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