By 
Zambia’s Chilanga District Council has asked a court to remove it from a US$100 million lawsuit over alleged environmental harm caused by quarry operators in Chilanga, saying it had no statutory mandate to regulate mining activities.
The council was named as the 15th defendant in a case brought by Keith Mukata and 216 residents of Lusaka West, who are seeking compensation from 11 quarry companies for alleged environmental degradation and loss of livelihoods.
The plaintiffs sued operators including Albatross Mining Limited, One Palm Mine Limited, Yapstone Quarry Limited, Crystal Quarry Limited and seven others, accusing them of blasting and quarrying activities that damaged property, affected residents’ health and disrupted access to water.
Read more: Albatross defends mining operations in Chilanga
Also cited as defendants were the Attorney General of Zambia, the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), the Water Resources Management Authority (WARMA) and the council.
In its defence, the council denied liability and applied to be struck out for misjoinder.
“It is not within the jurisdiction of the 15th defendant to regulate, monitor, supervise or enforce compliance in matters relating to environmental degradation, underground water pollution, de-watering activities, mining, blasting or quarry operations,” the council stated.
The local authority said its role was limited to collecting business levies, issuing business levy certificates and ensuring that business premises were fit for human habitation.
“It merely collects business levies and ensures that business premises are fit for occupation. It does not regulate or control environmental impacts arising from quarry operations,” it submitted.
The council added that before the case was filed, it had tried to convene a meeting with quarry operators to address residents’ concerns, but “none of the defendants attended.”
It told the court it had no statutory authority to suspend or revoke licences or conduct compliance audits under laws administered by other regulatory bodies.
The council argued that the reliefs sought against it could not be granted because it lacked jurisdiction over environmental regulation.
It asked the court to strike it out of the proceedings for being improperly joined.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments