25th April, 2015 Zambezi Sun Hotel

• 
  We received a request through the Secretariat for advice on the Constitutional provisions on the succession to the Presidency. This was at the height of the succession wrangles in November 2014. The request was made by a cooperating partner, who also requested that the advice be provided in person at a meeting.
  
• 
  LAZ was represented at the meeting held on 21 November 2014 by the Honorary Secretary and two members from this Committee. Our hosts expressed satisfaction with the assistance of the Association in understanding the Constitutional provisions relating to Presidential succession, particularly with regard to the Lewanika & Others v FTJ Chiluba (1998) case.
  
• 
  Other requests were made during the course of the period in consideration. Those requests came from National Assembly Committees and NGOs. Their subjects ranged from the scope of legal protections against ‘torture’, to the rights of sex workers, to the succession of the Presidency. The Committee considered each request and decided that they were either beyond the mandate of the Committee (and hence forwarded through the Secretariat to the appropriate Committee), or had already been publicly addressed by the LAZ President.
  

3. 
   Analysis of Final Draft Constitution, draft Constitution of Zambia Bill, and Government Roadmap
   

• 
  This Committee was tasked with carrying out this analysis and comparing it with the Association’s position on the First Draft Constitution (2012).
  
• 
  The Committee admits that it has been very slow to complete this task. This is due to challenges of time among its members. The Committee has attempted to make progress in this task by circulating a skeleton commentary on the Final Draft in comparison to the First Draft. Additionally, the Committee has been awaiting the intern promised by the Council to assist with the work.
  
• 
  There also seems to be some miscommunication between this Committee and the representatives of LAZ on the Oasis Forum and Grand Coalition on a People-Driven Constitution. The Committee has no input into statements given by the two organisations to which LAZ belongs. We also address this as an additional challenge at Part 6.4 below.
  

4. 
   CHALLENGES
   

1. 
   Membership apathy
   

• 
  The Committee was reconstituted in May 2014 with a list of twenty two members. However, there have never been more than ten of the listed individuals who showed commitment to the work of the Committee by attending meetings and undertaking to handle some if its tasks.
  
• 
  The Committee therefore resolved on 12 February 2015 that the membership list be reduced to those ten members who had shown commitment to the Committee. This was in order to avoid having a bloated membership that largely could not be relied upon when necessary. Prior to this resolution, the Committee had advised its membership on at least two occasions that it would carry out this action.
  
• 
  The criteria for the removal of names from the list of members were that they had: (a) never attended any one of the Committee’s five meetings, with or without apologies; and (b) never provided remote support such as through the email forum. A total of twelve names were hence removed from the list.
  
• 
  The notice that the twelve individuals had been removed from the membership list was sent by email on 13 March 2015, by copy of which the Secretariat was also informed of the decision. The responses to the notice varied from acceptance with reservations about adequate notice, to threats of seeking Council’s intervention, to queries as to how they were on the Committee list to begin with.
  
• 
  The latter response in particular presents a challenge, which, judging by the responses we received, occurs with other Committees as well. That is, individuals who had not expressed any interest in joining the reconstituted Committee(s) were nonetheless listed by the Secretariat as members. We discuss this challenge fully below at paragraph 6.2.3 and suggest a solution at paragraph 6.2.4.
  
• 
  Our suggestion on addressing this particular challenge of apathy is to first examine its causes. We understand an ad-hoc Committee was constituted for this purpose (which, as we understand, may itself be plagued by apathy). We can therefore only surmise that part of the problem is simply the lack of time. Committee work is extra-curricular and voluntary; and most if not all members of LAZ are in fulltime employment elsewhere. It is therefore difficult to prioritise such work in the midst of many other issues competing for one’s attention.
  
• 
  One suggestion is that Committees should engage their members through the social media in addition to the standard meeting and email forums. It has been noted that participation by Counsel in matters of public interest is much more robust in less formal forums. This would of course require a ‘moderator’ to facilitate particular discussions and conclude on a consensus position. We urge further discussion this method of better involving the Association’s membership in more modern and popular ways of communicating.
  
• 
  Furthermore and for our Committee in particular, we urge the general membership of LAZ to understand the work of the Committee, and its value to the Association and the Association’s objectives as set out in section 4 of the LAZ Act Cap 30. This Committee has the unique opportunity to proactively challenge bad laws before they are made – rather than the usual work of Counsel to challenge bad laws reactively, after they are passed. History and common sense show that it is much harder to have a bad law repealed than to stop it from being passed to begin with. We acknowledge that often times, the Government machinery will still push bad laws through. We can nonetheless cite our success with the Anti-Terrorism amendment Bill as an instance when combined stakeholder pressure does work.
  
• 
  Our Committee is also the one mandated to deal with Constitutional affairs. The Constitution being the grund norm, it is very noble work indeed to have been part of its development. This is especially given our country’s chequered constitutional history.
  
• 
  Our Committee therefore provides an interesting avenue for advocates who wish to make a direct contribution to the development of the legal system in Zambia.
  

2. 
   Inefficiencies at the Secretariat
   

• 
  Challenge: delays in communicating required tasks to the Committee, and in forwarding completed work to the requesting party. For instance:
  

• 
  cases where request for input from an external party has been received by the Secretariat in time, but only forwarded to the Committee weeks later and after the stipulated deadline for submission of the input;
  
• 
  Bills sent to the Secretariat as soon as National Assembly Committees are tasked to hold hearings on the same, but the Bills are not forwarded to all appropriate LAZ Committees simultaneously. Consequently, there is poor coordination among the Committees and in some instances none of the Committees sends out submissions on behalf of the Association;
  
• 
  timely preparation of submissions for the National Assembly and timely forwarding to the Secretariat, but contradicting information on whether the submissions were ever actually sent to / received by the National Assembly; and
  
• 
  requests for the Secretariat to secure an extension due to the very short timeframe given by the National Assembly, but no or late response despite the urgency of the request.
  

• 
  Proposed solutions: we will write to the institutions most significant to the Committee’s work, being the National Assembly and the Ministry of Justice. We will request direct liaisons for the Committee in order to receive information much faster, and convey our work within stipulated deadlines. The Secretariat has already been advised of this intention and supports it.
  

We also suggest that the Secretariat’s capacity to handle Committees’ requirements should be improved from its current insufficient levels. For instance, the membership of the Association increases annually and yet the Secretariat still has only one person handling all communications, and essentially only one channel for emails. If the Association is to improve its image as a responsive stakeholder, it must ensure it efficiently handles all requests for such responses. That might also assist in increasing internal interest in the work of Committees. We are paying substantial sums in license fees every year, and we are freely volunteering our time for committee work. We believe it is not too much to ask for sufficient support from our Secretariat.

• 
  Challenge: names of individuals appearing on the membership list even though they did not apply to join the Committee. As noted above, some of the responses to the removal from the list of names were that they had never applied to be members of the Committee to begin with.
  
• 
  Proposed solution: the Secretariat should not carry forward names from previous years whenever the Committees are being reconstituted. Only those who have expressly stated their desire to join the respective Committees for that particular term should be added to the list. We acknowledge this might show how little interest there really is in committee work, but the current practice of listing ‘ghost’ members is not helpful in anyway. Indeed, showing the true levels of apathy might assist in addressing them.
  

3. 
   Proactivity on ToRs
   

• 
  Challenge: The Committee has been operating in a reactive rather than proactive manner.
  
• 
  Proposed solution: our first solution is indicated above: to directly engage the National Assembly and Ministry of Justice. Additional solutions are much more difficult because they would require increasing the time Committee members put into the Committee’s work. This may be ameliorated to some extent by the utilisation of the intern(s). It will however be very difficult to do more than that because the Committee work is purely voluntary, and all its members have full time employment elsewhere. The best we can do therefore is improve our efficiency with existing tasks in order to hopefully create some time to fit in proactivity. We can also encourage the general membership to join the Committee so there are more members available, rather than the current situation where the few active ones are being put under considerable pressure.
  

• 
  Challenge: As indicated above, the Committee has no input into statements made by the two organisations on the Constitution review process. As the Committee responsible for the Association’s analysis of ‘Constitutional affairs’, we believe this situation might lead to contradictory positions once the Committee completes its work on the constitutional documents.
  
• 
  Proposed solution: advance notice to the Committee by the LAZ representatives of any statement about to be released by either or both of the organisations on the Constitution review process. There should also be sufficient time for the representatives to consult with the Committee on the contents of the statement.
  

1. Despite the many challenges faced by the Committee, it has been a relatively successful period. We assisted third parties who sought Constitutional advice from the Association. We contributed in no small way to the withdrawal of a Bill that raised significant concerns over, inter alia, the risk of excessive powers over the privacy of individuals being abused due to the lack of sufficient controls.

2. Furthermore, despite having to whittle down the membership of the Committee, we are composed of largely active members who attempt to contribute to the attainment of the Committee’s and hence LAZ’s strategic objectives.

M. CONCLUSION

1. The Law Reform and Constitutional Affairs Committee has had an active year, both in terms of its mandated external activities and its internal organisation. It has faced notable challenges such as inadequate support from the Secretariat and member apathy. It still has much work to do on the Final Draft Constitution, especially as this is a ‘hot-button’ issue as the country approaches the next general election. It has nonetheless made some headway in achieving this important task, as well as its other work.

2. The Committee welcomes new members who have a keen interest in the development of the law in Zambia. We also welcome comments from the general membership of the Association on ways in which we can better achieve the Committee’s and LAZ’s objectives.

Dated the 30th day of March 2015

____________________________ _________________________

Felicity K. Kalunga Grace Samui

Convenor Secretary

THE LEGAL AID COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2014 TO MAY 2015

1. 
   Membership, Meetings and Attendance
   

From June 2014 to March 2015, the Committee held 5 meetings and had a total of 8 individual members participate in these meetings with an average attendance of 3 members per meeting.

2. 
   Election of Officers and Adoption of Terms of Reference
   

The Committee further adopted terms of reference to guide its activities for the year. The Committee considered the provisions of the Law Association of Zambia Act, the LAZ strategic plan, past activities of the Committee, and IBA standards for pro bono activities. These terms of reference were approved by the Council as follows:

1. 
   To promote a pro-bono culture within the legal community through:
   

• 
  Encouraging law firms and legal departments to adopt pro bono policies and developing a model pro bono policy
  
• 
  an annual award for outstanding pro bono contributions
  
• 
  Hosting an annual fundraising event to support legal aid activities
  
• 
  Organizing an annual Continuous Legal Education/Continuous Professional Development Course which would assist legal practitioners in providing pro bono services
  

2. 
   To establish machinery for the provision of legal aid in addition to that provided by the Government through the development and implementation a LAZ program to easily connect legal practitioners to pro bono clients.
   
3. 
   To engage and assist communities with little access to legal services through:
   

• 
  Organizing an annual legal aid week/month in communities around the country
  
• 
  Carrying out community legal education programs and forums on common legal problem.
  

4. 
   To consider the legislation relating to legal aid and other ways of securing representation for persons who for any reason are unable to secure it, and to make recommendations to the Council thereon.
   
5. 
   To collaborate other LAZ Committees and local and international legal aid and advocacy organizations in promoting legal aid and related issues.
   

3. 
   Legal Aid Week Activities
   

The Committee invited numerous government entities and community organizations to participate in the Legal Aid Week activities and the following entities and organizations took part in events: Legal Aid Board, National Legal Aid Clinic for Women, Women and Law in Southern Africa, Legal Resources Foundation, Zambia Police Service Victim Support Unit, Paralegal Alliance Network, Commission for Investigations, Police Public Complaints Authority, and Human Rights Commission.

The first community legal aid clinic took place on 2nd December 2014 at Bread of Life Church. During this clinic advocates and other participating organizations were able to assist more than 90 members of the public with various legal queries.

The second community legal aid clinic took place on 11th December 2014 at Miracle Life Church. During this clinic advocates and other participating organizations were able to assist more than 50 members of the public with various legal queries.

4. 
   16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence – Prison Visits
   

5. 
   Community Activities During Annual Law Conference
   

6. 
   Attendance of Workshops and Committees
   

1. 
   Interviews with Programme Evaluation and Planning Mission for the Civil Society Participation Programme (CSPP) of GIZ
   
2. 
   Launch of the University of Zambia Human Rights Law Clinic
   
3. 
   Regional Sensitization Seminar On The Promotion Of The African Court For The Southern Africa Region
   
4. 
   Paralegal Alliance Network Annual General Meeting
   

1. 
   Membership
   

1. 
   Mr. Eddie Mweetwa – Council Member
   
2. 
   Mrs. Juliana Shoko Chilombo
   
3. 
   Mr. A.D Mumba
   
4. 
   Mr. Aubie Mubanga
   
5. 
   Mr. Ziulkani Simposya
   
6. 
   Mr. Andy Wright
   
7. 
   Mr. Shadreck Mbewe
   

2. 
   Meetings
   

3. 
   Submission to Parliamentary queries
   

4. 
   Research
   

1. 
   The Committee participated in a research which was being undertaken by the Beloit College regarding the interference by Government of the Republic in the Administration of Justice particularly by the Judiciary. The Committee participated together with the Human Rights Committee and the Law Reforms Committee.
   
2. 
   Following the report in the local press to the effect that comments had been made by the then Secretary General for the Patriotic condemning the granting of leave to apply for Judicial Review by a High Court Judge and further directing the Attorney General to appeal the granting of leave to apply for Judicial Review it was our view that there was interference by GRZ.
   
3. 
   The Committee attended sittings in different Local Courts within Lusaka. Besides the Judicial Reform inquest which is underway, there is need for a full research by the Association to critically examine the nature and adequacy of justice dispensed by the Local Courts. Even through litigants are not represented there is need for the Association to be concerned as it is one of the forms of justice delivery within the Country.
   

5. 
   Judicial Reforms
   

1. 
   The Committee participated by preparing its own report on the actions they considered material to improve the performance of the Judiciary. The Committee had called for comments from the membership regarding proposals for submission but on all occasions none of the members made any submissions.
   
2. 
   There is need for the views of the membership to be captured and not merely those of the Committee.
   

6. 
   Delays in delivery of Justice
   

1. 
   The Committee notes that the two Judges who had been suspended following delays in delivery of judgments had been reinstated unconditionally. The Judiciary provided copies of the Report.
   
2. 
   The Committee notes that there are still a number of judgments which are still outstanding and the two judges may never deliver. This is a matter the Association needs to discuss. Our proposal is that a fresh list of pending judgments be prepared and presented to the Chief Justice. A meeting can then be arranged with the Chief Justice so that a definitive position is given.
   
3. 
   Further, the recommendations made in the Report presented by the tribunal need to be followed through.
   

7. 
   Bar Bench Conference
   

8. 
   Challenges
   

1. 
   The major challenge the Committee faced was inadequate time for the Committee to meet due to individual pressing commitments.
   
2. 
   The Committee also feels that there needs to be more cohesion between the Committee and the Council.
   

9. 
   Recommendations for next Committee
   

1. 
   It is proposed that an interactive process between the Bar and the Bench be pursued by the Council in order to deal with various issues that may arise between the two outside the Bar Bench Conference.
   
2. 
   It is proposed that the incoming Administration of Justice Committee picks up on research on the nature and adequacy of justice dispensed in the Local Courts across the country.
   
3. 
   It is proposed that the next Administration of Justice Committee ensures that the Bar Bench Conference is held annually in order to build the relationship between the Bar and the Bench.
   
4. 
   The matter of delayed judgments needs to be pursued vigorously with the Bench.