NKANA Member of Parliament (MP) Mwenya Musenge yesterday told a Kitwe magistrate's court that he never intended to cause confusion between police and ex-miners who were protesting over their withheld terminal benefits by Barclays Bank.

Musenge said he had resorted to protesting because Barclays Bank had started avoiding him after the grace period the bank gave him to settle the matter with the former miners expired.

He was testifying in a matter in which an ex- miner Jonathan Nasilele, 43, of house number 8 Lumumba Road in Chachacha Township, is facing a charge of conduct likely to cause breach of peace.

Nasilele, was among eight ex-miners who were arrested after they defied police order to stop the demonstration over Barclays Bank's decision to withhold their terminal benefits because of the loans they acquired from the bank.

Nasilele is alleged to have committed the offence on August 28,2009 after they assembled in a manner that was likely to cause breach of peace.

Musenge told magistrate Ruth Kapulo that he was approached by a group of miners to speak on their behalf to Barclays Bank so that it could release their terminal benefits.

After he talked to Barclays management, they gave the miners K1million each and assured them that after two weeks the issue would be resolved but that after the two weeks elapsed, Barclays officials started avoiding him.

It was only then that he resorted to the demonstration and that he went to the police to get a permit which he was given.

The permit was revoked after the miners had assembled at City Square and that he advised them to meet him at Freedom Park.

He addressed them at Freedom Park and advised them to disperse before he left.

Musenge said he was phoned later by one of the ex-miners who insulted him and told him that he had connived with the police to beat them.

He was later informed that eight of the ex-miners had been arrested and taken to Kitwe Central police station.

Musenge said he went to the police station and was ordered to pay K50,000 for each of them as admission of guilt fine but that later the officer-in-charge refused and told him that the money would be used as evidence and released them on police bonds.

The matter was adjourned to November 10 for judgment.