A microcosm of obtuse reasoning

A response to George Chellah (Special Assistant to the president on press and public relations) press release (ref: hhttp://www.lusakatimes.com/2012/12/12/state-house-reacts-laz-statement/). 

George Chellah, please sometimes find time to understand the context of an issue at hand before you expose your serious ineptitude in reasoning of the law.

The issue at hand, which LAZ lucidly explains is that the President’s assertion that by law the commission (ACC) is supposed to get permission from the President to investigate any senior government or party official, is wanting. Such law or provision of the law does not exist in the Anti-Corruption ACT No 3 of 2012. The Anti-Corruption ACT No 3 of 2012 in section 5 provides that “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission shall not, in the performance of its functions, be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority”. This surely includes an absence of control by the President!. And the only exception is provided in section 94, which states that "The President may, in consultation with the Commission, make regulations for the better carrying out of the provisions of this Act”, and the stipulated regulations cited do not provide that there has to be a regulation that provides for seeking permission from the President.

It is therefore expected of a Special Assistant to the president (Press and public relations) to prove to us (in case we are wrong) what law (or provision) exactly the president was referring to. The President’s assertion negates the rule of law. Sic. The rule of law refers to the supremacy of law, and its equal application to all individuals, including government and state officials. (I still wonder why senior party officials are supposed to be considered special citizens). Given that there is no provision in the Anti-Corruption ACT No 3 of 2012 that provides that the ACC is supposed to get permission from the President to investigate any senior government or party official, the President’s assertion are undoubtedly ultra vires, and a threat to the rule of law.

Thus, it is clear that your statement is simply a microcosm of obtuse reasoning.