Historian Dr Eustone Chiputa says the dispute over detained lawyer Celestine Mukandila’s nationality should be settled by a court of law, not by ministers or permanent secretaries, as the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance separately demands his immediate and unconditional release along with the restoration of his National Registration Card and passport.
Mr Mukandila, secretary general of the National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity (NRPUP) and of the wider Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance, was arrested on August 20 after the Department of Immigration detained him on the allegation that he is not Zambian. Government has since revoked his identity card and passport.
Dr Chiputa said questions of this nature belong squarely with the judiciary. “They should not be settled by ministers or permanent secretaries; those are not experts at law. That is why we have the Judiciary, anything that is contested let it be settled by the court of law,” he said.
He argued that a court ruling would settle the matter cleanly, removing the personal element that has defined the dispute so far. “If the government took the gentleman to court and the court proved that it was true, it will be the case settled by the court of law and he will not be looking at individuals. For now, he is looking at individuals as people who are victimising him.”
Dr Chiputa said leaders handling contested legal questions should remain impartial rather than emotional. “Let that case go to court and let him prove he is Zambian,” he said, adding that a fair hearing would protect both sides: government, if its allegation held up, and Mr Mukandila, if it did not.
“If, for example, for argument’s sake they bundle him out of Zambia, he will go to the international system and say he was victimised because he was never allowed to go to court,” Dr Chiputa said.
He drew a comparison with ordinary criminal process, noting that law enforcement agencies routinely take suspects to court rather than deciding guilt themselves, even when evidence appears clear-cut. “The case is tested in court. The conviction is secured and the person is locked up. It takes a judicial face rather than the faces of individuals who are handling the case,” he said.
