Vedanta hires Mutembo in its fight with Govt over KCM

Vedanta Resources Limited the parent company of the now liquidated Konkola Copper Mine (KCM) has appointed the law firm owned by former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Mutembo Nchito  to represent it in its legal battles with the Zambian government in the liquidation case.

Historically Nchito has a bad working relationship with Republican President Edgar Lungu who hounded him out of office and arrested him in a dramatic manner which saw him enter a nolle prosequi in his own case.

According to the documents, it has shown the first filing in were Nchito and Nchito Law firm have questioned whether Messrs Ellis and Company, Messrs Makebi Zulu Advocates, Messrs Andrew Musukwa and Co. and Messrs DH Kemp and Co. who are appointed by the provisional liquidator, can appear on behalf of KCM to support or oppose the appointment of the provisional liquidator and the winding up petition generally.

 Initially the provisional liquidator Milingo Lungu appointed his own allies who are accused of being ruling Patriotic Front members like a prominent  name of a known PF member Makebi Zulu and others. 

Meanwhile Srinivasan Venkatakrishnan, a London based director of Vedanta and a KCM director has asked the High Court to state whether liquidation of the mining company can be conducted without being heard through lawyers of its choice.

Vedanta owned majority shares in KCM before ZCCM-IH, a minority shareholder on behalf of the government, applied to the High Court to allow it to appoint a liquidator to wind up the partnership.

Messrs Nchito and Nchito Advocates has  filed a notice saying when the matter comes up on June 11 this year, the court should determine  whether the lawyers representing ZCCM-IH and KCM could represent the companies.

In this matter ZCCM-IH placed KCM under liquidation after which Milingo Lungu was appointed provisional liquidator.

Lungu has retained Bonaventure Mutale to represent him while Makebi Zulu advocates to represent KCM.

 And in the notice of motion to raise preliminary issues, Venkatakrishnan said his argument was supported by the fact that the advocates appointed by the provisional liquidator had not filed an affidavit in support of or in opposition to the application to appoint a provisional liquidator.

“I am advised by counsel and verily believe the same to be true that at law, a provisional liquidator cannot appoint a legal practitioner to support or oppose his own appointment or the making of a winding-up order in respect of a company such as the respondent, notwithstanding that a provisional liquidator has been granted powers of the kind,” he said.

The matter comes up on June 11.