…COURT GRANTS APPLICATION
Constitutional lawyer Makebi Zulu has elected to personally represent himself in the constitutional bail proceedings involving opposition leader Brian Mundubile and 18 others, declaring that he is ready to proceed without seeking additional time to familiarise himself with the matter.
Opposition lawyer and politician Makebi Zulu has announced his decision to represent himself in the constitutional bail application involving him, his political ally Brian Mundubile and 18 others facing treason charges.
In a message addressed to fellow Zambians, Zulu said he had decided to exercise his constitutional right to conduct his own defence in the proceedings.
“Dear fellow Zambians,
“I wish to inform you that I have decided to exercise my constitutional right to represent myself in the matter I, my brother President Brian Mundubile and 18 others we are charged with treason.
“I pray for peace, openness and justice for all Zambians.
“Makebi Zulu.”
The decision was subsequently presented before the Lusaka High Court, where the court granted his application to represent himself.
Zulu, a well-known constitutional lawyer, reportedly indicated that he was ready to proceed when the judge offered an adjournment to allow him time to familiarise himself with the matter.
His decision to proceed immediately adds an unusual dimension to the ongoing legal proceedings, particularly given his professional background as a lawyer.
A lawyer takes on his own case
Representing oneself in court is a recognised legal right, although it places the responsibility for presenting arguments, responding to opposing submissions and navigating court procedure directly on the individual concerned.
Zulu’s decision has also drawn comparisons with the late Edward Shamwana, who famously represented himself in the landmark 1975 case, Shamwana v The People.
The case remains an important reference point in Zambia’s legal history.
While the two cases arise in different circumstances, Zulu’s decision brings renewed attention to the right of an accused person to personally conduct their legal representation.
State challenges the constitutional bail application
The development came as the constitutional bail proceedings involving Mundubile, Zulu and 16 others encountered another legal hurdle.
The State challenged the Lusaka High Court’s jurisdiction to hear the application, arguing that the constitutional bail request had been brought through an improper legal procedure.
The defence opposed the challenge, resulting in a preliminary legal dispute over whether the High Court could proceed to determine the application.
The court adjourned the proceedings to Friday, November 6, to allow the matter to continue.
The jurisdiction question is significant because the court must first determine whether it has the authority to entertain the application before considering the substantive arguments for bail.
The applicants are challenging their continued detention, arguing that it violates their constitutional rights.
The State, on the other hand, has opposed their release.
The bail application involves Mundubile, Zulu and 16 others who have been in custody since August following their arrest in connection with allegations of treason and related offences. The allegations have yet to be tested in a substantive trial.
Separate sedition case transferred to Lusaka
Meanwhile, in a separate legal development, the High Court in Solwezi has ruled in favour of transferring the sedition case involving Mundubile and Zulu to Lusaka.
Justice E.L. Musona ordered that the matter be transferred to the Subordinate Court in Lusaka after considering arguments over the appropriate jurisdiction for the proceedings.
The defence had challenged the decision to have the case heard in Solwezi, arguing that the alleged offences were connected to Lusaka, where the two politicians reside and were apprehended.
In his ruling, the judge observed that the circumstances collectively established a stronger connection with Lusaka, making it the more convenient and appropriate forum.
The court consequently ordered the transfer under Section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while granting leave to appeal.
The sedition charges arise from alleged Facebook publications and livestreams following the August 13, 2026 general elections.
Mundubile is accused of publishing material claiming that his party’s Parallel Vote Tabulation showed he had won the presidential election and calling on the Electoral Commission of Zambia to resume the vote-counting process.
Zulu is accused of publishing a statement indicating that Mundubile would address the nation and urging members of the public to remain on standby.
Both men have denied neither the allegations nor entered a substantive plea in the case, which has been subject to the jurisdiction dispute.
The transfer means the sedition proceedings will now be handled in Lusaka rather than Solwezi.
Two legal battles, two separate developments
The latest developments have brought renewed attention to the legal battles involving the two opposition figures.
On one hand, Zulu has chosen to personally represent himself in the constitutional bail proceedings, exercising his right as an accused person and lawyer.
On the other, the High Court has ruled that the separate sedition case should be heard in Lusaka, following the defence’s challenge to the original venue.
However, the transfer of the sedition case does not determine the treason allegations or automatically secure the release of the accused.
Similarly, the court’s decision to allow Zulu to represent himself does not determine the outcome of the constitutional bail application.
For now, attention shifts to the Lusaka High Court, where the bail proceedings are expected to resume on Friday, November 6.
The central question remains whether the court will proceed to hear the constitutional bail application and eventually determine whether the 18 applicants should be released while their cases remain before the courts.