Advocates and another lawyer from Hara & Co. who purported to be lawyers for the Plaintiff (Humphrey Musonda Mwape) and who are being reported to LAZ for professional misconduct.
This author did contact Lewis Mosho at the beginning of the case, and the senior counsel told me categorically that he knew nothing about this case and was not even in Zambia, as he was receiving medical treatment abroad.
Some of you who follow these technical issues intently may ask me about what became of the issues of how the emergency appearance was made by the lawyer of the 3rd respondent on a Saturday and they managed to get the injunction discharged despite there being apparently no access to the affidavit and no instructions from the 1st and 2nd respondent.
There is part 2 of the sitting of the court today before the same judge. It is possible that the judge today will deal with this issues.
What I am hearing is that the defendants, Andrew Kamanga and Reuben Kamanga want the lawyer for the 3rd respondent (the National Sports Council of Zambia) reported to LAZ, as well, for professional misconduct.
But why?
On Saturday afternoon, a Facebook page campaigning for Adrian Kashala, claimed that Kashala, or at least his team, had managed to get the injunction discharged. Earlier, A whistleblower, citing sources close to the corridors of power at FAZ, mentioned that earlier in the day, a said lawyer had called FAZ president Andrew Kamanga and told him that she was from the government and he was asked to act, by unknown persons, for FAZ and that she was able to get the court injunction discharged. The FAZ supremo refused to retain this lawyer since FAZ, which was being cited in this case through its president Andrew Kamanga as first respondent and Reuben Kamanga as second respondent, already had lawyers, who are hired and ratified by the FAZ Council when sitting during an Annual General Meeting.
Surprisingly, hours later, the National Sports Council of Zambia (3rd Defendant) announced that it has instructed it’s lawyers to move the court with an emergency action so that the court order was set aside and Zambia was not banned by FIFA. What is in doubt is if they had instructions from the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
If you look at the document attached, it shows that lawyer Chituwa Simuziya Mwamba is the lawyer for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent. This means in this case she was, or is, acting for all respondents. But does she have a Retainer Agreement with Andrew Kamanga and Reuben Kamanga as required by the Legal Practitioners Rules? If not this is a serious case before The Law Association of Zambia aa she is, or was, acting without instructions and mandate.
Now, the injunction, on first perusal, did not enjoin the 3rd defendant (i.e. The National Sports Council of Zambia). So it became curious how Counsel for the 3rd Defendant, Counsel Chituwa Simuziya Mwamba, could have set aside the injunction, especially that this was done on a Saturday with the court registry most likely closed.
How did she have access to the Registry? Was the judge sitting in chambers or at home? What did she say in her viva voce application? Was the application ex-parte or inter-parte (remember the injunction had a 2nd April 2025 return date for inter-parte hearing of the main matter)? If it was ex-parte, why were the lawyers for the Plaintiffs “given notice to appear before the Judge”? How was that notice given to Plaintiff’s lawyers? Why weren’t the 1st and 2nd defendants not invited to attend the said hearing?.
With so many questions still unanswered, the defendants are said to have plans to report Counsel Chituwa Simuziya Mwamba to the Legal Practitioners Committee of FAZ for professional misconduct. It will all depend on what the 3rd respondents lawyer says in court today.
