State enters nolle in Nakacinda defamation of the President case
-
Loading... - Laura Goma
- 08 May 2023
- 71 Views
- 0 Like
- 0 Comment
Chishimba Nakacinda, a former Minister of Works and Supply, made a statement in May 2021 that was critical of Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema. In response, the government of Zambia charged Nakacinda with defamation of the President, a criminal offense that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. However, on May 7, 2023, the state entered a nolle prosequi, effectively dropping the charges against Nakacinda.
Background of the case
Chishimba Nakacinda is a prominent Zambian politician and former member of the Patriotic Front (PF) party, which was in power until the August 2021 elections. On May 6, 2021, Nakacinda appeared on a local television program and made a statement that was critical of then-President Edgar Lungu. Specifically, Nakacinda accused Lungu of being corrupt and of having failed to improve the lives of Zambians during his tenure.
In response to Nakacinda's statement, the government of Zambia charged him with defamation of the President, a criminal offense under Zambian law. The charge was filed on May 10, 2021, and Nakacinda was released on bail.
The legal process
On May 7, 2023, the state entered a nolle prosequi in the case against Nakacinda. A nolle prosequi is a legal term that means "will no longer prosecute." In practical terms, it means that the state has decided not to pursue the case against Nakacinda. As a result, the charges against him have been dropped and he is free to go.
The decision to enter a nolle prosequi is made by the state prosecutor, who has the power to do so under Zambian law. The decision can be based on a variety of factors, including lack of evidence, insufficient grounds for prosecution, or other considerations such as public interest.
Reactions to the nolle
The decision to enter a nolle in the Nakacinda case has been met with mixed reactions. Supporters of Nakacinda have praised the decision, seeing it as a victory for free speech and political freedom. However, opponents of Nakacinda have criticized the decision, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law.
