Court rejects State’s application to hold Pule’s sedition case in camera

THE Lusaka Magistrate Court has dismissed an application by the state to hold the Danny Pule matter on seditious practices in camera. Magistrate Susan Munyinya in her ruling said information if produced in court would not be prejudicial to the persons linked to the details provided.

She ordered that the matter be held before an open court to both the public and the media.

Principal State Advocate Monde Chizongo told the court that while all proceedings must be held in public, there were exceptions which the court could agree to holding certain matters in camera away from public and the media pursuant to article 18(11) of the Bill of Rights as well as section76 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

She argued that matters like the one before court could be held in camera for the interest of justice in cases where public morality and protection of persons involved especially those under 18 years.

Ms Chizongo explained that the documents subpoenaed included personal details and other personal information of individuals on the list to be provided before court, which if published could not be in the interest of the public.

Ms Chizongo claimed the production of the documents would affect the lives of the persons involved and that if granted, the application would not affect the rights of the accused who would still be heard with all his witnesses or the progress of the trial.

The defence strongly objected to the application accusing the state of charging the accused in public with the intention of trying him in private.

The defence charged there was no reason to support the holding of the matter in camera when the information about the seditious charge against their client was in public domain.

Last week, Justice Munyinya granted an order allowing Mr Pule to subpoena some mentioned documents particularly of interest in his defence.

The defence argued that allowing the application would infringe on their client’s constitutional rights to a fair trial, adding that the order “is specific for the witnesses brought before court to bring specific documents which indicate their names and origins.”

They submitted that the matter had aroused ill feelings among the public and the only way to exonerate himself was for their client to present his case in public. 

They said it would be an injustice to let their client present his case when core issues of the charge he was facing were ill-feelings of the public, and that if the matter was not heard in public, then there would be something the prosecution were trying to hide.

Justice Munyinya dismissed the application and ordered that the defence stick to what they asked for which was appointment letters and national registration cards and no other details, adding “if I have to err, let me err in favour of the accused,” she said in her ruling.