THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF LAW

COMPUTER NUMBER: 2020963825

COURSE: LAW OF EVIDENCE

CODE: LPU 3920

TASK: ASSINGMENT 1
INTRODUCTION.
In the case presented Gladwell Jangulo is facing criminal prosecution for the charge
1
of aggravated robbery under Section 294 of The Penal Code Act . The court
proceedings in tell that the defense seek the disclosure of the identity of a person with
significant evidence which could be imperative to the outcome of the case, however
the particular information in question has been bared from being disclosed under the
notion that there is no legal precedent that suggests it should be . Furthermore the
defence seeks to admit a private conversation that was had between the office of the
Director of Public Prosecution and the Police as evidence, as they believe that the
opinion of the DPP on the case would be helpful but the state has objected to its
admission. This academic essay seeks to explore these occurrences and deduce a legal
opinion on what the position of the law should be on the matter.

LEGAL ISSUES.
I) Whether there is legal cause for the disclosure of the identity of the informant.
II) Whether the leaked information should be admissible as evidence to the court.

LEGAL ISSUE 1 ( DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMANTS IDENTITY)

The law of Evidence is the branch of law that mitigates all rules and principles related
to admissible and inadmissible evidence in the courts of law. This branch of law is
tasked with the duty to ensure that all evidence produced in court meets the required
standard and is not in any way contrary to what the law permits and or prejudicial to
either party in the court. It is for this reason that all forms of evidence are to be
heavily speculated before they can be considered. In the case presented the first legal
issue to be discussed is whether the informants identity should be disclosed for the
purpose of establishing sufficient evidence.
LEGAL FRAME WORK:
According to Article 18 of The Constitution of Zambia2 all individuals have a
guaranteed constitutional right to a free and fair trial. A free and fair trial referrers to a
trial free from impartiality.This position of the law was considered in the case of
Chiluba v The people3 where the importance of a trial free from any inconsistencies
1
Section 294 of the penal code act
2
The constitution of zambia article 18
3
[2004] ZMSC 100
pertaining to its procedure is monumental for the purpose of upholding
constitutionality. The constitution being the supreme law of the land sets the
precedent that all law must be consistent with it.
Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act 4 outlines the requirement for the
prosecution to disclose evidence that might favor the defence. The defense is entitled
to know all relevant information to the case whether it is in favor of their argument or
not for the purpose of allowing adequate preparation. In the American case of Brady v
Maryland5 it was put forward that the prosecution has a duty to disclose exonerative
evidence to the defense, which simply put means the prosecution must disclose
evidence that could help the defence.
Informant privilege referrers to a legal concept that protects the identity of individuals
who provide information to law enforcement. This privilege exists to encourage
citizens to report crimes while ensuring their safety. This principle allows informants
to remain anonymous and protects them from being compelled to testify or disclose
their identity in the courts of law. The case of R v Hertfordshire County Council6
highlighted the importance of protecting the identity of informants especially in cases
where informants may be at risk of actual physical danger or at risk of being publicly
isolated . Informant privilege may only be waived either voluntarily or if the identity
of the informant is absolutely imperative to the outcome of the case.
APPLICATION:
Applying the reasoning to the facts it can be determined whether the Identity of the
Informant should be disclosed. It would be the argument of the prosecution that the
Informants identity should be protected due to the fact that to do the contrary would
be a violation of Informant Privilege. However the nature of the testimony that would
be presented by the informant can be construed as absolutely necessary for the
purpose of the trial. The informant is said to have video footage of the robbery and
can testify that the person in the person the video who committed the crime is not the
accused. Such evidence can be construed as material to the case as it exonerates the
accused entirely if the evidence can be proven to be valid. According to article 18 of
the constitution7 the informant would have to be disclosed because otherwise would
indicate a trial that is not free from impartiality making it seemingly unconstitutional.

4
Criminal procedure code section 201
5
(1962) A.2d 167
6
[2001] UKHL
7
The constituition of Zambia article 18
Furthermore according to Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code8 it is
imperative that such information had to be disclosed to the defense in order for the
defense to devise an argument which solidifies their claim for innocence, such
information would help them do that in an appropriate manner. Lastly as it has been
mentioned above, informant privilege can be waived on two accounts, if the informant
voluntarily requests to testify and secondly when the identity in question is very
consequential to the outcome of the case. The facts presented do not particularly state
that the informant would be willing to testify in court, waiving his right to informant
privilege, but the fact that the police disregarded the initial observation made by the
witness can suggest that the testimony has been bared unfairly. Morever informat
privilege can also be waived if the information required is absolutely crucial to the
case, which from the facts presented such information would be extremely helpful to
the defense.
LEGAL ISSUE 2 (ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIVATE CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THE OFFICE THE DPP AND THE POLICE)
Legal Framework:
It is the general rule that for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant to the
issues in the case. It is for this reason as mentioned above that all evidence must
undergo a reasonable amount of speculation before it can be deemed to be admissible.
According section 133 of the Evidence Act 9 certain communication is protected
from being disclosed including those between the police and the Director of Public
Prosecution . This protection falls under deliberative privilege. Deliberative privilege
referrers to the protection of confidentiality of internal discussions and
communications within law enforcement and bodies of prosecution to promote candid
decision making. Such information may only be admissible if it can be proven that it
is exculpatory evidence. It should be noted that such privilege is not absolute even
though it may be difficult to compromise.
APPLICATION:
Applying the reasoning to the facts it can be determined whether the leaked
conversation can be admitted as evidence in court. The prosecution may bring
forward the argument that the DPP’s opinion on the case can be deemed as opinion
evidence which is admissible if presented by an expert of which in this case The

8
The Criminal Procedure Code Section 201
9
The Evidence Act section 133
Director of Public Prosecution could be considered an expert. However the rules
surrounding deliberative privilege are clear to show that such evidence can only be
admissible if there is a way to for the defense to demonstrate that it contains
exculpatory evidence. Therefore the court may uphold the leaked informations
inadmissibility.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES
The constituition of Zambia article 18
The Evidence Act section 133
Section 294 of The Penal Code Act
Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code
CASES
Chiluba v The people (2004) ZMCS 100
Brady v Maryland(1962) Ad.2 167
R v Hertfordshire County Council [2001] UKHL