Mr.!Maini!Kiai! Mr.!Frank!LaRue! … on& the& Right and& Responsibility& of& Individuals,& Groups...

VIA email to urgent-‐[email protected]

And Post to:

Mr. Maini Kiai Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Mr. Frank LaRue Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Mr. El Hadji Malicki Sow Chair-‐Rapporteur, Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions

c/o Quick Response Desk Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8-‐14 avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

April 24, 2012

Urgent Action Appeal – Henry Chikomeni Banda – Republic of Zambia

Dear Rapporteurs:

This law firm represents Henry Chikomeni Banda (“Mr. Banda”), a citizen of Zambia with permanent resident status in South Africa. We request that you send Urgent Appeals to the Government of Zambia to cease and desist from seeking his extradition from South Africa. The grounds of this request are as follows:

• First, the criminal allegations against Mr. Banda are politically motivated and violate his rights to

freedoms of political association, expression and opinion, and to take part in public affairs. Mr. Banda is the son of the immediate past President of Zambia, and served prominently on the campaign team for the former President during the presidential elections held in September 2011.

2

Since taking power, the new government has targeted numerous members of the opposition with criminal allegations, raids, seizures, and arrests, allegedly aimed at diminishing their ability to compete in upcoming elections.

Mr. Banda is imminently threatened with possible extradition to Zambia where he would face political persecution.

• Second, Mr. Banda’s detention for purposes of extradition and subsequent prosecution in Zambia would be based on politically motivated charges in Zambia and hence arbitrary.

• Third, Mr. Banda’s rights to assistance of counsel and of human rights defense are currently being

violated because his counsel and human rights defender, Mr. Robert Amsterdam, has been the subject of defamatory and threatening remarks by officials of Zambia’s government and of the governing Patriotic Front party., We inform the recipients of this letter that a separate request for Urgent Appeals on behalf of Mr. Amsterdam has been concurrently filed with the Special Rapporteurs on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders and Independence of Judges and Lawyers (please see Appendix I).

Mr. Banda’s imminently threatened detention, extradition and prosecution would accordingly violate his rights under Article 9.1 (right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention), Article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression), Article 22 (freedom of association) and Article 25 (a) (right to take part in the conduct of public affairs) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Zambia has been a State Party since 1984, among other international instruments guaranteeing these rights.

The threats and intimidation against his lawyer and human rights defender, Robert Amsterdam, violate Principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,1 and Articles 9.3(c) and 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.2

For the reasons set out below, we believe that the allegations against Mr. Banda underlying the request by Zambia for his extradition are political in character and without merit.

1 Principle 16: “Governments shall ensure that lawyers ( a ) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; ( b ) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and ( c ) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Adopted by the 8th UN Congress on the Prevention and Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 Augist to 7 Sept. 1990. 2 Adopted by General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998. Article 9.3(c) provides that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, “To offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Article 12.2 provides: “The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.”

3

Politically Motivated Charges

Mr. Banda is the son of the former President of the Republic of Zambia, Rupiah Banda (the “former President”), who was defeated in the last presidential elections held in September 2011. Mr. Banda served prominently on the campaign team responsible for the organization and deployment of logistics as well as in a fund-‐raising capacity for the former President and the former governing party, the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (“MMD”), during that election. He was forced to flee Zambia within 48 hours of the presidential vote, having received text messages and verbal alerts warning him of a series of imminent arrests as part of a “hit list” drawn up by the new government. Mr. Banda, his brothers, his stepmother, stepmother’s family and others close to the family have all been the subject of either raids and searches of their homes, or criminal investigations commenced almost immediately after the current President of Zambia, Michael Sata, took office.

These criminal investigations are politically motivated in at least three respects. First, they are designed to discredit the former President and the former governing party in order to consolidate and preserve a political base. Second, they are intended to discourage the former President from seeking public office in Zambia in the future. And third, they are intended to discourage political competition by members of the public or opposition politicians through intimidation, as they may become targets of prosecution, investigation and harassment in view of their political association.

The referenced criminal investigations are directed against the immediate family of the former President – rather than against the former President himself – because the former President enjoys a constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution, absent a resolution by the Zambian General Assembly removing this immunity. Article 43(3) of the Constitution of Zambia states that:

No person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State.

Consequently, the immediate family of the former President has become a target as part of a political strategy that discredits the family – and, by implication, associates the former President with purported criminal activity – thereby paving the way for a resolution in the National Assembly to lift the former President’s constitutional immunity and, ultimately, subject him to criminal prosecution and enable the dismantling of the MMD. The MMD is one of Zambia’s main opposition parties with a presence in all the provinces that is able to challenge and hold to account the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) party of President Michael Sata.

The PF leadership has made it publicly clear that they are striving to remove the former President’s immunity,3 and, in order to do so, are aiming to take over sufficient seats in parliament to reach the 2/3rds majority necessary to pass the vote. Toward this end, the ruling party has submitted a historically unprecedented number of legal challenges to seats won by the MMD (effectively, the PF is contesting every seat won by the MMD).

3 “RB’s immunity lifting based on unfounded accusations – Musokotwane,” Zambia24, Jan. 12, 2012 (http://zambia24.com/latest-‐news/rbs-‐immunity-‐lifting-‐based-‐on-‐unfounded-‐accusations-‐musokotwane.html).

4

The Government’s efforts to discredit the former President’s family are part of a much broader attack campaign against members of the opposition in Zambia. The long list includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Approximately 150 lightweight trucks and at least 37 large trucks used in the last MMD

parliamentary and presidential campaigns have been unlawfully seized and impounded by the ruling party, including the main presidential bus for the former President. All of these vehicles would have been used in future by-‐election campaigns and the next presidential election. The reason for the impounding of vehicles was cited as part of an investigation into the source of funds to purchase the vehicles, however no further details have been provided.4 These seizures of property have been aimed at eliminating the MMD’s ability to compete politically by attacking their infrastructure across the country.

• Over 2,000 bicycles and several motorized bikes that would have been used in future campaigns have been seized from MMD members such as the Hon. Dora Siliya and the Hon. Situmbeko Musokotwane.

• Former Vice President and former Minister of Justice George Kunda was accused of abusing national

resources. Police raided his family’s farm, but seized only bags of maize and bicycles, and other materials related to the MMD campaign in his district, which would have been used in future campaigns.5

• Former Energy Minister Kenneth Konga has been “cautioned in relation to abuse of authority,” yet

despite the absence of a formal criminal charge, significant property and other valuable assets have been seized.6 Former Minister Konga has also been the subject of arbitrary treatment by the authorities, as his state-‐supplied vehicle was seized for three months despite all the necessary paperwork demonstrating that the purchase and payment was executed through normal channels like every other MP. The matter was not resolved until official intervention on behalf the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, allowing for the vehicle to be released.

• Former Finance Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane is being targeted in an investigation on allegations

that he had exceeded his authority by granting a tax deferment to a foreign investor, despite a clear provision under the Zambian Development Agency Act that grants authority to the Finance Ministry to make such arrangements.7 The case against Mr. Musoktwane is based on the conclusions of a report by a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the PF government (see Commissions of Inquiry section below).

• MMD spokesperson Dora Siliya was charged and arrested for abuse of authority of office, allegedly for

actions taken when she was Transport and Communications Minister in the MMD administration.8

4 “RB’s Campaign Bus Seized,” Lusaka Times, March 8, 2012 (http://www.lusakatimes.com/2012/03/08/rbs-‐campaign-‐bus-‐seized/) 5 “The Police raid of Former Vice President George Kunda’s parents’ house described as cheap,” Lusaka Times, Feb. 11, 2012 (http://www.lusakatimes.com/2012/02/10/police-‐raid-‐george-‐kundas-‐farm-‐recover-‐items/). 6 “Konga’s multi-‐billion Kwacha property seized,” Lusaka Times, Dec. 27, 2011 (http://www.lusakatimes.com/2011/12/27/kongas-‐multibillion-‐kwacha-‐property-‐seized/). 7 “Zambia probes ex-‐finmin over Pepsi tax deal,” Reuters, Jan. 27, 2012 (http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE80Q08I20120127). 8 “Dora Siliya arrested and denied Bail,” Lusaka Times, April 2, 2012.

5

The cases against Siliya are based on the conclusions of a report by a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the PF government (see Commissions of Inquiry section below).

• The Provincial Task Force on Corruption arrested MMD Mbala Central Member of Parliament and

former Northern Province permanent secretary Mwalimu Simfukwe, charging him with unspecified claims of abuse of authority.9

• Former Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives Peter Daka was investigated, subjected to seizure of

property, and “warned and cautioned” by the Anti-‐Corruption Task Force on the allegation of using a residential electricity tariff to run a brick-‐manufacturing commercial business.10

• The leader of the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND), Hakainde Hichilema, has

endured repeated harassment and unspecified threats of investigation, including an alleged attack upon his home by a group of Patriotic Front cadre youths that the police neglected to prevent.11

Meanwhile, quite a number of former MMD officials, who in the past were being accused of corruption in the press, have been cleared of all investigations upon changing their political affiliation from the MMD to the ruling PF. Speaking to the Post on 10 April 2012, MMD Member William Wilima said: “If you are not Mr Sata’s friend, you will be investigated but if you are his friend, you will not be investigated. You can even be appointed.”12

The Patriotic Front’s campaign to frustrate, if not eliminate political competition was further illustrated on March 14, 2012, when the Chief Registrar of Societies attempted to de-‐register the MMD opposition party over alleged non-‐payment of fees for its branches in Lusaka, and ordered the immediate dissolution of the party and the removal of 53 parliamentary seats. The Lusaka High Court intervened to stay the motion pending an appeal from the MMD, while the Law Association of Zambia spoke out strongly against the blatant violation of constitutional norms presented by the dissolution attempt.13

Purported Nature of the Charges

No details about Mr. Banda’s purported wrongdoing have been disclosed publicly and, consequently, he is unable to refute any specific allegations. Although the police have visited his office and home and interviewed employees, Mr. Banda has never been questioned and his requests for information have been repeatedly ignored by the Zambian authorities. Instead, the only source of information on the allegations against him has been the Zambian media, which alone amounts to a sharp departure on behalf the Zambian authorities from international norms concerning the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the allegations.

9 “MMD MP arrested for abuse of authority,” Lusaka Times, April 11, 2012 (http://www.lusakatimes.com/2012/04/11/mmd-‐mp-‐arrested-‐abuse-‐authority/) 10 “Security Officers Caution Former Minister Peter Daka,” Times of Zambia, Jan. 28, 2012, (http://allafrica.com/stories/201201300201.html) 11 “HH dares Sata to have him arrested,” Zambia24, Jan. 16, 2012 (http://zambia24.com/latest-‐news/hh-‐dares-‐sata-‐to-‐have-‐him-‐arrested.html). 12 “MMD Criminals are now angels in the PF – Wilima,” The Post, April 10, 2012 (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26727&show_comzone=y) 13 “Decision to de-‐register and nullify MMD parliamentary seats is irresponsible – LAZ,” Lusaka Times, March 15, 2012 (http://www.lusakatimes.com/2012/03/15/decision-‐deregister-‐nullify-‐mmd-‐parliamentary-‐seats-‐irresponsiblelaz/)

6

There has been little consistency in terms of the accusations against Mr. Banda in the media, which appear to change considerably and frequently as the investigators pursue various false allegations until they are proven untrue. At various points, Mr. Banda has been accused of completely unrelated involvement in a “gold scam” which was later fully discredited, arranging oil deals (despite the fact that Mr. Banda never held any position in government), vague claims of financial improprieties (despite there being no law in Zambia requiring the disclosure of financial supporters of political campaigns), possession of stolen vehicles (never mentioned again), non-‐specific allegations of influencing government tenders, and, most persistently, of involvement in the privatization of 75% of the state-‐owned telecommunications company Zamtel even though his name does not figure more than once (and only then incidentally) in the government-‐appointed Commission of Inquiry into the Zamtel sale.

As detailed in Appendix II to this letter, the facts about the Zamtel case -‐-‐ that (1) Mr. Banda played no role in the privatization or the introduction to the government of the firm that evaluated Zamtel prior to sale, (2) that the appointment of that firm was lawful, and (3) that Zambia was paid more than fair value for Zamtel -‐-‐ cast serious doubt on the government’s Zamtel report as well on the bone fides of its criminal investigation into Mr. Banda.

Executive Interference in the Judicial Process

Mr. Banda cannot have a reasonable expectation for fair treatment by the Zambian authorities or a fair trial given the repeated instances of executive interference in the judicial process. President Sata’s direct influence over the criminal investigations against the former President’s family (and against members of the MMD) is underscored by his public comments during the swearing in of Mutembo Nchito to the position of Director of Public Prosecutions.14 There is a video clip published on the internet from this same official function in which President Sata directs the Director of Public Prosecution, Nchito, to execute certain instructions regarding prosecution. President Sata states the following:

“Today we have a very deadly legal joint with attorney general, the solicitor general and yourself. We expect you to assist the judiciary because don’t blame the judiciary if they are acquitting people if you don’t prepare your cases properly. If you are you have half baked cases, you have to improve. Look at some of the old cases privatisation of Roan Mine, privatisation of Kagem, privatisation of Lima Bank, privatisation of Intercontinental Livingstone. All of those are cases stinking with corruption. You have all been called back. Your former chairman is now permanent secretary and the minister of home affairs and I'm sure that with the attorney general who was once harassed because they didn’t like his hands stinking or that he was going to round them up, we expect to leave Zambia better than we found it. There are still some Chinese companies, there are still some Chinese companies which are funding MMD If you get in touch with the people the drug enforcement they'll give you the details, and they will give you the names, and when you go to Zamtel don’t look at Zambians only. These Libyans is the one who corrupted Zambians so don’t go for Zambians you must also go for the Libyans from "Lap Green" They are the ones who have dirty money and dirty hands. Sort them out!” (emphasis added)15

14 “Sort Out Lap Green, Sata Orders Nchito,” The Post, Jan. 14, 2012 (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=24703) 15 The video of President Sata’s comments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Mutembo Nchito was uploaded by MuviTV on January 12, 2012 (http://youtu.be/Pz46kPD1t9Q)

7

President Sata’s comments constitute represent a violation of the Zambian Constitution. According to Article 56(7):

In the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this Article, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.

Provided that when the exercise of any such power in any case may, in the judgement of the Director of Public Prosecutions involve general consideration of public policy, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall bring the case to the notice of the Attorney-‐General and shall in the exercise of his powers in relation to that case, act in accordance with any directions of the Attorney-‐General.

Separately, Director Nchito has his own political motives for pursuing criminal investigations into members of the former President’s family and members of the MMD. Mr. Nchito was previously a senior official of Zambian Airways, which became embroiled in scandal in 2009 over allegations that it had improperly arranged for the Ministry of Finance to cancel $29 million in Zambian Airways debt. When the former President took office, he cancelled the bailout. Subsequent criminal investigations into the matter focused on Mr. Nchito, although no wrongdoing on his part was found. Mr. Nchito has since refused to appear before a judge that is not of his own choosing.

Manipulation of Commissions of Inquiry

In the first six months of the Patriotic Front’s administration, no fewer than eight separate Commissions of Inquiry have been appointed. These commissions have systematically been used as instruments of political repression of members of Mr. Banda’s political party. (See Appendix III hereto.) Concluding that “President [Sata] had a pre-‐determined idea” in establishing his commissions of inquiry, Zambia’s Centre for Policy Dialogue has found that “the commissions of inquiry constituted by President Michael Sata to investigate the alleged corruption activities by the MMD are a waste of public funds”.16 Given the numerous instances in which the executive branch of government has directly interfered and pressured the commissions of inquiry, our client cannot reasonably be expected to be afforded due process of law in Zambia.

Intimidation and Threats Against Defense Counsel

In an article published on 14 April 2012 in the Post Newspaper of Zambia,17 Wynter Kabimba, Secretary General of the ruling Patriotic Front party, made several defamatory and threatening comments with respect to Mr. Robert Amsterdam, international lawyer to Mr. Henry Banda.

Specifically, Mr. Kabimba’s denunciation of Robert Amsterdam alleges that by performing his duties as counsel to Henry Banda, he is somehow participating in a “criminal syndicate”. Mr. Kabimba’s threats were preceded by comments made to the Post on 13 April 2012 by Government Spokesman Fackson Shamenda vaguely alleging “money laundering” and other accusations of criminal activity concerning Mr.

16 “Simuntanyi: All commissions of inquiry by Sata waste of public money”, Zambia Watchdog, April 11, 2012 (http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=33330). 17 “Henry's lawyer is on payroll of a corrupt syndicate – Kabimba,” The Post Newspaper, April 13, 2012 (http://postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26829)

8

Banda’s retention of counsel.18 These comments made by government officials and especially by PF party members outside of government toward Henry Banda’s legal counsel are defamatory in nature and in violation of Henry Banda’s right to counsel and to defense of his human rights.

The issue of the harassment of Mr. Banda’s lawyers is presented in the separate request for Urgent Appeals contained in Appendix I.

Urgency of the Threat to Mr. Banda’s Rights

On or about February 21, 2012, pursuant to a request by the Government of Zambia, the General Secretariat of Interpol published a Red Notice against Mr. Banda. We understand that the purported basis for the Red Notice is suspicion of fraud, and that the particulars have not been made public.

Mr. Banda is presently in South Africa. On April 2, 2012, a Zambian newspaper reported that within the last few days, South Africa’s High Commissioner to Zambia, Mr. Moses Chikane, stated that Mr. Banda could be handed over to Zambian authorities conditionally.19 A further article quoting Moses Chikane was published on April 9, 2012.20

The threatened violations of Mr. Banda’s associational, expressive and liberty rights could take place imminently.

Conclusion

In the light of the foregoing circumstances, there should be a presumption that the Zambian criminal investigation and extradition request against Mr. Banda are politically motivated, in violation of his rights to freedom of political association, opinion and expression, and to take part in the conduct of public affairs. A detention and extradition of Mr. Banda, on the basis of the politically motivated Zambian charges, would be unfounded and hence arbitrary. All of these violations would infringe Mr. Banda’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Zambia is a State Party.

The threats and intimidation against his lawyer and human rights defender, Robert Amsterdam, violate Principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and Articles 9.3(c) and 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that an Urgent Appeal be sent to the government of Zambia, requesting that Zambia cease and desist from requesting Mr. Banda’s extradition

18 “Government will have a good case of money laundering against Henry – Shamenda,” The Post Newspaper, April 13, 2012 (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26803) 19 “SA Speaks Over Henry Banda,” Zambia Daily Mail, April 2, 2012. (http://www.daily-‐mail.co.zm/?p=787) 20 “SA ready to hand over Henry Banda,” Zambia Daily Mail, April 9th, 2012. (http://www.daily-‐mail.co.zm/?p=1542)

9

Mr. Banda is 44 years of age. Communications may be addressed to him via this law office, at the following address:

Amsterdam & Peroff 45-‐47 Church Street Rickmansworth Hertfordshire WD3 1DQ

Sincerely,

Robert Amsterdam Amsterdam & Peroff LLP Counsel for Henry Chikomeni Banda [email protected]

Douglass Cassel Counsel for Robert Amsterdam [email protected]

Geert-‐Jan Alexander Knoops [email protected] Counsel for Robert Amsterdam

10

APPENDIX I

April 24, 2012

VIA email to urgent-‐[email protected] Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders Ms Gabriela Knaul Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers c/o Quick Response Desk Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8-‐14 avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

Urgent Action Appeal – Robert Amsterdam – Republic of Zambia Dear Rapporteurs: We are writing on behalf of the lawyer and human rights defender, Robert Amsterdam (“Mr. Amsterdam”) of Amsterdam & Peroff LLC (“Amsterdam & Peroff”), who serves as international counsel to Henry Chikomeni Banda (“Mr. Henry Banda”), a citizen of Zambia. We request that you send Urgent Appeals to Zambia to cease and desist from threatening and harassing Mr. Amsterdam from performing his duties as a legal representative and human rights defender of Mr. Henry Banda. Please see the attached concurrent request for UN Urgent Appeals with regard to the politically motivated accusations against Mr. Henry Banda (Appendix I). Mr. Henry Banda is a permanent resident of the Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”). He is entitled to legal representation by international counsel of his choice and to defense of his human rights. Zambia is a member of the United Nations. The grounds of this request are as follows:

• Mr. Henry Banda’s counsel, Mr. Amsterdam, has been the subject of defamatory and threatening remarks by senior officials of the Zambian government and the governing party (Patriotic Front, or PF), thereby not only infringing on his rights as a lawyer and human rights defender, but also the rights of Mr. Henry Banda to legal representation and to defense of his human rights.

• The threats and intimidation against Mr. Henry Banda’s lawyer and human rights defender, Mr. Amsterdam, violate Principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and Articles 9.3(c) and 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A separate request for Urgent Appeals has been sent to the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, Freedom of Opinion and Expression, as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions.

11

For the reasons set out below, we believe that the threats being made against Mr. Amsterdam violate the right of Mr. Banda to legal counsel, and the accusations being made against Mr. Amsterdam are politically motivated and defamatory in nature. Harassment and Threats of Defense Counsel

Senior officials of the Zambian Government and the governing party have acted in concert to threaten Mr. Amsterdam publicly because of his efforts to provide legal assistance and human rights defense to Mr. Banda. In an article published on 14 April 2012 in the Post Newspaper of Zambia,21 Wynter Kabimba (“Mr. Kabimba”), Secretary General of the ruling Patriotic Front party, made several defamatory and threatening comments with respect toward Mr. Amsterdam, international lawyer to Mr. Henry Banda.

Specifically, Mr. Kabimba’s denunciation of Mr. Amsterdam alleges that by performing his duties as counsel to Mr. Henry Banda, he is somehow participating in a “criminal syndicate”. Mr. Kabimba’s threats were preceded by comments made to the Post on 13 April 2012 by Government Spokesman Fackson Shamenda (“Mr. Shamenda”) vaguely alleging “money laundering” and other accusations of criminal activity concerning Mr. Banda’s retention of counsel.22 In the said article, Mr. Shamenda makes extraordinary statements that “the Government will have a good case of money laundering” against Mr. Henry Banda with regard to the appointment of legal counsel.

It is clear from this statement that the Government and governing party spokesmen have taken over the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Zambia to express opinion on matters which should be dealt with within a specific department, dealing with justice matters only. It is moreover clear from the statement that the Government of Zambia has free access to judicial information which should generally be kept secret and confidential, until a matter is brought to trial. It is clear in the present instance that the abuse of information by the Government and governing party of Zambia and a trial by headline, will seriously impact on any prospect of a fair trial which Mr. Henry Banda could have hoped for. It should be emphasized that Mr. Shamenda is also the Information and Labour Minister and his statements clearly fall outside the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Labour. These comments from Mr. Kabimba and Mr. Shamenda toward Mr. Amsterdam are defamatory in nature and in violation of Mr. Henry Banda’s right to counsel and to defense of his human rights.

These attempts to harass and intimidate defense counsel were preceded by a slew of defamatory attack articles published in the pro-‐Government media. In an editorial published on April 13, 2012 in the state-‐owned Zambia Daily Mail entitled “Henry Banda’s lawyer offside,”23 the Daily Mail declares that Mr. Amsterdam is “ignorant,” has a “colonial mentality,” and that there is “no iota of truth in his claims” in favour of his client, Mr. Henry Banda. The publication of these prejudicial opinions in the absence of any formal charges much less legal decisions bias the court of public opinion, if not also the courts of law, and deny Mr. Henry Banda his right to presumption of innocence.

21 “Henry’s lawyer is on payroll of corrupt syndicate – Kabimba,” The Post Newspaper, April 14th, 2012 (http://postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26829) 22 “Government will have a good case of money laundering against Henry – Shamenda,” The Post Newspaper, April 13, 2012(http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26803) 23 http://www.daily-‐mail.co.zm/?p=1852

12

Another attack article published in the pro-‐Government newspaper The Post on 10 April 2012 denounces Mr. Henry Banda as a “fugitive” despite absence of conviction and also accuses him of impropriety for having retained defense counsel.24

Additional attacks against Mr. Amsterdam’s defense of his client appeared in the Zambian media on 17 April 2012. In an article titled “Wynter Canes Henry Banda’s Lawyer” published in the state-‐owned Zambia Daily Mail, the Secretary General of the PF accuses Mr. Amsterdam’s defense of Mr. Banda as “wild” and “emotionally charged,” and then ominously warned that “he ought to be extremely careful with the manner he utters statements for the sake of protecting his client.”25 During a press conference dedicated to attacking Mr. Banda’s lawyers, Mr. Kabimba defamed

Mr. Amsterdam as a “dog of war” and a “mercenary.”26 Although when he made these comments Mr. Kabimba held no position in the administration – only in the Patriotic Front party – and certainly had no authority to speak on behalf of official positions toward judicial matters. Mr. Kabimba was only appointed to his cabinet position on April 17, 2012.

We reiterate that Mr. Henry Banda is a permanent resident of South Africa, being married to a South African citizen. Mr. Henry Banda is duly represented in South Africa by attorneys and counsel of his choice and engagements have taken place between the legal representatives of Mr. Henry Banda in South Africa and the South African Government to protect Mr. Henry Banda’s status as a free citizen entitled to Human Rights protection in terms of the South African Constitution. These repeated attacks from Zambian Government officials, Patriotic Front leaders, and members of the pro-‐Government media in Zambia against Mr. Henry Banda with regards to the retention of defense represent an attempt to deny his right to counsel and to defense of his human rights under Zambian and international law.

In response to some of the statements by Mr. Kabimba and Mr. Shamenda, Amsterdam & Peroff issued the following statement on 14 April 2012:

“The regrettable choice on behalf of the ruling Patriotic Front party and officials of the Zambian government to threaten and harass defense counsel should stand as a defining illustration of how the case of Mr. Henry Banda is being handled: arbitrary, without grounds, in violation of due process and international norms, and driven by political motivation,” Amsterdam said. “By seeking to intimidate lawyers with patently absurd claims, aiming to prevent them from defending clients, the Zambian government is unlawfully violating Mr. Banda’s right to counsel.”27

Despite a direct warning as to Mr. Henry Banda’s right to counsel under Zambian and international law, the intimidation and harassment of Mr. Amsterdam by Mr. Kabimba continued with further statements. Speaking on Radio Phoenix Zambia, Mr. Kabimba reiterated the defamatory remarks with regard to Mr. Amsterdam’s representation of Mr. Henry Banda. While remarking that the ruling party “doesn’t have time” to intimidate Mr. Amsterdam, he nevertheless continued with an unspecified warning of consequences: “if Mr. Amsterdam

24 http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26717. 25 “Wynter canes Henry Banda’s Lawyer,” Zambia Daily Mail, April 17, 2012 (http://www.daily-‐mail.co.zm/?p=2260) 26 “Henry’s lawyer a ‘dog of war’ – Kabimba,” Zambia24, April 18, 2012 (http://zambia24.com/latest-‐news/henry-‐lawyers-‐a-‐dog-‐of-‐war-‐kabimba.html) 27 http://robertamsterdam.com/zambia/2012/04/14/response-‐to-‐government-‐of-‐zambias-‐harassment-‐and-‐intimidation-‐of-‐counsel-‐to-‐henry-‐banda/

13

continues to use the press to defend his client, the PF [Patriotic Front] will have no choice but to respond to the attacks.”28

The threats and intimidation against Mr. Henry Banda’s lawyer and human rights defender, Mr. Amsterdam, violate Principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,29 which reads as follows:

“Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”

The statements made by officials of the Government and the ruling party also constitute a violation of Articles 9.3(c) and 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.30 Article 9.3(c) guarantees the right of everyone “[t]o offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Article 12.2 mandates as follows:

“The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.”

Although many of the threats against Mr. Amsterdam come from Mr. Kabimba, an official of the governing party rather than the government, Zambia’s government violates its positive duty to protect Mr. Amsterdam’s rights to provide legal assistance and to defend human rights, both by associating itself with Mr. Kabimba’s remarks (through government spokesman Mr. Shamenda), and by failing to make clear that Mr. Kabimba’s remarks do not represent government policy and are disavowed. Only recently was Mr. Kabimba appointed to a senior cabinet position in the government on April 17.

Urgency of the Threat to the Rights of Mr. Amsterdam The threats and intimidation against Mr. Amsterdam, Mr. Henry Banda’s lawyer and human rights defender, are present and immediate. They have already interfered with Mr. Amsterdam’s ability to represent his client, by rendering his plan to travel to Zambia impractical. Unfounded accusations by senior officials of the Government and the governing party, that a lawyer’s very representation of his client amounts to a crime, threaten the heart of the rights of lawyers and human rights defenders under applicable UN instruments.

28 http://www.radiophoenixzambia.co.zm/blogbang/pf-‐vows-‐that-‐no-‐matter-‐how-‐long-‐it-‐will-‐take-‐henry-‐banda-‐will-‐be-‐brought-‐in-‐the-‐country-‐to-‐face-‐the-‐zambian-‐justice-‐system/ 29 Adopted by the 8th UN Congress on the Prevention and Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. 30 Adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998.

14

Conclusion In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the purpose and intended effect of the statements made on behalf of the Zambian Government as well as the ruling Patriotic Front party are to deprive Mr. Henry Banda of his right to legal counsel and defense of his human rights by threatening Mr. Amsterdam with unfounded defamatory remarks. All of these violations infringe Mr. Henry Banda’s and Mr. Amsterdam’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Zambia is a State Party. The threats and intimidation against his lawyer and human rights defender, Mr. Amsterdam, further violate Principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and Articles 9.3(c) and 12.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that an Urgent Appeal be sent to the Government of Zambia, requesting that Zambia cease and desist from the harassment and defamation of Mr. Amsterdam. Mr. Amsterdam is 56 years of age. Communications may be addressed to him via the UK law office of Amsterdam & Peroff LLP, at the following address:

Amsterdam & Peroff 45-‐47 Church Street Rickmansworth Hertfordshire WD3 1DQ

Sincerely,

Douglass Cassel AMSTERDAM & PEROFF LLP Counsel for Robert Amsterdam [email protected]

Geert-‐Jan Alexander Knoops [email protected] Counsel for Robert Amsterdam

15

APPENDIX II:

Biased Criminal Investigation into the Zamtel Privatization

At the time of the Zamtel privatization in 2010, then-‐opposition leader Sata vowed to reverse the sale if elected. Upon assuming office, to justify his announced objective, President Sata appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the transaction, designating the Minister of Justice Sebastian Zulu, a handpicked political supporter of the president and ruling party, to carry out the investigation.31 The resulting report, which was prepared and presented just five weeks after President Sata was sworn into office, implies – without specificity – that Mr. Banda played a role in selecting the firm, RP Capital, that evaluated Zamtel’s corporate value prior to sale, and that the transaction was somehow undervalued or managed improperly. Minister Zulu’s report omits to mention the fact that Ernst & Young prepared an audit report of Zamtel prior to the privatization, which concludes that the company was insolvent. On the strength of Minister Zulu’s report, President Sata re-‐nationalized Zamtel in January 2012. There are three facts which cast serious doubt on the accusation by Zambian authorities that Mr. Banda had anything to do with the Zamtel privatization: (1) Former Minister of Communications and Transport Dora Siliya has testified before a tribunal that she was introduced to RP Capital by the businessman Francis Mwanamuke and personally made the decision to select this firm to make a report of recommendations on Zamtel; (2) the selection of RP Capital was fully lawful and based on their reputation as an experienced transactional advisory; and (3) the Government of Zambia objectively obtained more than fair value in the sale of 75% of Zamtel shares. The relevant testimony of Former Minister Siliya in the 2009 Tribunal is summarized on pages 18-‐19 of the Final Report32: In August, 2008, a businessman in the telecommunications industry, Mr. Francis Mwanamuke, made an appointment through her office to meet her. On the day appointed for the meeting, Mr. Francis Mwanamuke, came with representatives of R.P Capital Partners Limited and representatives of an Israeli company the name she could not remember. She called for the Director of Planning and the Director of Communications to be present at the meeting. The meeting was also attended by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of ZAMTEL and the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry. The visitors made a presentation. She asked them to go and write an expression of interest. (...) Towards the end of September, 2008, the Ministry received another request from R.P Capital Partners limited for a meeting. (...) R.P Capital Partners Limited thereafter had several meetings with the Director of Planning and the Director of Communications in the Ministry. In the process, R.P Capital Partners submitted a dossier about themselves. Her officials were happy about it and made recommendations. She acted on those recommendations. Everything that the Ministry did as far as R.P Capital Partners Limited was concerned was done through the office of the Permanent Secretary. (...) It was not true that she had any contact with R.P Capital Partners Limited. She had never heard of them until Mr. Mwanamuke brought them to her office.

31 The Zamtel Commission of Inquiry report is available here: http://www.scribd.com/Zambian-‐Economist/d/78559670-‐Zamtel-‐Commission-‐Report-‐Government-‐of-‐the-‐Republic-‐of-‐Zambia 32 The Final Report of the Dora Siliya Tribunal is available here: http://www.scribd.com/Zambian-‐Economist/d/15699793-‐Dora-‐Siliya-‐Tribunal-‐Final-‐Report-‐

16

At no point during her testimony does Ms Siliya suggest that Mr. Banda, who never held a position in his father’s administration, had any involvement whatsoever in the introduction and selection of RP Capital. The only mention during the 2009 Tribunal hearings of Mr. Banda’s name was a passing remark from the witness testimony of businessman Caesar Silawe. According to the final report, “the witness did not know the relationship if any, that Mr. Henry Banda had with R.P Capital Partners.” It is further of interest that Mr. Siwale is a partner in a firm, Pangea Group, which is part owned by a global business competitor of RP Capital, Rennaisance Capital. Nevertheless, despite a total absence of evidence, this specious allegation has served as the basis for the PF government’s current claim that Mr. Banda was involved in Zamtel. The absence of an evidential basis for the purported criminal investigation into Mr. Banda further affirms the political persecution underlying the government’s accusations against him. The second issue that sheds doubt on the PF government’s claims respecting Mr. Banda is the portrayal of RP Capital as a disreputable and inexperienced adviser. According to the Commission of Inquiry report, the appointment of RP Capital was “irregular”, the firm charged “excessive fees” and, consequently, the firm should be “barred” from conducting business in Zambia because “a proper evaluation of Zamtel never took place.” The report states: “We also note that no due diligence in respect of the suitability of RP Capital Advisors (capacity and capability, previous experience, etc.) was ever conducted by ZDA when they elected to single-‐source RP Capital Advisors.” Contrary to the findings of the Commission, RP Capital was a highly regarded investment advisory with a sterling reputation and an established track record of successful transactions. Founded by the former Merril Lynch executive Rafael Berber and the Czech finance magnate Peter Kellner, RP Capital advised on major transactions in Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, with more than 50 employees and approximately $2 billion of Assets Under Management (AUM). Before beginning work on Zamtel, the company had completed a successful transaction for a major shareholder in the Katanga Mining Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a deal with Glencore, one of the world’s largest mining companies, and owned and managed Towervision, a cell phone towers operator in India before selling the asset to Quadrangle. Further, one of the key advisors on the evaluation of Zamtel was the former Head of Strategy for the UK mobile operator Orange. RP Capital met all criteria necessary to advise the Zambian government, and their appointment was fully compliant under law. The Commission of Inquiry’s argument that RP Capital was not competent to perform the evaluation of Zamtel is not credible.

Thirdly, the claims made in the Commission of Inquiry report that the Zamtel assets were undervalued are betrayed by the evidence. At the time of privatization, Zamtel was insolvent, as documented in Ernst & Young’s audit of the company. Zamtel had only some 200,000 subscribers but 2,500 employees, while the market leader at the time, Celtel, had 4 million subscribers and some 500 employees. Zamtel required more than $100 million to be paid in liabilities, redundancies, and unfunded pensions, and the final price of $257 million paid by buyer LAP GreenN was not only fair value, it was historically unprecedented: not only were the company’s debts repaid and the laid-‐off workers compensated, the business was saved, as LAP GreenN was able to grow the subscriber base up to 1.22 million by the end of 2011 based on official figures.33 Contrary to these facts, the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the PF Government valued Zamtel at $5 billion, but this claim of value is not substantiated whatsoever in the Report. By contrast, at its peak public market valuation with a 75% market share, the #1 telecom in the country CelTel was worth only $700 million. Notwithstanding, President Sata expropriated Zamtel from LAP GreenN on January 24, 2012.

33 Zamtel’s subscriber base of 1.22 million is sourced from the Zambia Information Communication Technology Authority

17

On February 3rd, 2012, RP Capital also published their own statement on the Zamtel privatization, which argued strongly in defense of the value, conduct, and lawful nature of the transaction: “It is unfortunate that our work and reputation has become a subject matter of internal political fighting in the Republic of Zambia and related media propaganda. (…) We reject any accusations of wrongdoing and alleged findings against us as published by the media. (…) The process that led to the sale to LAP Green was exhaustive. The privatization process was organized and managed by the Zambia Development Agency, supported by its legal and other advisors, and various other institutions and agencies of the Government were involved as well. All the decisions in the process of privatization were made by the Zambia Development Agency or the appropriate committees. The final sale was approved and decided on by the Government.”34 It is completely illogical, if what the Government is claiming is true about Zamtel, that they did not release the valuation by RP Capital in the Commission of Inquiry Report. The RP Capital statement goes on to quote several third party telecom industry publications with knowledge of the transactions which praise the high value achieved in the Zamtel sale, citing the deal as an ideal model to be replicated in other privatization of African telecommunications companies:

• Telecom Finance (June 2010) -‐ "In September 2009, Zambia’s government formally announced its

intention to partially privatise its telecom incumbent. This, crucially, was after a lengthy planning process to ensure that the company was being sold with the potential for a bright future... The work done in the lead up to the privatisation may be used as a benchmark for future deals of a similar kind in Africa. The continent is renowned for long, drawn out privatisations involving operators in no fit state for success under a new owner..."

• Jeune Afrique (June 2010) -‐ "[The sale of Zamtel is] expensive, certainly, when considering the meagre 4% share of the mobile telephone market held by Zamtel, with 172,200 subscribers at the end of March, and very expensive considering its poor financial health..."

• TMC News (July 2010) -‐ "Despite its monopoly status, Zamtel only managed to attract about 250,000

fixed line and wireless subscribers while the two private mobile phone operators, Zain and MTN, have over 3,5 million subscribers between them… Minister of Commerce Felix Mutati tells IPS that the Zamtel sale is the best deal yet. Government raised about 433 million dollars in total from the previous 267 transactions. This time around it made 257 million dollars in proceeds and a further 127 million dollars in guaranteed financing…"

• IT News (August 2010) -‐ "At US$257 million it is the most single successful privatization in Zambia’s history. This value when looked at in terms of enterprise value per subscriber, we [GRZ] have achieved a price of US$1,770 per subscriber, well above recently completed African telecom transactions such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Ghana and Niger telecoms…"

The unlawful manner in which the Zambian government has handled the reversal of the Zamtel privatization has raised concerns among foreign investors. In March 2012, Fitch Ratings downgraded its ranking of Zambia in reference to the handling of Zamtel, stating: “The recent decision to reverse a privatisation deal without as yet compensating the investing parties could undermine property rights, while planned reforms of the mining and banking sectors could risk unintended consequences in terms of their

34 http://www.rpcapitalgroup.com/site/zamtelNews.aspx

18

potential impact on investment, and consequently on the growth outlook and macroeconomic stability.”35 The reversal of the privatization is also currently being challenged in a lawsuit brought by LAP GreenN. “LAP GreenN is very clear that the seizure of our shareholding in Zamtel by the Zambian Government was illegal and unconstitutional, and to the detriment of both Zamtel and its customers,” the company wrote in a statement announcing the legal action which seeks $480 million in compensation for the expropriation. “To recover the company’s significant investment in Zamtel, LAP GreenN will consider any and all legal options available, if necessary, whether in Zambia or in other jurisdictions.”36

The facts that (1) Mr. Banda played no role in the privatization or the introduction of RP Capital to the government, (2) that the appointment of RP Capital was lawful, and (3) that Zambia was paid more than fair value for Zamtel, cast serious doubt on the government’s Zamtel report as well on the bone fides of its criminal investigation into Mr. Banda.

35 “Fitch downgrades Zambia’s economic outlook,” The Post, March 3, 2012 (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=25475)

36 “Libya’s LAP GreenN sues Zambian government, demands US$480 million over Zamtel grabbing,” Zambian Watchdog, March 19, 2012 (http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=32257 )

19

APPENDIX III:

Manipulation of Commissions of Inquiry In the first six months of the Patriotic Front’s administration, no fewer than eight separate Commissions of Inquiry have been appointed, more than all the commissions of inquiry of the past decade combined. Numerous academics have warned of the potential judicial abuses that may be committed under commissions of inquiry, as some leaders manipulate the appointment process to use these commissions to circumvent due process of law. New leaders are known to set up anti-‐corruption-‐focused commissions of inquiry and “quickly forget their promises and devote themselves to selective political campaigns essentially aimed at excluding rival factions to access to the financial resources necessary to engage in democratic politics.”37 The credibility of several of these Commissions of Inquiry has been called into question for the independence of the appointed chairpersons. The commissions are rarely chaired by politically neutral judicial figures. Zambia’s committee studying oil supply deals is chaired by the General Secetary of the Patriotic Front Wynter Kabimba. Another Commission of Inquiry has investigated the sale of Zanaco bank, which has raised fears that another expropriation could be forthcoming. These fears of expropriation were based on the fact that the Government of Zambia unlawfully reversed the sale of the First National bank to a South African financial institution, which was then handed back to the businessman Rajan Mahtani, an individual that is believed to be the primary campaign donor for the Patriotic Front.38 This bank was seized by the Government without any judicial process to justify the re-‐nationalization before being handed back to its former owner. Other Commissions of Inquiry appear to have political targets. The report by the Commission of Inquiry set up to look into the Zambia Revenue Authority has been the main source of allegations mounted against former Finance Minister Musokotwane as well as the former President. President Sata has exerted clear pressure over this commission to deliver the desired results. On December 23, 2011, Sata publicly berated the chairman of the Commission for failing to take action against the former government over scanners, over which he was personally convinced of wrongdoing despite the absence of an investigation and a normal judicial process.39 Following that intervention, the Chairman of the Commission returned on January 27, 2012 recommending that Rupiah Banda, Musokotwane, and eleven other government officials be sanctioned over the procurement of scanners and a tax deferment.40 Most recently, President Sata publicly criticized his Justice Minister, Sebastian Zulu, for producing a “useless” Commission of Inquiry report on the procurement of radar contracts for the country’s airports under former

37 Blundo, Giorgio. “Corruption in Africa and the Social Sciences: a review of the literature,” in Giogrio Blundo and Jean Pierre Olivier de Sardan (eds) Everyday Corruption and the State: Citizens and Public Officials in Africa (Glosderry, South Africa: David Philip, 2006) at p. 47. 38 Following the 2008 campaign, Michael Sata published an newspaper advertisement thanking his financial supporters, including Mr. Rajan Mahtani. In a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, there is also a reference to Mahtani’s funding of Sata: “Sata's praise of Indian businessman Rajan Mahtani, the owner of Finance Bank who previously supported Finance Minister Ng'andu Magande's bid for the MMD nomination, suggests that PF may now be receiving funding from Mahtani and other prominent members of the business community.” (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08LUSAKA986.html#) 39 “Inquiry on ZRA annoys Sata ,” The Post Newspaper, Dec. 23, 2011. (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=24332) 40 “Prosecute Rupiah, urges ZRA inquiry ,” The Post Newspaper, Jan. 27, 2011. (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=24824)

20

Minister Dora Siliya.41 It is apparent that the President has expectations for the findings of these reports before they begin investigating, and does not hesitate to publicly declare the conclusions the commissions are to come to. It is on the basis of this conclusion that “President [Sata] had a pre-‐determined idea” in establishing his commissions of inquiry that Zambia’s Centre for Policy Dialogue has concluded that “the commissions of inquiry constituted by President Michael Sata to investigate the alleged corruption activities by the MMD are a waste of public funds”.42 Given the numerous instances in which the executive branch of government has directly interfered and pressured the commissions of inquiry, our client cannot reasonably be expected to be afforded due process of law in Zambia.

41 “Zulu's report is useless – Sata,” The Post Newspaper, April 11, 2012. (http://www.postzambia.com/post-‐read_article.php?articleId=26743) 42 “Simuntanyi: All commissions of inquiry by Sata waste of public money”, Zambia Watchdog, April 11, 2012 (http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=33330).

Mr.!Maini!Kiai! Mr.!Frank!LaRue! … on& the& Right and& Responsibility& of& Individuals,& Groups...

Documents

Transcript of Mr.!Maini!Kiai! Mr.!Frank!LaRue! … on& the& Right and& Responsibility& of& Individuals,& Groups...