Jo I must first deal with the objection raised by Counsel for the Respondent the High before the Court High instead the ought matter as a criminal to case the cited High to the come have but as a constitutional matter have then should the Attorney been GENERAL (2005) ZR 97 in aid of that submission. I can ascertain on and practices sought to produce United Kingdom Court abuse of authority of office, that Act, Matters documents Article on behalf of the of charges had before a Magistrate who had also certified the deposition of of the the Accused the of 98 sought Objection to their production was on the to it. (1) 38 Chapter 18 (2) (e) at the prosecution the v. in evidence a deposition which had been sworn in the Section were is that, criminal on Subordinate and the exhibits annexed ground case FUNJIKA of the the before trial of FUNJIKA corrupt a reading General. FUNJIKA JOSEPH WILFORD GENERAL of LT. not Court, ATTORNEY What raised in They said the right respondent They had They argued that that procedure was wrong. matter with the People as the Respondent, and which upon were on issues which submissions to make application Applicants the that said They adjudicate. should the Court below. issue highlighting the constitutional Court, proceeded an appropriate to make proceeded to have ought Applicants the granted, been having Court to the High referred the matter to have that the application They argued at the hearing of the matter before me. to be of Laws produced, Constitution that Legal Mutual what Assistance Zambia, under in Criminal which was in serious conflict of Zambia. had arisen was It was a the with contended question of