Andrew Kamanga v The Attorney General (2025/HP/0233) [2025] ZMHC 33 (17 June 2025)

j IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZAMBIA AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY . HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) · 2025/HP/0233 IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF: IN PRINICIPAL ARTICLE 11, 18 (1), AND 22 OF TH~ OONSTITVTION OF ZAMBIA (AMEN.l>MENT) ACT NO. 18 OF 1969. THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RlGHTS RULES STAT'(]TORY INSTRUMENT NO. 156 OF 1969. G) . HE ALLEGED SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF A · ASSPORT BELONGING TO A CRlMINAL SUSPECT. A D&CLARJ\,TION THAT A BONDED ACCUSED PERSON CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONTINUOUSLY APPEAR BEFORE POLICE PENDING INVESTIGATION A DECLARATION THAT FAILURE TO PRESENT AN ACCUSED PERSON BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT OF LAW WITHIN A R;EASONABLE PERlOD AFTER BEING CHARGED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A DECLARATION THAT THE FAILURE TO PRESENT AN ACCUSED PERSON BEFORE A COURT OF LAW WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ARREST IS ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL. PETITIONER IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF: BETWEEN: ENERAL C@mp '€li niJJ. · ess1s · M@s fiilJn ~ . pih Chirwa riJJ'11J~ For the 1Resp onfi1en t: Ms. ~- D. NJendwa (State AduoetflteJ of Messrs Attorney GenePal C~aTrriliber:s. ACE Scanner JUDGMENT Cases referred to: 1. Nyirongo Vs. Attorney General (SCZ) Judgment 10 of 1991. 2. Re: Siuluta and Three Others Vs. Attorney General The People (1979) ZR. 14 (;ff. CJ. 3. Daniel Chizoka Mbandangoma Vs. Attorney General (1979) ZR 45 (H. C). 4. Bowman Lusambo V. Attorney General 2023/CCZ/081. 5. A-ttorney General V D. G. Mpundu (1984) ZR 6 (SC). 6. Mohamed Khalid V. Attorney General, Appeal No. 3 of 1981. 7. Daniel Chizoka Mbandangoma v~ ;The Att~r.ney General (1979) ZJ 45 (HCJ. Ugislations referred to: I 1. A ~ icle 28 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2 9!96. 2 . 1 2, 22 (1) of the €onstit-ution of Zamfl ( a. Anicl of 1996. , of l.996. '4. Section 33 (l) oJ the CrtadnaZ Pi,aced.ur,e Colle. 5. Section 124 ojthe Crl.rnfaal Pr:ocedu.re Code. ACE Scanner J3 1. INTRODUCTION l. l. This Judgment is in respect of the Applicant's Petition filed on February 18th, 2025. The record will show the Portioner's claims as follows: I. A Declaration that the requirement by the Respondent for the Petitioner to appear before Drug Enforcement Commission officers for the purposes of extending his bond pending the conclusion of investigations is in contravention of Article 11 and Article 18 (1) of the Constitution of Zambia and therefore illegal and unlawful; II. A Declaration that the requirement by the Respondent for the Petitioner to seek prior authority from the Drug Enforcement Commission is in contravention of Article 11 and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and therefore illegal and unlawful; III. A Declaration that the seizure of the Petitioner's passport by the Drug Enforcement Commission is in contravention of Article ] 1 and Article 22 ( 1) of the Constitution and the ref 01re Hlegal and unlawful; IV. An · Or€l er that Respondent immediately surrender and release the Petitioner's passport; M {Q)r;~@r f@r the payment @f General damages; vu. An {1:}3der f@ir ihe ~a,,ment @f Sp,@cia] Jlamages for the W[gss of business; An Order for tbe payment of Damages for; the li. CP,Hiltati!onaJ injury cau sed by the Respondents amest and iaiwre to pt"esenrt the Petitioner lbel'o1re Cou rit f OF a fair and speedy trial; ~III. Costs of this petition; ACE Scanner IX. Any other relief the Court may deem fit. 1.2. The Respondent filed~ answer and pleadings on May 22nd , 2025. 1.3. The matter was scheduled and heard on May 22nd, 2025. Both Parties relied on the pleadings filed and submitted orally. 2. AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE 2.1. The Petitioner Andrew Ndanga Kamanga swore and filed an Affidavit in Support of Petition/verifying facts on February 18th , 2025. 2.2. The Petitioner avers that he was summoned to appear before the Drug Enforcement Commission - Anti-Money Laundering Unit (hereinafter referred to as 'DEC') on April 23rd, 2024, in aid of purported investigations. 2.3. The Petitioner avers that he and three other persons were arrested and charged with offences of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses, Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage by False Pretenses and Conspiracy t@ D efr,aud on April 23rd, 2024. 2 .41. _i her avers that he was granted Police Bond and 2 ~. on d Form schedti . That h e i .e. The Petirti.an er avers 'that the aciiilonvs er 'D to appe-ar beferre lhem For pu rposes gf e:xlend t R@ir him · B@ndt ACE Scanner JS pending the conclusion of their investigations is an abuse of poweF and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional. 2. 7. The Petitioner further avers that the actions by 'DEC'/Respondent has no legal justification to charge him with offences and refuse/neglect to present him before a competent Court of law and to continually hold on to his passport thereby denying his freedom of movement. 2.8. The Petitioner avers that if the Petition is not granted he shall suffer irreparable damage as his rights maybe further infringed. 2.9. The Petitioner fur.ther avers that he has suffered damage to his reputation as he has not been accorded the chance to prove his innocence in· the courts of law. 2.10. In response the Respondent filed affidavit sworn by one Hussein Khan, a Chief Investigations Officer in the Anti-Money Laundering b 1vestigat ions U!]-it of 'DEC' . .2.1 i . 1.i'hre R~sponden t avers that the Petitioner who W?LS at the mate'rial f Football Association of Zambia was arrested on u ntleir su spicion of Obtaining Money by False «vantage by False Prete ineffflyg_ ~ha11t ihe P@titi~ner was released @n Band. ~--12. The Responofen1t mi:~emrs imriat t~~ Retiitiion er is w~t \to trial due to ongoing in ~ s Uld that th in the matter of The People Vs. Andrew " Kamania, Madalisto Kamaa1a and daciios . !1111 Magistrate eourt have been exploring an ex-eu:r1a settlem ent. ACE Scanner J6 2 .13 . The Respondent further avers that the Petitioner's passport was confiscated to secure his attendance at Su1:>sequent Proceedings and to prevent him from fleeing the Country. That the said passport has since been rettitned to the Petitioner. 2.14. The Respondent avers that the arrest and restrictions placed on the Petitioner, or any delay caused has been done in line with the prevailing law found in the Constitution of Zambia and the Criminal Procedure Code. 2.15. The Petitioner filed an Affidavit in Reply on May 22nd . 2025 and avers that failure by the Respondent to present him before a Cout t of competent jurisdiction, for over a year from his arrest is unreasonable and prejudicial to his rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Zambia. 2.16. The Petitioner avers that it is illogical for the Respondent to aver that investigations are ongoing as his arrest indicated that investigations had been concluded. 2.17. 'The P~ttitioner avers that the Respondent's reference to ex-curia setU~ment negotiations is inatlmissible. n er iuriber avers that it is not true that there can be no edom of movement J!)rior to the conduct of Crimin - e eat~ @f a ~awftuI c@nvilction. ~ -i ~- The Petiti<lner at lh(?lm~itlJJ illms p ~rt bas sin~~ returned to him,, il!aie Resp@ndeNJ hais n o ~eason i{tQ b elie~e l~ai h~ is a Hight risk. ~.i O. The Petitieneir f.urther a~ers that the Resp9nidlent sitwll un~awfu~tw require_s him to seek s, ecific permission i o lr,a~ew and can only d0 so upon specific gtian oi eon sent bJ ihe Respon den1itt. , ACE Scanner 3. LAW AND SUBMISSIONS 3.1. Both Parties filed skeleton arguments, affidavits, list of authorities and the Respondent filed its final submissions on June 6 th , 202 5. 3 .2. Both the Petitioner and Respondent submits that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his Petition. He refers to Article 28 of tbe Constitution of· Zambia ("Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1996 as provides: "(28. [Enforcement of protective provisions] (1) Subject to clause (5), if anil pers_on alleges that any of the provision.s of Articles 11 to 26 inclusive has been, is bei~g or, is likely t~· be contravened in relatio~ to him, then, without pr~Ju4ic_e to .. ':'ny at.her ~ction with respect to the same matter which is la·wfully availab-le, that person ma11i apply for redress to the Bigh Ceurt which s.hall- f aJ near and determine any such applicati·on; . tl. t~ it in pursuanc~ ef clause . suck order, issue such wn:ts· as it may 'lj · A Ille ea. J l l lo 2 6 lnclasioe. 3 .3. The Petitioner submits iliat the Rlespon:dienl h as Dilllwileg~cif bils d~tUls and Drea.'cbed the provision s of Articles U , IS (11 and 22 (lll) of the Constitutjlon ot Zambia on account ·or seizur,e of hls passport ACE Scanner JS and failure to present him before a Court of competent jurisdict ion to answer to the charges levelled against him. 3.4. The Petitioner argues that his freedom of movement has/is being abrogated by the Respondent by reason of 3 grounds. 3.4.1 Firstly, that in the absence of good reason the requirement that he surrender his passport to the Respondent is illegal and unlawful. Reliance was placed on the case of Nyirongo Vs. Attorney General (SCZ) Judgment 10 of 1991. 3.4.2 Secondly, that the Respondent's requirement that the Petitioner seek permission to travel, whenever he wishes to leave Zambia is a violation by the Petitioner's freedom of movement. 3.4.3 Thirdly, that the Respondent's failure to take the ~etitioner before a Court of competent jurisdiction is a breach of Article 18 ( l! ) orthe Constitution of Zambia and that the Respondent's action to arrest the Respondent and ~@ntin u e investigating is against the law. The Petitiotller r efer s the Court to the case of Re: Siuluta and General The People t 1979) ZR. 14 Three (H. C) where it was h eld; "~he PoJ s l f air: offlerr.ces an.d pawe11t ta Dr'l"e I pe1tsarris / er: ! llre purposes of makbrg invairtes." Also relied on ease el Daalrel Clllzoka Mllaa da~goma ~ &. Aflar.ney o,neral.(ltrf 9) ZR 48 111,CJ wh'e11r~ d.t was !held: ACE Scanner J9 "It is improper for the poHce to de~a,fn 11ersenrs pending further tnvesttgattons wttfhout bnngtng them before court as soon as practicable, b11,t tt ts equraHg improper to requi re p~rsons released en bond to present themsel1Jss ait th(! pott ce sta,tton for the se£tne purpose." 3.5. The Petitioner argues that his Petition is not in anyway an effort to arrest/restrict any alleged on-going investigations or Criminal Proceedings as the same are yet to be instituted against the Petitioner who has not been presented before a competent Court of law. 3.6. The Respondent argues/submits that an arrest can be made on the basis of a suspicion, whose degree is not of estabOshing in prima facie case. The · Respondent also relied Of?. the Daniel Chizelm. . ' Mbandangama ©ase, whe!l.ne the Court helci: ta the a.rrest of thle p//bintifl t&e t the iii.me of ~est ch. fie IHIRnot IJe 3.'IP. The Respondent subm4 ' ' that h'e 8\fmiest w as m ade Jg[ll~wmng a complaint matle which Respon then re ·,t~-~r,~,··~1d/'•; ~t~.-• .... :;i!,'.'.<',ed m,easanmb~e · su spwd ion, 1l\te r was ~,es, ed. 80d chafged dle to · ACE Scanner JlJ0 of Constitution of Zambia 1996 (As amended by Act iNo. 1J8 ef 1996) provides that: "13(1) No person shall be deprived of his persona( liberty except as may &e authorised by law in any, of the following cases: (e)upon reasonable suspicion of his ·having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence unde•r the law in.force ~n Zambia .. (2) any person who is arrested or detained shall be infot.med as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention. (3} Any ~erson wlio is arrested or detained .. (!:,J U!fJOR suspicion of Jtis having about to c_ommit, a . . • force in Zambia.; .· . . . . . . . ' . ~ou:ght without u :ntfue_ tl.ela.y arr,estetl "" ti- ,raceeilli itlfi -~ le lrrza•gftt agal!'st •••II 6e •elefllBed e1ll n er u Feason a6Je . cend•t•oas, . enc ladlrJJ19 . Im p • r. s~efi eond atilry r1eeessary ta. emsune Iha. I • . __ ,..,.. __ .,,...... . ... ,.c!, ... .,. ........ ""'e or trial or Jot prtoeeedfngs ACE Scanner Jl! l] 3.8. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner was released on Police Bond upon reasonable conditions and that the Parties are exploring ex-curia settlement which has contributed to delay in taking the matter to Court. 3.9. The Respondent submits that the restrictions on the Petitioner's movement and the confisGation of the Petitioner'-s passport was reasonable and done within the provisions of the law, making reference to Article 13 of the Constitution of Zambia: "(2) Any restrictions on a person's freedom of movement that relates to hi$ lawful detention shat.l not be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article. (3) Nothing _contained in oT done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or tn· contravention of this Article to the extent that it is shown 'that 'the law ·in question makes provisio,n;_(a) . for the imposition of restrictions that are ,reasonably . required in. the interests of defence, p .ublic safety, f'. Uhlic· o~der, public morality or, public healtli o~ the tan er: restrictions on .the acquisitio.n. or use by FcsDn ef ·Zan er propetty in -. Z~mbia, ancl · undre shewn nat socf e'ty. " . ovisio,n o~, the t1ting done if, as the case ma.y IJ , lg jasiflable in a fie Section 33 (lJ orthe Criminal Precedu~e Cude ptFoviltles as i0>lm@w; "W~en any p~rson It~ beenJ take~ into £ustedy I , I , , without a warran~ .for an of/enc, other th~n an ACE Scanner J12 offence punishable with death, the officer in change o.f such police station to which such person shalJl be brought may, in any case, and shall, if tt does not appear practicable to brtng such person before an appropriate competent court within twenty-four hours after he was taken into custody, tnq,utre tnto the case, and unless the offence appears to the offence to be of a serious nature, release the person hts execut:f..ng a bond, with or. without sureties, for . a re~onable amount to appear before competent court at the time and place named in the bond: but, where any person is . retained in custody, he shall be brought before a competent court as soon . as practicable. Notwithstanding anythi·ng contai,ned in this section, an officer in charge ofl a police station may release a char-ge ofi commi.tting. any. offence, when, after due · police person arrested . on suspicion on a inquiry, insufficient evidence, in . his opinion, disel:esed on which ·ta proceed with the charge." llitien mentioned in. subsection: ed ana twenty-thriee, the or ~a,,1e1a impose su~II_I ,-1:t her c:enditiu,nis ate may seem reasonable and neces~ary in any ~a.rtt'ml.l!ar case." 3.10. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought fr{ light of the lavvfulftess of the a. I"rest and confiscation ACE Scanner J13 of the passport coupled with the absence of any action that contravenes Articles 11, lJS ( 1) and 22 ( :JJ) of the Constltutlen of Zambia. 3. 11. The Respondent argues that the Pet ition et cannot use civil a:ct i@n to arrest criminal proceedings against h im. Reliance made on the case of Bowman Lusambo lt,. Att<;>rney Genetal 2023/CCZf DOl, which states that: ''for the avoidance of doubt, w,, wish to st~t~ that cbliZ ' ' proceedings cannot be used to arrest ctimi.na.l proceedings in any circumstance." Rajan L Mahtani and Jolin Sangwa Vs. T.he People SCZ No. 21 of 2019, held that: "Civil procedure sho~ld not be used to abort criminal investigations or · . Rrosecutions because the i:lustice System has its own procedures." 4.1.1 4.1.i pass1H>;r, a1te181 m ~. l .l . That the Peu tioo ~r"s p astsp O!tiftt h~s SWH£e beien ~te®U~ne m l&@ him t>u t . h e is ~equriitied io ~el au~od zation fr.om the R~spen de leave th e iurisdicUon andi ~ep,@r1i ACE Scanner Jl4 4.1.4 That the Petitioner is yet to be presented before a Court of competent jurisdiction to answeli to criminal charges preferred against him. 4.2. What is in dispute and to be determined is whet her/not the Respondent's actions amount t o violation of the Petitioner's human rights as guaranteed by Articles 11, 18 ( l!) and 22 (1) of the Constitution ~f Zambia (Ame.ndment) Act No. _ 18 of 1996 and the Protection of Fundamental Rights Rules Statutory Instrument N-o. 156 of 1969. 4.3. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has contravened Articles 11 and 18 ( 1) of the Constitution of Zambia by failing to present him before a Court of competent jurisdiction within a reasonable time, following his· arrest and charge. Article 11, 18 (1) and 22 (1), provides as follows_: Article ll: "It . is recognised and dee Zared th.at every persen in Zambia Illas been and sfta. U conti-nue to. be entitled to tfte ffjtJ1r1tlilamentaf rifg/hts anil. freedoms of the , , the ffignt, whatever his race, ' . ltieal opiRion.s, colour, creed, sM a,; llal sulbl e-ct l)e t fr'e eante1tabd itR 161s ~ a il, I• 1&,mlinrfJJ,, a a ,nrelg: l a each and aH of t lie f•J' (f/e, proieet#!on •I t lie t«w; !lll.6et:t9, secadt9 o/i ille per,ss11 and th1e Ince, expr.esslor1, assembly, ACE Scanner J15 (c;) protection of young persons from exploitation; (d) protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation; and the provisions of this Part shall have effect for the purpose of affo'rding pro-tecti.on to those rights and freed~ms subject to su~h limitations f:1.esigned to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest." Article 18 ( 1): "(1) If any !'er~on _i~ cha~ged with a c~mi_nal offence, then, unl~ss the ch~rge is with4rawn, the case 5haH ' . . . . - ' be ~fforded a fair hearing within a re~sonab le ti~e by':'~ independen.t and impartial court e~tabli~hed by law." Article 22 ( 1): "(1} Sµ~ject to _ the other provis.ion of thi~ Arti~l~ and , ' ~cept in acco~dan~e with any other_ written law, '1,0 ' ' . . d;epri~cttl ~n h~s .(ree'!,o~ of -~~v~ment, . - ' ' . ufl _ . _ an _ _ of th.is :A~ic le f~eed~m ej' ra. J t~e_ ,tlfrgftl l e moue Srieely; lb~eugllout fl,} 'tlae rir9llr ·ta r:es•de in a rry; part of 2a ' • I .. (cl the.right to leave. Zambia and t o -retum ~o Zcimli•." ACE Scanner Jl6 4 · · must state for the record, t hat I have considered all the submissions and authorities as advanced by the Parties,,. even though I may not directly and particularly refer/ speak directly to all of them in arriving at my decision. 4 .s. I shall attend to the questions/allegation of violation of Article 22 I note that the Petitioner's (1) of the Constitution of Zamb.ia. claims relate to Article 2·2 (lf (c) on freedom of movement den@ting the right to leave Zambia and return to Zambia. 4.6. The Petitioner alleges- that though not a condition of his Police Bond, the Respondent requires that he obtains authorizati.on to leave Zambia and report his return. The passport has since been returned to the Petitioner. I have revi~wed th~ Police Bond document as appears as exhibit 'AKNla' in the Petitioner's Affidavit i:a Support of Petition. The same clearly states the following as Police Bond conditions; a. Appe~ before 'DEC'/Responde~t at Lusaka on May 7th, 2024 and on any other/subsequent day when required. b. The Petiti@n~r aw~ two su11eties, bond sum of K2 ()Q) each. c. Not to leave· the Republie of Zambia without authority fTI@m . ' 'DEC'f Hes~onden t. 4. 7. I am of the considered opm icon th.at Article 22 t 21, f 31 ( es for instances where one's freedom of movement may be r€str icted. The supreme law provides particular1y and uses the wC>r.d "reasonably required conditions/restrictions ... " ACE Scanner J17 "In addition to the condttton named tn subsectton (2) of Section one hundred and twenty..t,hree, the Court ar; Officer before whom a batZ bond ts exe~uted may impose such further conatttons upon such bond as may seem reasonable and necessary in a,ny partteular. case." The theme/point of reasonableness and neces,si,t,y is common in both provisions as relates to placing restrictions Otl one's freedom of movement. . ' The Respondent submits that the confiscatior:i- and requirement of . . authorization to travel is/was necessary and reasonable to ensure . i the Appli~an t does not flee the jurisdiction. 4.8. I am of the considered opinion,. upon review of the facts on recor_ti that the Respondent does .not show proof that the \Petitioner is indeed a flight risk. This is evident in fact that the Respondent, on its own accord or by reason of these proceedings released/handed back the passport to the Petitioner on May 6 th , 2025'. I find that it was unreasonable to confiscate the Petitioner's passport and etjua][!}J u nn~asonalJ[e and unnecessary ta reG!_uire tl1e Petitioner to GJblarJtl au, meave the j~J.dscUct-ion. Th€ condition as jurisdiction iis e' om ~Kten of Police Bon~t Rel e~en ~e ws ilml!a~e i(g th e case of Mbandangoma V. Tile Atloraey General I l9?'1 ZR 45 where it was held that: "It is . ft,aproper /or tille ~oliee to detabz p pentllng farther ,n,vestfgl:l.ti.ons without '1rin.gtng th be/a ractlcable, ·but it ts· equa . ACE Scanner JlS impropet· to require per,sons released en b a n d l a present themselves at the PoZitce station for t:he same purpose." 9 · · As regards, Article 18 of the Constitution of Zambia, the s ame requires that a person charged with a criminal offenee sb alll \be afforded a fair hearing with.in a reasonable time by an iftdepeniie.n.t and impartial Court established by law. The Petitioner aUeg,es tlhat he has not been presented before Court since his date of fil"rest. I consider that Sectioi,. 33 ( 1) of the G:riminal Bracedure ~ otle refers to the presenting of an individual to a competent Gou-rt within 24 hours of his,arrest or t~en into custody if the indivirdu al is not released on Police Bond. In casu, the Petitioner w a s :re leas~d on Police Bond on the ·very same day of his arrest. · The requirement to present to Court within 24 hours of arrest does not apply t o h im. However, even a person released on folice 13orrd ough t t o a p-~ ea r before a competent Court within a reasonable time. 4.10. The question to be answetcied is whether the period between tbe arrest and now can ib@ considerecl to be u n reasonabl for the Petitioner ,;.;,~ ,.~-- two be rmesen ted fl@r a. fair heaid independent d hy law. · cause list, num bef" or Considering the backlog of mat~eirs beffi opiriJign that a period of l 3 month.s is delay. The Petitioner must have his day iln C@nFt. 4.11. The Petitioner funhe · s for payment of General and Special damages, ... _,•c_·~.,....... of damages for reputationai ACE Scanner damage caused b h. Y 1m before Cou t fi 4 .12. It is trite law th Jl9 th . . . r or a fair and spr,edy trial. e Respondent's arrest and failure to present at special damages must be specifically pleaded and proven by a Party. Nothing in the Petition or Affidavit points to specifically pleaded special datnages. This claim thereby fails. I am forfeited in my position by authority in case of Attorney General V, n. G. ·Mp:andu ( 1984) ·zR 6 (SC), in which it was stated as follows: "Where there are, for instance, special damages claimed, those, as we have earlier pointed out, should. be specifica·lly pleaded and proved." 4.13. The Petitioner has faiied/neglected to prove his claims on general damage~ .and what _repu~~tion~ injury :qe has suffered. It is trite law that he who alleges must prove and a Party cannot automatically . succeed in hi~ claim with~ut pro~f eve11 if the other Party's defence · co~lapses. Reference is made t? authority .. in tlt~ case of Mohamed Khalid V. Attorney General, Appeal Nm. 3 or 1981. 5. CONCLUSION S. l. For the foregoing reasons, I fin d that the ~ spondent hlas violated/ i~fr£n~ee ©ii the f>enti0ne1r's right @i mo~emen.t. 18 (1) of tke Constitutien of Zamillia has been vi@ta.t:e:-cl. 5.2. The Petitioner . must be presented before a Court .0f cmmpete n t; authority to answer for the charges laid again st llim. l Order th.at this be done within 120 days from date of Ovcier. 5.3. I hereby Declare that the requirement by the . Respondent for the Petition · · leave the jurisdiction and report ACE Scanner his return to th R e espondent is unreasonable and in eont~aveftb@n . . J2Q - of A~ticles 11 and 22 ( lll ) or Constitution of Zambia. 5.4. I further 'Declare that the i&espondent's seizure of the Petiti:one.r'"s passport was unreasonable and in oontta~entiron of A.rtleles l! t and 22 ( 1l ) ot the Constitution of' Zam1>ia. 5 · 5 • In view of the Respontlent's releas.e of the Peti. Honer's passpon~t trrue claim or return of passport is otiose. 5.6. The Petitioner's claims for reliefs under (v), (vi), {vii, and (ix} faiil. 5.7. Each Party is to bear its own costs for and incid€ntal lb© t h e eausB. 5.8. Right of appeal is granted. Delivered at 1,usaka on 17th: June, 2025 ACE Scanner