The allegations against Justice Ken Manda are not over yet, with Alexious Kamangila demanding a chance to put his evidence before the court and prove his corruption claims.
Kamangila has questioned how his defence could be struck out in a defamation case without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine Justice Ken Manda and present evidence supporting his allegations.
Speaking during a virtual press briefing on Monday, Kamangila said he expected the matter to proceed to trial, where both sides would have an opportunity to present their cases before the court determines whether he defamed Manda.
Kamangila wondered how the court could strike out his defence without allowing him to challenge Manda’s evidence through cross-examination.
He argued that Manda should explain how his statements amounted to defamation, while he should equally be given an opportunity to explain the basis of his allegations against the judge.
“I wonder how the court was convinced on these lies that they adhered because my case was defamation that cannot end by withdrawing my defence. I was supposed to cross-examine him, and we should go to court so that Manda was supposed to show how I defamed him,” Kamangila said.
Kamangila also alleged that Manda failed to comply with some court directions concerning the filing and service of trial documents before seeking an order to strike out his defence and enter judgment on liability.
He said he has since filed an application challenging the decision and remains confident that Justice Gift will determine the matter according to the law.
Kamangila said his intention is to have his defence restored so that he can present what he describes as evidence supporting his allegations that Manda is corrupt.
“I want to ask the court during the next court [session] that the removal of my defence was unlawful. Defamation doesn’t end like that. I should be given [an opportunity] to explain how Ken Manda is corrupt and Manda should explain how I defamed him,” he said.
Kamangila also said he would ask the court to allow the next proceedings to be livestreamed, arguing that the public should be able to follow the case.
He said that although he was not certain whether the court would grant the request, he intends to make it when he appears before the court.
