Green Party President Peter Sinkamba has said that in the Laws of Zambia, there is no provision which provides for the request the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) is making to the Republican President Hakainde Hichilema to lift the Oath of Office.
In a statement posted on his social media page, Mr Sinkamba said that the Oath of office requirement is provided by Article 260 of the Constitution of Zambia 2016 and that this provision does not empower the President to waive the oath after it has been administered.
Mr Sinkamba said that the President has no powers to waive any Oath of Office, adding that a witness who appeared before JCC is protected against any punishment for testimonies they make to the commission, provided those statements are truthful.
Below is the full post
ANOTHER ILLEGAL ACT IN THE MAKING BY DPP: NOW SHE WANTS THE PRESIDENT TO DO AN ILLEGAL ACT
============
I have come across a copy of the letter dated 25th April 2022, purported to have been written by the embattled Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Lillian Siyuni to the Chairperson of the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC).
In this letter, the DPP informed the JCC that she is unable to respond to numerous complaints against her before JCC because she is constrained by her oath of Office. She has further informed the Commission that she had written to President Hakainde Hichilema to give her authority to clear the allegations being levelled against her.
In essence, what the DPP is requesting the President is to lift the Oath of Office. The tricky part about the request the DPP has made to the President is that in the Laws of Zambia, there is no provision which provides for such a thing.
The Oath of office requirement is provided by Article 260 of the Constitution of Zambia 2016. This provision does not empower the President to waive the oath after it has been administered.
The other law that provides for taking an Oath of office is the Official Oaths Act Cap 5 of the Laws of Zambia. This Act mandated every person assuming a public office, member of the House of Chiefs, and presidential appointee, to take an Oath of Office and such other oath, as prescribed, before carrying out the duties of the office.
Section 11 of the Act provides that the President may by statutory instrument specify any office to which a person appointed, elected or nominated, shall not act or perform duties of that office unless he has taken and subscribed to the Oath of Office; require any person, before performing the duties of any other office, to take and subscribe, any oath prescribed in this Act before the official specified in the instrument.
Nowhere is it stated in the Act that the President may waive the Oath of Office after it has been administered. Therefore, if it is true that the DPP has written the President to waive the Oath of Office, then what she has done is to request the President to carry out an illegal act. For, the President has no powers to waive any Oath of Office. I will be shocked if President will fall into this shrewd trap.
As a senior lawyer, the DPP should know that every witness that appears before JCC is subjected to take an Oath to tell the truth. A witness who appeared before JCC is protected against any punishment for testimonies they make to the commission, provided those statements are truthful. In fact, the Judicial Code of Conduct Act also provides for the holding sessions in camera.
So, the DPP does not need any other protection but that which is provided for by the Judicial Code of Conduct Act. I repeat what I said earlier: instead of complicating her life further, I urge her to resign. She will be more dignified if she resigned now than be thrown out after attempts to bruise everyone along her way. This remains my humble advice to her.
