Munir Zulu wrongly sued me - DPP Gilbert Phiri tells court - The Zambian Observer
Munir Zulu wrongly sued me – DPP tells court
THE Director of Public Prosecutions(DPP) Gilbert Phiri has asked the Constitutional Court to remove him from the proceedings where former Lumezi member of parliament, Munir Zulu sued him, challenging the legality of the proceedings at the subordinate court where he is charged with Libel.
Phiri said he is not the right person to be sued because he is a constitutional office holder who was merely performing his official duties.
He said he was improperly joined to the proceedings hence be removed.
Phiri argued that the correct party to sue is the Attorney General (AG) who is the chief legal adviser of government and a representative of the government in civil proceedings to which the government is a party.
Earlier, Zulu filed a petition in the Constitutional Court challenging the legality of the proceedings at the subordinate court where he is charged with Libel.
He argued that the proceedings were unconstitutional because the alleged matter was committed at the National Assembly grounds where he enjoyed immunity of the laws and privileges.
He contended that section 76(1) and (2) as read with Sections 3 and 4 of the constitution states that a member of Parliament has freedom of speech and debate in the National Assembly and that freedom shall not be ousted or questioned in a court or tribunal.
In this case, Zulu had named the Attorney General, Mulilo Kabesha as 1st respondent, the Director of Public Prosecution, Gilbert Phiri as second and Davies Chibwili in his capacity as a presiding magistrate.
However, the DPP through acting state advocate Comfort Mulenga, in an affidavit in support of summons for an order to strike out a party from proceedings, submitted that he is a constitutional office holder who has been sued for an act done in the performance of his official functions.
“I believe that the petitioner’ will not suffer any prejudice when this court strikes out the second respondent from these proceedings as the reliefs he seeks can still be maintained against the first respondent.”
“In light of the foregoing, the first respondent respectfully prays that the second respondent be struck out from these proceedings for having been improperly joined,” read the document.
By Lucy Phiri
Kalemba June 10,2025
