The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has kicked against the suspension of two of its council members, Arnold Kaluba, the LAZ Honorary Secretary and Junior Lawyers Committee Chair, along with Mulenga Sholomo, the House and Welfare Committee Chair.

The suspended lawyers have already approached the Lusaka High Court to seek a judicial review of their suspensions during the festive season.

In their filings, the two claim their suspension and referral to the Legal Practitioners Committee (LPC) for disciplinary action were illegal and procedurally flawed.

They further argued that the decision which was made without a fair hearing, has damaged their reputations as legal practitioners and threatens their livelihoods.

Zambia Monitor reports that the dispute that led to the suspension of the lawyers stemmed from a letter the duo sent to the LPC on behalf of 399 newly qualified lawyers, scheduled to be called to the Bar in December 2024.

These lawyers had repeatedly raised concerns about paying the full 2024 subscription fees, given they would only be practicing for a few weeks that year but in its response, the LPC offered a compromise which was a reduced fee of K3,025, half the usual K6,050 annual fee.

Dissatisfied with the lack of a council position on the matter, Kaluba and Sholomo independently appealed to the LPC, urging them to reconsider the fees and establish a clearer policy for future cases.

Their actions reportedly angered LAZ president Lungisani Zulu, who accused them of undermining the council and acting without authority which led to their suspension.

Following their letter, Zulu allegedly demanded their removal from the council’s WhatsApp group and issued an ultimatum to resign or face disciplinary action but when they refused to step down, letters of suspension were issued to them.

“The applicants claim this move violated the rules of natural justice, as they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. Their repeated requests for a council meeting to discuss the matter were also ignored,” the medium reported.

“Kaluba and Sholomo are now asking the court to overturn their suspension and restore them to their positions. Among their demands are a declaration that their suspension was illegal and irrational, an order to reinstate them as council members, and an expedited judicial review of the decision.

“They also want the court to rule that LAZ failed to hear their side of the story, a move they argue was contrary to principles of fairness and transparency.

“The applicants maintain that their actions were driven by the welfare of LAZ members, particularly the newly qualified lawyers struggling to meet the financial demands of the profession.”

A Lusaka Magistrates’ Court has ordered jailed former Zambian Minister of Defence, Geoffrey Mwamba, to pay the government the sum of US $899,970 and K10 million, following his conviction on charges related to multiple corruption.

The order which was given on Wednesday by Principal Resident Magistrate, Stanford Ngobola, required Mwamba to pay $399,985 for count 10, $499,985 for count 11, and K10 million for count 12.

The judge also directed that failure to comply with the ruling would result in the issuance of a warrant of distress against the former minister.

Zambia Monitor reports that Mwamba was convicted on October 9, 2024, on eight counts bordering on conflict of interest, one count of money laundering, and four counts of possessing property suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The State had applied for the payment order under Section 15(8) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010.

During the trial, Zambian anti-corruption commission investigator, Masautso Mwale, disclosed in an affidavit that investigations revealed funds linked to counts 10-13 had been withdrawn from bank accounts held at Investrust Bank PLC and First Alliance Bank.

The accounts, including those tied to Germins Motorways Limited and Arizona Marketing and Distributors, showed minimal or no remaining balances, Mwale said.

The State also argued that the court could issue a payment order as an alternative to forfeiture and warned that failure to recover the funds would prejudice the government.

In his defense, Mwamba’s legal team opposed the application, citing an ongoing appeal in the High Court.

His team argued that issuing the payment order could prejudice him if the appeal succeeded, referencing precedents emphasizing the need to await appeal conclusions before enforcement.

However, Magistrate Ngobola dismissed Mwamba’s objection, referencing the Leah Tekumwezo Mpondela v. The People case, which held that forfeiture applications could proceed despite pending appeals.

The court highlighted safeguards in Section 11(4) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act, ensuring forfeited property cannot be disposed of during an appeal.

In his conclusion, Ngobola ruled that due diligence had shown the funds could not be located, making a payment order the appropriate remedy.