UNDERSTANDING HOW CHARGES ARE DETERMINED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONSLusaka | October 8, 2025 – Following public interest in the recent case involving the death of Mr. Enock Simfukwe Kasengele in Kabwe where Ms. Maria Zaloumis and four others were arrested and initially charged with murder, questions have emerged around how criminal charges are determined, and what informs those decisions within the justice system.

Without delving into the specific details of the Kabwe case, which is yet to go to trial, this article seeks to offer clarity on how the legal process works and how the roles of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) come together to ensure that justice is guided by evidence, law and process, not speculation or pressure.

Addressing Misconceptions
Much of the recent public commentary and speculation surrounding this high-profile case has implied that something improper occurred when the charge was revised from murder to manslaughter.
It is important to state clearly that there was no impropriety and no departure from the law. What occurred is a textbook example of prosecutorial discretion guided by the evidence available, a process happening daily in prosecution offices throughout Zambia.

Furthermore, suggestions that the case was fast-tracked or handled differently from others are not supported by the facts.
This particular matter was brought before the court following an order by a High Court judge pursuant to a Habeas Corpus application made by the lawyers for the accused persons. The court directed that all the accused be produced before it. During those proceedings, the accused persons’ legal team indicated that a preliminary inquiry would follow. This sequence of events demonstrates that the process was not accelerated or treated with undue urgency. It was a matter of the court exercising its authority, and the prosecution proceeding in line with standard procedure.

The Role of Prosecutors from Charge to Committal
At this point, it is important to explain how cases move from the hands of law enforcement to those of prosecutors. When a serious incident occurs, the police or another investigative authority, conduct inquiries and may arrest individuals based on the facts available at the time. An initial charge is preferred. But that is only the beginning of the legal process.

Once the police conclude their investigations, the case file, commonly called a docket, is submitted to the National Prosecution Authority (NPA).

Here, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) the Chief Prosecutor or public prosecutors acting under his delegated authority independently assess the evidence. Their role is to determine whether the charge is supported by law and the evidence on the docket.

In serious cases which are triable in the High Court, prosecutors must issue a committal certificate before the matter proceeds to trial. This certificate confirms that the DPP or his delegates have reviewed the file and are satisfied that the evidence supports the charge and that the matter is ready to be tried.

Depending on that review:

• If the evidence supports the charge as laid, the case is committed accordingly.
• If the evidence points to a different offence, the charge is revised and committed for trial on the appropriate charge.
• If the evidence is insufficient or inconclusive, the docket may be returned to the police (or the LEA that submitted it) with instructions for further investigation or guidance that no offence has been disclosed.

This process is routine, lawful, and carried out daily by public prosecutors across the country. There is nothing unusual or sinister about charges being revised after a thorough evidence review.

The Faith Musonda Case
An illustration of this process unfolded recently with the case of Faith Musonda, a public figure and journalist, who was arrested on the night of July 2, 2025, after attempting to access the President’s Community House without authorisation. She sought to speak with the First Lady regarding a prolonged court case.
She was initially charged with criminal trespass and espionage, grave and serious allegations under our law.

However, when the matter came up in court, after the docket had been received by the NPA, the prosecution reassessed the case and determined that the espionage charge was not proportionate to the facts. Instead, the charge was revised to conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, a lesser offence. Musonda pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and fined K24 for idle and disorderly conduct.

This adjustment did not reflect political influence or selective leniency. It was a lawful application of prosecutorial discretion, aligning the charge with the evidence available on the docket.

The Mumbi Phiri Case
A similarly illustrative example occurred earlier this year when former Deputy Secretary General of the Patriotic Front, Mumbi Phiri, was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery, a serious and non-bailable offence, after allegations that she took a phone and cash using force.

When the docket was submitted to the NPA, the DPP’s office reviewed the evidence and found that it did not meet the legal threshold for that charge. As a result, the matter was not pursued.

This decision was not an anomaly. Neither was it preferential treatment nor an act of political favour. It was a routine and lawful process. Prosecutors always align the charge with the available evidence and not with what may appear most severe.

Justice is Not About Severity, It is About Suitability
The justice system is not a competition to see who can file the harshest charge or secure the longest sentence. It is about fairness, legality, and evidence.
That is why some charges proceed as murder. Others as manslaughter. And in some cases, not at all.
Each outcome reflects a deliberate, lawful, and often difficult decision not to protect any person, but to protect every person’s right to a fair trial.

Final Word
The National Prosecution Authority remains committed to upholding the Constitution, applying the law impartially, and ensuring that justice is not only done, but done right.