Here is a response to my article on presidential bombasa. My friend from Ghana E.O. Opoku critiques my article.

Cat. Richard Opoku Public Library

By Ebenezer Osei Opoku

This is an academic critique of the article by Elias Munshya wa Munshya titled “Penetrating Presidential Bombasa: Why the ACC Can’t Question President Rupiah Banda Without Parliamentary Sanction”.


The article1 by Elias Munshya wa Munshya which I seek to critique, questions the power of Zambia’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to compel a former president to attend a criminal investigation hearing by asserting constitutional immunity and legal precedence. By this article I tackle the position adopted by the author by first analysing the purported immunity and precedential value of Chiluba v Attorney-General2 on this matter and briefly consider why the ACC has the power to do so under the laws of Zambia. The heads of consideration are Immunity, The value of the Chiluba Precedence and the ACC Power to Summon”.

The Issue of Immunity

Determining the extent of immunity afforded former presidents under the Zambian Constitution…

View original post 2,493 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s