Loading ...
Ignita Ve...
Civic & Government
Justice Courts and Judgments
396
1
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
In the Sovereign Court of International Justice Before the Human Rights Court Division Registry of Remedial Judgments Under Conventional International Law at Common Law In the Case of: Judge Tantameni v. Zambian Ministry of Justice Case No: HRC-RMD-2019-002 Between (Plaintiff): Judge Kunda Maggie Tantameni And (Defendant(s)): Ministry of Justice of Zambia In the matter of a Judge of the Bench at Bar in Common Law serving as a Magistrate for the Lusaka Magistrates Subordinate Court, seeking remedy for being criminally charged as a co-defendant for alleged events occurring within a Courthouse during a case for which she was the Presiding Judge, to enforce the Constitution of Zambia and Judicial Code of Conduct of its Ministry of Justice, and other legal remedies for violations of the Independent Judiciary profession and related human rights. Judgment Ordered & Issued on 15 April 2019 Legal Research & Content 2017, 2019 Sovereign Court of International Justice. All International Rights Reserved. 2 Legal Notice to Any Adverse Parties Any form of apparent retaliation for this Judgment, targeting the Court or participants in the case, even indirectly, including by threats or defamation, is a criminal violation against the Court, regardless of its "recognition", generally punishable by 15-30 years imprisonment. (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4; UN Remedy for Violations of International Law, Preamble: 8; UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Articles 10, 11, 12.2; UN Principles of Justice for Abuse of Power, Article 6(d); UN Law of Treaties, Article 38; 18 USC 1116(b)(2); 18 USC 112(b)(2); 18 USC 878(a)-(b); 18 USC 1513(e).) All Judiciary or inter-governmental officials related to the Court are strictly protected from any interference as "internationally protected persons" regardless of "recognition", enforceable by extradition and imprisonment by any cooperating country even without an extradition treaty. (UN Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Articles 1.1(b), 8.2; 18 USC 1116(b); 18 USC 112(c).) The only lawful challenge to a Judgment is by Appeal, Petition for an Amended Judgment based on new evidence, or by Complaint to the Court for disciplinary review of the Presiding Judges, which must demonstrate bias by proving a defect of fact or law in the Judgment. (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 16-17.) (See Details of Judiciary Security Authorities & Enforcement at these Links) Universal Jurisdiction by Subject Matter The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) is an inter-governmental organization (IGO) established as an official Court of Law, possessing Universal Jurisdiction over all matters involving international law (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28; UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 3(c), 4, 5, 12, 14; UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2, 9.3(c), 9.4; UN Justice for Abuse of Power, Articles 5, 7; UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 17.1, 37, 40). As a result, its official Judiciary powers and authorities are supra-governmental, fully binding upon all countries (UN Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: 1, 10, Articles 3, 4), regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38). Specifically, the independent Judiciary of an international Court has "exclusive authority to decide whether" any legal matter is within its established Universal Jurisdiction "as defined by law" (UN Independence of Judiciary, Article 3). 3 The present case falls within the Universal Jurisdiction of the Court, on the basis that its subject matter and operative facts involve rights and liabilities under customary and conventional international law at Common Law, or implicate parties from diverse national jurisdictions, such that only an international Court of Justice of the independent Judiciary can effectively resolve the case or controversy. Remedial Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law The Court can issue a Remedial Judgment by Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law, based upon verifiable facts which could not genuinely be in dispute, where the only function of the Court is to apply the law to the facts in evidence, such that there is no requirement of due process by notice or hearing for any adverse party. In Common Law as customary international law, a "Summary Judgment" is a fast-track "accelerated Judgment" by a Court of Law, without contested hearings nor a full trial process, based upon the established facts in evidence, in civil cases "where material facts are not disputed or where [a] Court's opinion is used for Judgment." (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, "Summary Judgment".) Traditionally, this is also called "Judgment on the Merits" or "Judgment as a Matter of Law", in cases where the operative facts are already well established and cannot reasonably be disputed. This international legal doctrine and Judiciary practice of Summary Judgment is represented as codified by the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 56-57), and the England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules (Part 24). Upon receiving actual or constructive legal notice of the contents of such Summary Judgment, Defendant(s) and other adverse parties may incur both civil and criminal liabilities for any misrepresentations or actions contrary to that Judgment, and become subject to Enforcement Orders and Contempt of Court Orders. The Court may officially publish its Remedial Judgment, un-redacted with consent of Plaintiff, or redacted at the request of Plaintiff, in a manner visible to the general public. Evidence in Possession of Parties to Summary Judgment For Summary Judgment, the facts in evidence are generally established by documentary evidence, facts and information of public record, public official laws and regulations, actions or statements by governmental agencies, uncontested witness testimony or evidence of record in proceedings by another Court of Law, and other evidence establishing relevant facts of the case which cannot reasonably be disputed. Supporting the legal doctrine of Summary Judgment, that there is no requirement for notice or hearing to apply the law to facts in evidence, such evidence is already in the possession of or publicly available to Defendant(s), either from interactions between the parties, or by the operations or authorities of the Defendant(s). 4 Accordingly, no special disclosure or delivery of copies of evidence against Defendant(s) is necessary nor warranted in a case adjudicated by Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law. It is sufficient for the Court to include summaries of accurate descriptions of the verifiable facts and evidence in its written Judgment, with reference to citations reasonably identifying relevant official documents, to give effective legal notice of the substance of the case to Defendant(s). Such evidence may be submitted by Plaintiff for verification by the Court, and may be discovered by the investigating Chamber of Instruction Judges of the Court. Preliminary Issues of Personal Jurisdiction For the purposes of Remedial Judgment, personal jurisdiction has been established by means of Plaintiff having filed a complaint asserting legal rights and requesting legal remedies from the Court (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Article 9.3(a)), where Plaintiff has suffered harm by any infringement or impairment of rights under international law (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 18). The related adverse personal jurisdiction, over individuals and any legal entities as counter-parties, has been established by means of Defendant(s) having committed any actions or omissions alleged to constitute apparent participation in violating rights under international law (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Articles 10-11), thus incurring potential personal or corporate liability for individual offenses against rights (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 8; UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Articles 3(b), 17). 1. Summary of Legal Matter and Issues of the Case Plaintiff Judge Tantameni was charged as a co-defendant in the criminal case "State v. Mkandawire, Mpanza, Tantameni & Kangwa", in the Lusaka Magistrates Subordinate Court. The criminal charges were explicitly and admittedly for alleged events occurring within a Courthouse during an open case for which she was the Presiding Judge of record. In the pleadings submitted by Magna Carta Bar Chambers to our Court in this case, Plaintiff asserts that the criminal process against her as a Judge was false, invalid and unlawful, driven entirely by political motivations and corruption within the Ministry of Justice, and wholly circumvented the exclusive statutory authority of the Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA), thus entirely disregarding and violating both the Judicial Code of Conduct and Constitution of Zambia, thereby flagrantly violating numerous rights under international law. 5 Plaintiff further asserts that the Zambian Ministry of Justice has failed to maintain the statutory Judiciary Complaints Authority (JCA) in a manner allowing sufficient public access for filing complaints, and thus the Ministry of Justice essentially abdicated its official responsibilities and authority, failing to uphold the Rule of Law, and allowing the subject violations of corruption to run rampant with no available remedy. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a Remedial Judgment by this Court of Justice under international law, ordering enforceable remedies for restoration of the Rule of Law, restoration of rights, compensatory damages for harm incurred, punitive damages in the public interest, and any and all other legal remedies upholding the Independent Judiciary profession and related human rights. 2. Applicable Law Governing Facts of the Case The primary body of law applied by the Court is that of "conventional international law", consisting of the framework of United Nations conventions which recognize and codify the rules of international law. The UN framework of conventions recognizing international law, which is different from mere treaties governing relations or transactions, is binding upon all States as evidence of established "customary rules of international law", which are binding upon all States, even non-signatory countries, regardless of ratification or recognition, and are enforceable by all other States, as declared by the UN Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Article 38). The Court may cite various national laws, and cite established legal doctrines of Common Law, as evidence of universal doctrines of "customary international law" at Common Law, which is recognized as enforceable in conventional international law (UN Diplomatic Relations, Preamble, Article 47.1; UN Consular Relations, Preamble; UN Immunities of States, Preamble: 5; UN Law of Treaties, Preamble, Article 38.). The Court may also cite national "constitutional rights", which are specifically recognized as also being basic human rights in international law (UN Human Rights, Article 8). Constitutional rights under national law are also enforceable as human rights under international law, as the customary Common Law right to "equal protection of the law" (UN Human Rights, Article 7; UN Civil and Political Rights, Article 26). 6 3. Analysis of Determinative Facts in Evidence Based upon investigation of facts and evidence by the Instruction Judges, and resulting recommendations by the Chamber of Instruction Judges, the Court hereby summarizes and analyzes the following determinative facts as established by the evidence: A. Unlawful Origins and Process of the Case In May 2018, the Drug Enforcement Commission discovered drugs missing from an evidence facility of the Lusaka Magistrates Subordinate Court, from at least 6 different criminal Trials of 6 different Magistrates in the Courthouse. In June 2018, Police began an inquiry into the drugs missing from the Courthouse. In July 2018, the initiating Complaint was filed directly with Police by another Magistrate Kenneth Mulife individually, implicating Judge Tantameni as the only Magistrate named as a co-defendant. By making himself a Complainant for criminal charges as an individual against another Judge, without authorization from any Judiciary regulatory body, Magistrate Kenneth Mulife thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct Act as a national law of Zambia, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not conduct activities outside that office that (a) create conflict with judicial responsibilities (c) bring the integrity, independence and impartiality of the Judiciary into disrepute" (Article 11.1). By filing a Complaint directly with Police against another Judge, bypassing mandatory process through the statutory Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA), without authorization from any Judiciary regulatory agency, Magistrate Kenneth Mulife thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which strictly requires that "Where a judicial officer alleges that any other judicial officer" has acted improperly, "the judicial officer shall inform the [JCA] Authority" (Article 25.2). In September 2018, Judge Tantameni was subjected to a Police search of her residence, and despite nothing indicated in the search warrant being found, was arrested anyway. Based upon being superficially implicated in this case as a co-defendant, with no verifiable evidence, she was suspended from Judiciary service. The criminal case was improperly brought in the Subordinate Court, despite disqualifying conflicts of interest, that the Complainant Kenneth Mulife was also Chief Resident Magistrate directly supervising that same Subordinate Court at the time. This necessarily prevented the Court from any possibility of conducting an unbiased hearing in that case. 7 The Complainant Kenneth Mulife, as Chief Resident Magistrate supervising that Subordinate Court, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not permit any other person subject to the officer's direction and control to manifest bias or prejudice" (Article 4.1), and "shall not allow [an] other officer of the Court to manifest bias" (Article 4.2), by accepting a case with such conflicts of interest. The Presiding Magistrate of that Subordinate Court, Susan Mangalashi, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not manifest bias or prejudice" (Article 4.1) by accepting a case with such conflicts of interest. It further prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not use [one's] position" to give the appearance that "[an] other person is in a position to influence the officer in any manner" such as one's Supervisor being the Complainant party (Article 5.3). It also prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not adjudicate any matter in which the officer has any interest whether directly or indirectly" such as appeasing one's Supervisor who is the Complainant party (Article 6.1) or where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (Article 6.2). The Chief Resident Magistrate Kenneth Mulife, by acting as Complainant and bringing the case in his own Subordinate Court, and Presiding Magistrate Susan Mangalashi, by accepting the case, thereby both violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that "a judicial officer shall not undertake any responsibility that would create a potential conflict of interests" (Article 10.2). In October 2018 at the Preliminary Hearing, the Presiding Magistrate Susan Mangalashi wrongfully allowed the charges to proceed against Judge Tantameni as a co-defendant, despite the charges and process violating the Judicial Code of Conduct (Articles 4.1, 4.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 10.2, 11.1, 25.2). In November 2018 Presiding Magistrate Susan Mangalashi, in her written Ruling on the Preliminary Hearing sending the case to Trial, refused to recognize fundamental laws, and failed to address determinative facts and laws. This is evidence of manifest bias by conflicts of interest, with complete disregard for relevant law, and thus proves that the case is driven by political motivations. The Complainant Kenneth Mulife, as Chief Resident Magistrate supervising that Subordinate Court, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not allow any other person subject to the officer's direction and control to manifest bias" (Article 4.1), and "shall not allow [an] other officer of the Court to manifest bias" (Article 4.2) by rejecting a determinative body of controlling law. The Presiding Magistrate of that Subordinate Court, Susan Mangalashi, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not manifest bias" (Article 4.1) by rejecting a determinative body of controlling law. 8 B. Corrupt Disregard for Exculpatory Evidence The only excuse as a claimed reason why Judge Tantameni was singled out, and treated differently, from the other 5 Magistrates of the other 5 Courtrooms which all had drugs missing all in May 2018, was the allegation that she supposedly "allocated cases to herself", which in practice is procedurally impossible for an adjudicator and thus could not be true. The only single piece of evidence claimed to support this allegation, despite its practical impossibility, was the Court Master Registry book which was claimed to have her name entered for certain cases being assigned. The Prosecutor, Simwatachela Mwila, ignored determinative exculpatory evidence: The central exhibit of record, the Court Master Registry, the only isolated piece of evidence claimed to implicate Judge Tantameni as a co-defendant, noticeably indicated and visibly revealed that the original names had been deleted and falsely replaced with the name of Judge Tantameni. At the Trial in January 2019, the key witness Jerry Collins, a Court Registry Clerk, admitted in open Court testimony that he himself had deleted several entries of other names, and falsely replaced them with the name of Judge Tantameni. That Clerk refused to explain who had authorized or instructed him to make those false changed entries. (The only person having authority to so instruct the Clerk was Chief Resident Magistrate Kenneth Mulife, the same person who made the Complaint relying solely on this claimed evidence.) This conclusively proves that the only single piece of evidence claimed to implicate Judge Tantameni in the criminal charges was self-evidently false and artificially manufactured by forgery, thus further proving that the Complaint and all resulting process was driven solely by political motivations. At the Trial the Prosecutor also called a Drug Enforcement Officer to testify about the arrest of Beatrice Siele for drugs, intended to circumstantially support the criminal charge that Judge Tantameni was somehow complicit in an alleged theft of those drugs from the Court during the trial of Siele, for which Judge Tantameni was the Presiding Magistrate who had convicted and sentenced her. In presenting this theory and calling a witness attempting to substantiate it, the Prosecutor wilfully disregarded exculpatory evidence that the same theft of drugs during the same time period occurred in another 5 Courtrooms of another 5 Magistrates, where any of the others could be suspects but were never charged. 9 With that witness, the Officer failed to confirm what the Prosecutor requested, and had no evidence nor testimony to implicate Judge Tantameni, but instead presented different arrest reports from the 5 other cases of drugs missing from different Courtrooms of other Magistrates. All of those consisted of major exculpatory evidence, by revealing other suspects who should have been substituted and charged through the Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA). Most notably, one of those other 5 cases being ignored as exculpatory evidence, was actually the case of Sydney Mwansa before Magistrate Kenneth Mulife, during which 25.5 kg of cocaine, with a street value of approximately $12.75 million USD, had gone missing from his Courtroom. This batch was considered the largest drug bust in the history of Zambia. Among the 6 Magistrates of 6 Courtrooms from which drugs went missing, this fact alone would necessarily have to make Magistrate Mulife himself the prime suspect. Moreover, as Chief Resident Magistrate of the Subordinate Court, Kenneth Mulife himself was in the best position to access the Courthouse evidence facilities, more than any of the other 5 Magistrates from whose Courtrooms drugs were missing. This fact alone would also necessarily have to make Magistrate Mulife himself the prime suspect. Therefore, Judge Kenneth Mulife who is the Complainant in this case, falsely implicating Judge Tantameni in drugs missing from the Court, despite his conflict of interest as Chief Resident Magistrate directly supervising the same Subordinate Court where the charges of his own Complaint were brought, himself in fact also had the largest batch of drugs missing from his own Courtroom, and had access to evidence from the other 5 Courtrooms, logically making him the most likely prime suspect. Accordingly, if the Complaint by Mulife bringing criminal charges directly against another Judge, bypassing the Judicial Code of Conduct, is to be allowed, then Judge Mulife should himself have his residence searched, be arrested, be suspended, and have criminal charges brought against him for theft of drugs from his own Court. The fact that no such accusations were ever brought against Judge Mulife, despite the Drug Enforcement Officers having documentary evidence of the largest batch of drugs missing from his own Courtroom, conclusively proves the Rule that no such direct criminal charges are brought against a Presiding Magistrate over such cases. This legal fact further proves that this case falsely implicating Judge Tantameni was driven by purely political motivations. Furthermore, this additionally proves a double-standard, which necessarily can only be the result of Judiciary corruption, evidencing a major violation of constitutional rights and human rights of Equal Protection of Law. 10 The Trial Hearing thus revealed two major controlling and determinative pieces of exculpatory evidence: (1) The only evidence used to implicate Judge Tantameni was proven false and artificially manufactured by forgery; (2) The only other circumstantial evidence was never substantiated and instead revealed new evidence implicating the conflicted Complainant himself as the most obvious prime suspect who should have been substituted and charged through the Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA). At that moment, as relating to Judge Tantameni as a co-defendant, the Complainant Judge Mulife was legally obligated to withdraw his Complaint, the Prosecutor Simwatachela Mwila was legally required to withdraw the charges, and the Presiding Magistrate Susan Mangalashi was legally mandated to dismiss the case. However, flagrantly disregarding these major discoveries of compelling exculpatory evidence in the already corrupt and unlawful Trial in January, the Presiding Magistrate Susan Mangalashi nonetheless ordered a Continuing Trial to resume in March 2019 (ordered postponed until May 2019). C. Evidence of Corrupt Political Motivations The Drug Enforcement Commission discovered drugs missing from an evidence facility, from at least 6 different criminal Trials of 6 different Magistrates of the Lusaka Subordinate Court, in May 2018. Police began an inquiry in June 2018. Within only one month later in July 2018, Chief Resident Magistrate Kenneth Mulife filed the Complaint with police naming Judge Tantameni as the only Magistrate co-defendant. The fact that the Complainant as one of the Magistrates also had drugs missing from his own Courtroom, and as Chief Resident Magistrate had physical access to evidence from all 6 Courtrooms, was wholly ignored. Exculpatory evidence at Trial in January 2019, proving that the sole evidence claimed to implicate Judge Tantameni was falsified through forgery by the Court Registry Clerk, who answers directly to the Chief Resident Magistrate, was wholly ignored. These facts in evidence necessarily raise serious suspicions, and substantial probable cause for criminal charges, that the Complainant Judge Kenneth Mulife may have committed his own repeated theft of drugs from various Courtrooms of that Subordinate Court which he supervised as Chief Resident Magistrate, and thus would have wilfully brought this knowingly false Complaint implicating Judge Tantameni as the only co- defendant, precisely to blame his own crimes on others. As no investigation and no charges have been brought against Judge Kenneth Mulife, no guilt of such theft-related crimes has yet been proven. Nonetheless, the facts in evidence separately prove that logically, he is necessarily the proper prime suspect who should have been substituted and charged through the Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA). 11 This conclusively proves the real existence of political motivations for corruption in unlawfully bringing a false Complaint against another Judge, precisely to deflect suspicion away from himself as the most obvious prime suspect. Even more suspicious, is that in February 2019, Magistrate Mulife was promoted to High Court Judge, 7 months after illegally being the individual Complainant for criminal charges against another Judge in July 2018, only 3 months after his subordinate Magistrate entered a Ruling wrongfully allowing a Trial against a Judge in November 2018, merely a short 1 month after that Judge was wrongfully and illegally brought to Trial in January 2019, and less than 1 month before the scheduled March 19th Continuing Trial hearings of this case which was already corrupted by conflicts of interest making it inherently biased. This is further compelling evidence of an apparent political reward arising from and as a result of creating unlawful criminal charges against a Judge in a corrupted process, and evidence of escalating manufactured political pressure to further corrupt that same unlawful process, by giving the false conflicted Complainant greater political clout and an air of presumed credibility as a High Court Judge. The Complainant Kenneth Mulife, as Chief Resident Magistrate supervising the Subordinate Court where the illegal process was brought against a Judge, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not use [one's] position to advance any private interest of that officer" (Article 5.3). By obtaining this career-advancing political reward by making himself the Complainant as an individual against another Judge without authorization from any Judiciary regulatory body, Kenneth Mulife further violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits to "receive compensation for any extrajudicial activities" which are "contrary to the provisions of this Act" (Article 11.2). D. Evidence of Corrupt Political Targeting In September 2018, the watchdog Africa Confidential (AC) published a report exposing widespread corruption of embezzlement in various Ministries of Zambia, which explained why the United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland, Sweden and UNICEF had already suspended all "international development" aid funding to Zambian government programs. This was prominently reported by major news outlets Zambian Eye, Reuters, and BBC. Judge Tantameni had returned from Maternity Leave in June 2018, within only one month before the police Complaint was filed in July 2018. Just as the Zambian government corruption and embezzlement scandal had already been escalating and became public in September 2018, suddenly Judge Tantameni was arrested without cause bypassing all Judiciary authorities in September 2018. 12 This is compelling evidence of intentional political targeting of Judge Tantameni, as a scapegoat for the public political scandal of government corruption in other agencies, precisely because she appeared to be in the weakest position to defend against false charges by a corrupt and illegal process, specifically as a woman who had just returned from Maternity Leave with the extra burdens of responsibility of caring for an infant. The Complainant Kenneth Mulife, as Chief Resident Magistrate supervising that Subordinate Court, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a ""judicial officer shall not allow any other person subject to the officer's direction and control to manifest bias [or] discrimination based upon sex [or] marital status" (Article 4.1), and "shall not allow [an] other officer of the Court to manifest [such] bias [or] discrimination" (Article 4.2)". The Presiding Magistrate of that Subordinate Court, Susan Mangalashi, thereby violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits that a "judicial officer shall not manifest bias [or] discrimination based upon sex [or] marital status" (Article 4.1). At the Trial in January 2019, the most prominent witness, which the Prosecutor brought to testify against Judge Tentameni, was Beatrice Siele who was previously criminally convicted and sentenced by Judge Tantameni. This was purely inflammatory and prejudicial. It further proves that the entire case is characterized by corrupt conflicts of interest, and is visibly driven entirely by political motivations. Multiple facts about this conflicted witness are highly suspicious: Beatrice Siele was recruited by the Police (necessarily on behalf of the Prosecution) to give this irrelevant testimony in June 2018, while still serving her prison sentence, 1 month before the initial Complaint was even filed in July 2018; She was then inexplicably granted a Presidential Pardon in December 2018, a short 2 months after the Preliminary Hearing in October 2018, but just in time only 1 month before her requested testimony at the Trial in January 2019. This is further compelling evidence of political targeting, establishing that the Prosecution misled or abused the Presidential Administration to arrange an apparent political inducement and reward for falsely supporting corrupt and unlawful criminal charges against a Judge. 13 E. Defective Charges Reveal Political Corruption It is highly revealing that both the Complaint and Court process for criminal charges against Judge Tantameni as a co-defendant, purportedly against her as an individual citizen while disregarding and dismissing her Judiciary immunity under the Judicial Code of Conduct, were brought in the name of "Kunda Maggie Tantameni". However, it is a legal fact that "Kunda Maggie Tantameni" is not her legal name for purposes of legal identification as an individual citizen, as it is not the legal name on her identifying passport. By this fact alone, all charges and process against her are inherently and necessarily defective and invalid as a matter of law, for failure to properly identify the individual citizen who is prosecuted. Indeed, if the Prosecution and the Court cannot even properly identify a Defendant as a citizen, then by definition they could not possibly be able to legally connect any evidence to the Defendant as an individual. Moreover, beyond this major defect making all process against her wholly invalid and unlawful, further revealing a much worse violation, the name "Kunda Maggie Tantameni" is actually her professional name properly used as a Judiciary official: Zambia is a Member State of the Commonwealth of Nations since 1964. In the British Commonwealth, it is an established rule of customary law that "it is not correct to refer to Judges by their full names" and thus "the use of surnames is optional" (Practice Briefing, Addressing Members of the Judiciary, New Zealand Law Society, January 2014, pp.1-2). Judges thus have a protected right to use a "designation" in place of their private surname, as their official professional name (Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, 4th Ed., 2012, pp.19-20). This rightful use of a Judiciary professional name is part of the protected right to privacy for Judiciary Security against unlawful interference, under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 1, 2, 4). Judge Tantameni properly chose the designation "Tantameni" as her traditional family tribal name, different from her private legal name, as her official professional name. Therefore, the fact that the charges and prosecution were brought against Judge Tantameni using her Judiciary professional name, failing to use her private legal name as an individual citizen, conclusively proves that this was a wholly invalid and illegal process, specifically and intentionally brought against her official Judiciary capacity. 14 The Court case of criminal charges against Judge Tantameni, which by definition is a matter of public record, necessarily lists her private residential address. By directly and publicly connecting her private residential address to her professional name as a Judiciary official, the Court case constitutes a direct and serious violation of rights of Judiciary Security. Furthermore, Judge Tantameni is widely known with notable popularity by her professional name as a Judiciary official, as evidenced by her appearances on the popular Zambian television show "HerStory" under her professional name "Kunda Tantameni", in August and July 2016. Therefore, the fact that process was wrongfully brought against her professional name evidences that it was intentionally calculated to achieve maximal public embarrassment, to undermine her professional reputation as a Judiciary official, and to cause maximal damage to her professional opportunities and personal income. This is consistent with the political motivations of making her a political scapegoat for the unrelated corruption scandal of other officials in other governmental agencies. Accordingly, this fact proves that all Judiciary officials involved in the wrongful charges and prosecution flagrantly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, under which it is a serious offense if a "judicial officer maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injures the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another judicial officer" (Article 33.1(d)). The facts that this process was invalid and defective as brought only in her Judiciary professional name, failing to use her private legal name, and evidently calculated primarily to target and undermine her professional reputation as a Judiciary official (making her a scapegoat for an unrelated political scandal), and to violate her rights of Judiciary Security for such purpose, while flagrantly violating all relevant fundamental laws, conclusively prove that the entire process was driven by purely political motivations of apparent corruption. F. Corrupt Failure of Access to Judiciary Complaints The investigating Chamber of Instruction Judges of the Court found that the Ministry of Justice has failed to maintain the statutory Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA) in a manner allowing sufficient access for filing complaints: No public indication of the identity of any Secretary or Chairperson of the JCA can be found, and inquiries through official channels failed to discover any known JCA officials or members since 2017. Under the Constitution of Zambia, the Ministry of Justice is required to maintain and operate a "Judicial Complaints Commission", which must "report to the President", and only such Commission can "hear the matter" of any complaint against a Judge (Articles 144.1-144.5). 15 Under the Judicial Code of Conduct of Zambia, "members of the Authority shall be appointed by the President" (Articles 20.2, 20.7), and "a full-time Secretary to the Authority shall be appointed by the President (Article 21.1). The Minister of Justice is directly responsible for ensuring that the Presidential Secretary to JCA "shall serve" and continue in active "service" (Articles 21.4, 21.6). The Ministry of Justice, at all levels, necessarily had constructive notice of the fact that unlawful criminal charges were filed against Judge Tantameni disregarding and bypassing the constitutional and statutory Judiciary Complaints mechanism. Accordingly, as of July 2018 when the criminal Complaint was initially filed, and again in October 2018 when the resulting Preliminary Hearing occurred, the Ministry had legal notice that its Judiciary Complaints function was being illegally circumvented, and was obligated to immediately reconstitute and provide public access to its Judiciary Complaints Authority mechanism. The fact that despite having such legal constructive notice, the Ministry of Justice did nothing to restore or reassert its Judiciary Complaints Authority function, is compelling evidence of corruption, consistent with and supported by multiple evidence of corrupt political motivations for circumventing Ministry authority by illegal and unconstitutional false process against a Judge. By failing to restore or reassert its authority for Judiciary Complaints, the Ministry of Justice essentially abdicated its official responsibilities, depriving the general public of rights of Access to Justice against corrupt abuse of power by Judiciary officials. This failure by the Ministry of Justice does not mitigate the legal liability of its Judiciary officials at all levels for circumventing the Judiciary Complaints process: The Complainant, Prosecutor, Presiding Magistrate, and supervising Ministry officials were all constitutionally obligated to comply with the Judicial Code of Conduct. If any of them had sought to file a proper JCA complaint as required, they would have (1) discovered and incurred an obligation to notify the Ministry of its defunct status and request a venue for this authority, and (2) been required to make best efforts to submit such internal complaint to higher Ministry of Justice officials. The fact that all of the various Judiciary officials complicit in pursuing the illegal false process against Judge Tantameni disregarded these obligations, is further compelling evidence that all process was driven by political motivations of corruption. 16 4. Determination on Relevant Violations of Law Based upon the scholarly jurisprudence applied by the Presiding Judges, and resulting analysis and determinations by the Chamber of Presiding Judges, the Court hereby summarizes and declares the following determinative legal facts of relevant violations of law in the present case as established by the facts in evidence: A. Violations of Rights under the Constitution of Zambia The Constitution of Zambia mandates absolute Judiciary Immunity of Judges against such Police complaints and resulting criminal charges: "The Judiciary shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and not be subject to the control or direction of an authority" (Article 122). Under the Constitution, "The removal of a Judge" can only be "initiated by the Judicial Complaints Commission", which must "submit a report to the President", and then only the President can "suspend the Judge from office" to allow the Commission to "hear the matter", after which the Commission can only "recommend to the President the removal of the Judge" (Articles 144.1-144.5). The Constitution strictly requires that such "proceedings shall be held in camera" in closed chambers under Judiciary confidentiality (Article 144.6), to prevent political pressures from public exposure and protect the reputational rights of the Judge. The Supreme Court of Zambia, in State v. Mutunda, Kajimanga and Musonda (2013), confirmed the strict application of these Constitutional provisions, that no Judge can be suspended or removed, without a complaint first brought exclusively to the Judiciary Authority and then referred to the President before any further proceedings: Rejecting all other legal theories and arguments, the Supreme Court declared: "These Articles of the Constitution stand alone". It confirmed that "our Constitution never intended for the powers vested in the President to be diluted through the route of the Judicial Code of Conduct Act", and also that no official nor agency can "usurp the powers of the Judicial Complaints Authority". It concluded: "We view the powers vested in the President as being checks on the Judiciary [for] accountability in the Judiciary. It is a response to the question of who guards the guards." 17 B. Violations of International Law Subject to Enforcement The facts in evidence establish serious violations of international law, universally recognized by multiple United Nations conventions, which are made fully binding upon all States, even non-signatory countries, and regardless of "recognition", by the UN Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 38). The Republic of Zambia directly ratified the UN Law of Treaties in 1969. Disregarding absolute Judiciary Immunity against Police complaints and resulting criminal charges violates absolute immunity of Judges under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 2, 16). The entire process, bypassing and disregarding the Judicial Complaints Authority of the Ministry of Justice, circumventing the mandatory exclusive internal Judiciary disciplinary process, also violates UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 16-17). This illegal public process against a Judge, allowing public Police process of arrest and criminal charges of record, with a subsequent Court hearing and trial of public record, additionally violates Judiciary confidentiality under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Article 17) and UN Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (Articles 1(b), 2.3). This violation of Judiciary confidentiality further violates human rights against attacks upon "privacy" and "honour and reputation" under UN Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3, 12). Bringing defective and invalid charges and process against the Judiciary professional name, causing a Judge's private residential address to be publicly associated with one's Judiciary name, egregiously violates Judiciary Security under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 15), and also violates UN Internationally Protected Persons (Articles 2.1(e), 2.3, 4(a)). The present case flagrantly violates rights under the Constitution of Zambia on Judiciary Immunities (Articles 122, 144.1-144.6). Under international law, all violations of constitutional rights are also violations of human rights, through the universal right of Equal Protection of Law, under UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7) and UN Civil and Political Rights (Article 26). The Prosecution disregarding exculpatory evidence in this case flagrantly violates UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors , which strictly requires to "act with objectivity and pay attention to all relevant [evidence] to the advantage of the suspect" (Article 13(b)), and mandates that "Prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution when investigation shows the charge to be unfounded" (Article 14). 18 The Prosecution failing to withdraw and continuing to rely on artificially manufactured evidence, falsified by visibly apparent forgery, is another major violation of UN Role of Prosecutors: "When prosecutors come into possession of evidence obtained [by] unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to Justice." (Article 16) The Ministry of Justice failing to stop the wholly illegal process against a Judge, allowing continuing and escalating violations of all laws prohibiting it, is itself an illegal "failure to act" constituting a criminal "abuse of power", in violation of UN Declaration on Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, which mandates that "No one shall participate by failure to act where required, in violating human rights" (Article 10). Any failure to enforce the law by "prosecution of crimes particularly corruption [and] abuse of power recognized by international law" itself constitutes a criminal abuse of power, as evidenced by UN Role of Prosecutors (Article 15). Therefore, this case as a whole, illegally and unconstitutionally targeting a Judge, constitutes a flagrant violation of Judiciary Security mandated by international law, under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 15). The Ministry of Justice failing to restore or reassert its authority for Judiciary Complaints, depriving the general public of Access to Justice against corrupt Judiciary officials, violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which mandates a "social order in which rights and freedoms can be fully realized" (Article 28). This specifically violates the UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, which requires "administrative procedures that provide access to justice" (Articles 2(b), 3(c), 11(a)), for "equal access to an effective judicial remedy [to] include access to administrative and other bodies", as "the right to impartial proceedings" (Article 12). This also violates the UN Principles of Justice for Abuse of Power, which requires "access to the mechanisms of justice" (Article 4) by "Judicial and administrative mechanisms" with "accessible procedures" (Article 5). These violations of Access to Justice specifically violated the rights of Plaintiff, by depriving her of any venue for filing counter-charges against those Ministry officials who were themselves committing multiple serious violations. 19 5. Conclusions and Disposition of the Case Considering all legal arguments developed by an assigned Judge-Advocate based on filings of Plaintiff, and also counter-arguments developed by an assigned Judge- Advocate for the interests of Defendant(s), as certified by the Chamber of Instruction Judges, the Court hereby applies the law to the facts in evidence. Based upon the strict logical application of determinative law governing the operative facts of the case, as established by the verifiable evidence, the Court hereby rules and holds the following conclusions of legal facts and law, which thereby constitute the final Judiciary disposition of the present case at Bar: The Defendant, the Ministry of Justice of Zambia, is hereby found liable for the following violations of international law, found to be committed by its Judiciary officials of the Ministry, including those of the Prosecution and the Lusaka Magistrates Subordinate Court under authority and control of the Ministry: Defendant is liable for Seven Counts of Abuse of Power, for unlawful "participation" including "by failure to act where required, in violating human rights" under UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights (Article 10), consisting of the following offenses as separate Counts: (1) Violation of Judiciary Immunity under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 2, 16-17); (2) Violation of Judiciary Confidentiality under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Article 17), UN Internationally Protected Persons (Articles 1(b), 2.3), and UN Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3, 12); (3) Violation of Judiciary Security under UN Independence of the Judiciary (Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 15), and UN Internationally Protected Persons (Articles 2.1(e), 2.3, 4(a)); (4) Violation of Equal Protection of Law under UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and UN Civil and Political Rights (Article 26); (5) Violation by Disregarding Exculpatory Evidence under UN Role of Prosecutors (Articles 13(b), 14, 16); (6) Violation of Equal Access to Justice against Judiciary corruption under UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 28), UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights (Articles 2(b), 3(c), 11(a), 12), and UN Justice for Abuse of Power (Articles 4, 5); (7) Violation by Failure to Prosecute Abuse of Power against officials committing the other violations against Plaintiff, under UN Role of Prosecutors (Articles 15, 16). 20 Declaratory Judgment Nullifying Unlawful Action Ordered The Court hereby declares as a matter of law, as a legal fact, that all charges and process against Plaintiff relating to the criminal case "State v. Mkandawire, Mpanza, Tantameni & Kangwa" in the Lusaka Magistrates Subordinate Court, are null and void as defective and unlawful, are illegal as unconstitutional and in violation of international law, and initiated and continued solely by political corruption. The Court thus hereby orders all such charges and process stricken and nullified as illegal. Order to Reinstate Plaintiff to Good Standing Ordered The Court hereby orders Defendant to immediately withdraw all charges and process against Plaintiff, both in the Police and in the Subordinate Magistrates Court, to expunge all records relating to Plaintiff from such process, and to reinstate Plaintiff to good standing as a Magistrate in the Ministry of Justice. Defendant is ordered to comply with this Order within 30 calendar days from the date of this Judgment, under penalty of Contempt of Court Orders imposing penalties. Order to Perform Official Responsibilities Ordered The Court hereby orders Defendant to perform its official responsibilities of providing Access to Justice against corrupt abuse of power by Judiciary officials, specifically to reconstitute and restore the Judiciary Complaints Authority (JCA), in full compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, and to give sufficiently discoverable public notice to the general public identifying its responsible officials and providing dedicated contact information for effective filing of complaints. Defendant is ordered to comply with this Order within 30 calendar days from the date of this Judgment, under penalty of Contempt of Court Orders imposing penalties. Reservation of Pending Order for Damages Ordered The Court hereby orders that the matter of compensatory and punitive damages is reserved for a subsequent determination, which shall include costs of legal representation, and also any penalties imposed by Contempt of Court Orders for continuing violations or new offenses, depending upon the response and actions of Defendant in this case. 21 Referral Opening Criminal Investigation Ordered The Court hereby orders the official opening of an international criminal investigation of Defendant and all its officials or staff involved in the facts and events of the present case. For this purpose, the Court refers the present case to its Chamber of Instruction Judges to investigate whether any person or legal entity has committed any actions or omissions participating in violation of rights under international law, and whether such actions incur personal or institutional criminal liability for offenses against rights. The Court specifically refers to the Chamber of Instruction Judges for criminal investigation the following subjects: Judge Kenneth Mulife, Prosecutor Simwatachela Mwila, and Magistrate Susan Mangalashi. In connection with this criminal investigation, the Court takes judicial notice of the following legal facts: Personal criminal liability for actions violating human rights applies despite the acting person holding official capacity (UN Civil and Political Rights, Article 2.3(a)), and despite the actions not being prohibited by national criminal laws (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 18); International law mandates direct personal liability for violations (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Articles 10-11; UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Article 3(b)), which is subject to direct personal sanctions and penalties (UN Abuse of Power, Article 8). State officials incur even greater criminal liability for the additional offense of "abuse of power" violating human rights (UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Article 15); All States are obligated to enforce "foreign" Judgments of an international Court of Law imposing direct personal liabilities against violating individuals or entities (UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Article 17). 22 Final Entry and Court Order of Judgment Wherefore, on the basis of the above reasoning establishing the necessary ruling of law, the present judicial disposition is officially approved, certified and issued by the Chamber of Presiding Judges, and the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) hereby orders and declares this ruling to be its final Judgment in the case, and formally enters this Judgment into the registry of the Court. For further clarifications, orders and directions on the present disposition of this case, parties may apply and petition to this Court. The Court hereby reserves its authority to issue an Amended Judgment incorporating any resulting clarifications in the interests of public Justice. This Judgment is hereby authenticated by its duly appointed Registrar, on behalf of the Court as a Judiciary institution, by authorized placement of its official Seal, and all electronic digital originals or color scanned copies shall have the full force and effect of an original Certified Judgment issued by the Court, for all legal purposes: In Re: Judge Tantameni v. Zambian Ministry of Justice Issued, Entered and Ordered by Court: 15 April 2019 Chancellor, Chamber of Presiding Judges Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) www.iv-university.org/sovereign-court
