Today, I and my son, Brendan, attended a judicial review in a Lusaka High Court judge’s chambers, together with our attorney, Wynter Kabimba and a legal officer from the Attorney-General’s office. The matter of course has to do with the refusal of the Minister of Home Affairs to renew our self-employed permits - as is our right as holders of investment certificates under the Zambia Development Agency Act of 2006, giving as his reason that “Your business is not viable”, even though we are only into our third year and have already invested $1.6 million in our Luembe Conservancy – a partnership with our Luembe community, which includes the purchase of the hunting concessionaire in our conservancy, Mbeza Safaris.
The judge showed some irritation at a move by the Government who today presented an affidavit to have the review cancelled, having had time since we last appeared before the same judge on 4 September to present it. Our attorney then, given the fact that he had had no time to consult us, requested an adjournment. This was granted, the date being set for 30 January, 2008.
Then the matter of the Immigration Department’s refusal to understand that a stay of execution granted us on 4 September meant just that. But of course Immigration do not have much understanding or respect for the law, being filled with the hubris of their most powerful position to grant ‘life and death’ in Zambia to investors, be they illiterate Chinese labourers whom we encounter every time we attend Immigration, putting their crosses on the receipts for their entry permits, something denied most investors, even the husband of a chum of mine who has been on a work permit since 1975. There are four of us: my wife and son and I (all executive shareholders of the company holding an investment certificate), and my aged mother, so Immigration is quite happy to have us paying our $500 application fee for a temporary permit for a few weeks or months, even though they know the date of the judicial review and could easily issue us with a free report order. After all they should have some rudimentary understanding of the fact that a stay of execution granted by a High Court judge supercedes everything. I tried explaining this to the Immigration legal officer a few days ago. But he clearly thought he was an expert, denying that a stay meant any such thing, then turned on my wife who has been on a report order, saying that unless she paid for and received a temporary permit, he could arrest her for being in the country illegally. This was abuse in its most basic form, something you have to get used to when dealing with the Kent House brigade.
Our problems with Immigration were put to the judge, who stated that the Immigration legal officer was clearly being ‘disrespective to the court, and being arrogant…” With great restraint, he suggested that the Government legal officer have a word with the Immigration legal officer so that he would not be forced to come down on her with a court order!!
Today on the 31st October, we delivered a letter to The Chief Immigration Officer from our attorneys, which dealt with the question, writing as follows: "your (Immigration's) office has continued to act in disobedience of the judicial order granted to them (Mannings) by a competent court by issuing them at times with report orders for a period of 3 days or a Temporary permit for a period of a month. It was the view of the judge (Honourable Mr Justice Phillip Musonda) that your conduct constitutes an affront to the judicial order granted and M/s Mpamba as legal officer was expected to be well versed in court matters and advise your office accordingly. The judge directed that we implore you to obey the court order in order to facilitate a fair trial or in default to promptly report to the court for appropriate action. In this regard you may wish to refer to the case of Kabimba Vs the Attorney General and Lusaka City Council (1995/97) ZR, 152 for the definition of a stay and its effect in judicial review proceedings."
It was concluded by a receptive and polite senior hierarchy at Immigration - and by our attorney, that we should be issued Temporary Permits for three months - for which we would have to pay.
