A FORMER Zambia Airports Corporation Limited manager has sued the corporation, seeking damages for unfair dismissal following an incident where former president Edgar Lungu was cleared at the KKIA without full security screening.
Paul Kasonde, who held the position of Manager for Aviation Security (AVSEC), is also claiming damages for mental and emotional trauma or anguish, as well as payment of all the unpaid salaries and allowances owed to him.
Kasonde is further seeking interest on the sums found to be due to him and costs of the legal action.
In his statement of claim, filed in the Lusaka High Court Principal Registry by his lawyers, Messrs. Kayula & Associates, Kasonde stated that his dismissal resulted from an alleged security breach at the airport.
He explained that this occurred when Lungu was cleared by Security Screening staff without being subjected to screening via the Archway Metal Detector.
Kasonde said the incident took place on January 19, 2025, at the Kenneth Kaunda International Airport (KKIA).
“The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company, holding the position of Manager AVSEC until his dismissal on February 10, 2025, when he had served for one year of his three-year renewable contract, and his efforts to appeal against the said dismissal yielded no joy as the verdict of dismissal was upheld. The facts leading to the plaintiff’s dismissal are that on Sunday, January 19, 2025, at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport (KKIA), there was an alleged security breach as the former president, Mr Edgar Lungu, was cleared without passing through an Arch-Way Metal Detector by Security Screening staff. Arising from the facts above, the plaintiff was charged and subsequently dismissed for the offence of failure to report irregularities or malpractice by a member of staff or customer to higher authorities,” he stated.
Kasonde argued that it was not a security breach when Lungu was cleared as the VIP Facilitation Procedures exempted him from airport security screening.
“The plaintiff’s reactions to both the charge and the subsequent dismissal were that the former president, Mr Edgar Lungu, according to the Airport VIP Facilitation Procedures at the time of the incident, was and is still listed as exempted from Airport security screening. As such, the fact that the former president did not pass through the Arch Way Metal Detector did not constitute a security breach warranting formal reporting as the VIP Facilitation Procedure in force exempted him from being screened by way of passing through the Arch Way Metal Detector. Further, the said former president had severally been facilitated through the same Airport before and had never been subjected to any Airport screening and the defendant had never before queried the plaintiff for failure to screen him (former president),” he stated.
“Therefore, there was no evidence that could support the said charge and the purported dismissal, as no irregularities or malpractice occurred at the material time as was alleged. The VIP facilitation in question was done collectively with security personnel from other state institutions, namely Mr. Trinity Mubambe, Officer-in-Charge KKIA Protocol under MOFAIC and Mr. Mashala, KKIA Zambia Police Protocol in-charge, against whom no disciplinary actions or processes were taken by their respective superiors; this confirms that, unlike the defendant, all the other state institutions that were party to this VIP facilitation did not interpret the occurrence in question as a security breach, seeing the former president is formally exempted from Airport screening”.
Kasonde also submitted that during the same period that Lungu travelled, other exempted VIPs, such as Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti, were facilitated without full airport screening.
“The Monday morning Airport Operational Report confirmed that an update on how former president had been facilitated had been submitted to the Director Airport Services via email, by KKIA Airport Manager and the plaintiff, within 24 hours of this VIP facilitation. The said emails and report from the plaintiff and Airport Manager, comprehensively detail how the former president was handled. Thus, it is untrue to allege that the plaintiff did not report the occurrences pertaining to the handling and facilitation of the former president’s travel,” he stated.
“Furthermore, in the same period that the former President travelled, other exempted VIPs (namely the Speaker of the National Assembly and Chief Justice) were also facilitated without full Airport screening as provided for in the VIP facilitation Procedures from Protocol, in which document the former president also sits. Instances of the Chief Justice and Speaker of the National Assembly being similarly exempted from full screening is available on recorded Airport CCTV footage of the defendant company. Therefore, it is clear double standard for the defendant to allege a security breach had occurred warranting reporting by the plaintiff, when no such breach was alleged when the said equally exempted VIPs had been facilitated without Airport screening in the same period”.
Kasonde stated that his dismissal had no basis, adding that he had unjustly been plunged into destitution.
“Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the charge and subsequent dismissal of the plaintiff has no basis, and which dismissal has its legs rooted in ulterior motives. On April 7, 2025, the plaintiff caused, through his advocates, for a letter of demand to be written to and served on the defendant company claiming a total estimation of the worth of the plaintiff’s contract’s remaining period of about K5,500,000.00 as the plaintiff’s unfair and/or wrongful dismissal was compounded and aggravated by the traumatic manner in which the plaintiff was dismissed. However, on April 15, 2025, the defendant company did write a letter of response to the letter of demand where it adamantly refuted any wrongdoing on its part and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any claims as claimed in his said letter of demand,” stated Kasonde.
“The termination of the plaintiff’s employment by the defendant company was unfair and/or wrongful and was done in a traumatic manner causing the plaintiff emotional and mental anguish as particularised below: the plaintiff was unfairly and/or wrongfully dismissed; the plaintiff is at the prime of his career and belongs to a highly specialised profession as a security specialised personnel in aviation and/or airports at managerial stage which has been cut short. Due to the aviation and/or airports sector’s limited employment opportunities, the plaintiff has unjustly been plunged into destitution; the plaintiff has suffered reputational damage; and only the plaintiff was dismissed from employment when the facilitation in question was done collectively with his superiors as stated above, against whom no disciplinary actions or processes were taken. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage”.
