Number 61                                                             February     2004
Chipata Road Traffic Police Fail To Repair Impounded Vehicle
By Perpetual Sichikwenkwe
Police in Chipata are reported to have failed to live up to their promise of repairing a Chipata resident's vehicle, which they impounded, and later had it damaged in a road accident.
Owner of the vehicle, Zacharia Zulu has since appealed to Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) Chipata office to intervene in the matter.
Zulu, of Chimangeni village narrated to Chipata LRF paralegal Clement Mwale that on September 1, 2003 he had sent his son Sunford Zulu and nephew Tobias Chipekema to sale two bags of maize and one bag of Soya beans using his vehicle.
Zulu said his vehicle a Nissan vanette bearing registration No. AAK 9051 was driven by his nephew Chipekema. He said after a while, he received a message that his vehicle had been involved in a road accident.
Zulu said when he went to find out what had transpired from the Road Traffic section at Chipata Central police, he was informed that his vehicle was involved in a road accident while being driven by an officer from the same police station.
And Chipekema explained that on the day in question, while going to sell the commodities instructed by a named Road Traffic police officer to stop near the Reformed Church in Zambia of which he did.
Chipekema said the police officer later ordered him to accompany him to the police station. He claimed that he requested the officer to allow him to offload the commodities but all he saw was the officer jumping into the vehicle and speed off towards the shops with Sunford in the vehicle.
Sunford also explained that the officer sped until he reached the junction near the Chipata Municipal Council about to join Umodzi Highway but failed to apply the brakes and hit into another vehicle that was in the main road.
When Zulu followed to the police, he was asked to pay K50, 000 as an admission of guilty on behalf of Chipekema who was at the material time detained in police custody for an alleged road traffic offence (Failing to obey police instructions).
Zulu said he was on September 3, 2003 compelled to pay in order to have his nephew released.
He said a high-ranking officer later informed him that the officer involved would pay for all repair works because he acted outside the police powers.
Zulu claimed that the repair of the vehicle could not be completed for lack of money, as the officer has not lived to his promise.
Paralegal Mwale wrote to the officer-in-charge at Road Traffic Section enquiring about the allegation noting the fact that it was not in order for the police officer to forcefully drive the vehicle when the owner was there.
A check on the vehicle at the garage in the company of a senior police officer revealed that the repairs to the vehicle were not complete.
Mwale appealed to police officers to learn to listen and understand the suspects' position otherwise this would be destructive to efforts of police reforms.