The Kaumba brothers, undergoing trial for allegedly insulting President Hichilema, have requested the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court to transfer their case to their hometown of Kalulushi.
Ernest Kaumba, 23, and Elijah Kaumba, 26, made the application through their lawyer, Makebi Zulu, during a hearing before Magistrate George Njobvu.
The duo is charged with using insulting language contrary to Section 179 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia.
The alleged offense occurred on social media between August 20 and September 30, 2024.
In his submission, Zulu argued that the offense was allegedly committed in Kalulushi thus, the case should be heard there.
“The law requires that an offense be tried within the local limits of jurisdiction where it is committed. Since the indictment and the inquiry by the arresting officer indicate that the alleged offence occurred in Kalulushi, this court should consider transferring the matter,” he said.
Zulu further contended that the local jurisdiction does not extend to online activities unless the offense is explicitly tied to Lusaka District.
The prosecution opposed the application, stating that the alleged offense, committed online, had nationwide effects.
They argued that the court in Lusaka was competent to hear the case under the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia.
Magistrate Njobvu reserved his ruling on the application December 12.
In a separate application, Zulu requested the court to refer the matter to the High Court to determine whether Section 179 of the Penal Code complies with Article 11(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
“What is insulting language?” Zulu questioned, adding, “The definition is subjective and depends on how an individual reacts. Such a matter should not fall within the purview of the courts.”
Magistrate Njobvu dismissed the application for constitutional reference, stating, “I have reviewed the law and Article 179. I am of the view that there is nothing requiring interpretation by the High Court. The defence is at liberty to raise the matter before the Constitutional Court in a separate case.”
