Nullifying Edgar Lungu’s nomination will affect the 2021 election – Sangwa
OUTSPOKEN lawyer John Sangwa has come to former president Edgar Lungu’s defence arguing that by nullifying his nomination in the 2021 vote, the Constitutional Court would have also nullified the entire election that ushered in the UPND.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/8uNZETksUocNXQrF/?mibextid=oFDknk
Despite having vehemently argued in the past that Lungu was not eligible to contest the 2021 presidential election after he was sworn into office twice, Sangwa has changed his position arguing that nullifying the former president’s nomination will also affect other candidates who participated in the election, including President Hakainde Hichilema who emerged triumphant.
“Such a decision cannot be made without hearing the rest of the presidential candidates who took part in the 2021 election who are not parties to these proceedings,” Sangwa said.
He argued that there is no provision in the Constitution that clothes authority on the ConCourt to interrogate the eligibility of a losing presidential candidate to take part in the election post the election, which he has lost.
Sangwa, who was joined to Lungu’s eligibility case as a friend of the Court, said even if the Court decides that it has authority to entertain Michelo Chizombe’s petition, that authority is circumscribed in Article 118 of the Constitution.
“The import of this provision is firstly that the exercise of the power must result in accountability and not anarchy. Therefore, where the converse will be the outcome, the Court must decline to exercise its authority. In effect, the authority must be exercised to achieve the prescribed goals,” he said.
Sangwa submitted that the Court is not free to do whatever it pleases, as it must protect and promote national values and principles, in the exercise of its adjudicative authority as set out in Article 8 of the Constitution.
He said the Court cannot hear and entertain Chizombe’s petition without revisiting its decisions in this last three cases.
“A decision in favour of the petitioner will mean the reversal of the Court’s previous decisions on Lungu’s suitability to stand in the election of 2021. This Court cannot entertain this petition in that it does not have the authority to do so,”Sangwa said.
“The jurisdiction of this Court stems from the Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner ought to specify the provision of the Constitution, which gives this Court authority to do what it is being asked to do.”
He noted that Chizombe’s case appears to be that although Lungu lost the election, he was not qualified as a presidential candidate.
However, Sangwa argues that the question that needs an answer is whether the Court has authority under the Constitution to interrogate the eligibility of a losing presidential candidate to take part in the election, post- election.
“Such authority must be traceable to the Constitution. The Constitution has not conferred such authority on this Court. What exists
is authority to establish one’s eligibility to take part in the election: before the election is held,” he said
“This petition undermines the democracy and constitutionalism as well as good governance. At the heart of the constitutionalism is the need for public institutions and other persons subject to the Constitution, to accept the limitations imposed by the Constitution. This petition seeks to undermine objective.”
Sangwa said a declaration that Lungu was not eligible to contest the previous election has profound implications for the governance of the country, which must not be ignored.
“Its impact will not be limited to Lungu alone. This Court will be expected to go further and address the constitutionality or legality on the 2021 presidential election that included an unqualified candidate,”he said.
“The intention of Article 52 of the Constitution is to ensure that only qualified persons take part in the presidential election. It follows that if an unqualified person took part in an election, that election is tainted and must be nullified. It does not qualify as a presidential election envisaged by the Constitution. A valid presidential election is one that involves qualified presidential candidates.”
He said granting the reliefs by Chizombe will not only affect Lungu but all those who participated in the 2021 presidential race.
“Similarly, nothing stops the party that sponsored the First Respondent from contending that if indeed Lungu did not qualify, it would have sponsored another candidate who would have helped the party retain both the National Assembly and presidency. It is also not inconceivable for one to contend that if Lungu did not take part in the 2021 presidential election, there would have been a second ballot,” he said
Sangwa added that the ConCourt cannot entertain the petition and grant the relief sought without affording the presidential candidates the opportunity to be joined and heard in support of the petition or against.
In this case, Chizombe is questioning Lungu’s eligibility to contest the previous election and future presidential elections after having held office twice.
The youth activist has cited Lungu, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and the Attorney General as respondents in the matter arguing that Lungu contravened the constitution when he participated in the August 12, 2021 general elections.
He stated that the electoral body contravened the Constitution when it accepted Lungu’s nomination and allowed him to be on the ballot paper for the 2021 presidential elections which enabled him to participate.
The matter has been scheduled for today for the main hearing.
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba September 26, 2024.
Sangwa SC is a very intelligent lawyer.
Agreed.
Telling lies is no intelligence. An intelligent person sticks to true facts. This man was appearing on znbc television telling the whole world that lungu didn’t qualify to participate in 2021 elections for reasons he gave but what has changed today for lungu to qualify? I believed in this man, not anymore.
Use your loaf ba cembele! Nullifying the 2021elections will dismiss your UPND government. It will be a situation of back to the drawing board. PF will be back in government!!!!
Hmmmm ba Observer, UPND can’t loose this election!!!
@Kapoma let’s just agree SANGWA IS AN INTELLIGENT LAWYER. Him is looking at remedy, Lungu already did what he did. But it has consequences. LUNGU’s case is treasonable. The reason Irene Mambilima didn’t Anoint this guy
@Moses Sichuka you are 100% right.
He is not the court to determine the matter. Why has he joined himself to the matter
It is wiser to let the court decide than John Sangwa to rule over the petition.
There is no need to cast aspersions to any litigant before any court.
Seasoned Lawyers don’t display their opinions in public in order to be heard. Justice is from the court.
Every lawyer must be so sober that public do not judge him as a hired gun.
An illegality done by a participant in an event does not invalidate the event.
He should even be charged for contempt, why commenting all the time on a case which is in Court? It’s better to leave the law to take its course, period.
It is folly to think like that, the same person did not agree that election can be defered when a candidate dies, or withdraws but he focused on the prescribed day as paramount in the constitution.Believing that Presidential election date can not be changed by the withdrawal of a candidate yet the constitution is very clear and practically we have seen this happen on MP nominations that were re done.Now, he is talking about nullification of 2021 Predidential election if a candidate is proved to have been wrongly allowed to file nomination papers and subsequently participated in an election which he lost.He wants to apply law in reverse.That happened years back and action of nullification can’t happen because it expired.You can only talk about it and possibly to stop such an occurrence to be repeated in future.Dont get excited by Mr Sangwa he is slowly getting tired.He is grown now he may not be as vibrant as he was yesterday years.Necessity knows no law.Bygones are bygones, law is set for future actions not the past actions.
Someone must raise a complaint to disbar him from practising law for contempt of court for leaving the Concourt court while the court was in session without permission of the court. This is the whole plan of Lungu talking of plan B to armstrung the court case by using these Mafia Lawyers that think they know the Zambian constitution better than anyone else. Get his licence revoked and see whether Lungu will stll pay him the million dollars. It’s time the law profession was cleaned up.
No wonder we have a problem with our constitution because our lawyers are not worth their salt. The statement by SC Sangwa is nothing short of lack of basic reasoning. The law does not change the wrongs of the past but tries to cure or prevent future wrongs. Let’s take for instance, five people go for job interviews and all of them get the jobs but later after some time it is discovered the one used forged documents to get the job, will it make sense to say all the five candidates will be affected or its only the one who used forged documents? The only person who can be penalized in such a case is the one who used forged documents not the other four.
My @Straight Forward. That example is a poor Example give an Example of football if a WRONG PLAYER WAS IN THE GAME. The whole march or team will be penalized..
It means LUNGU can be penalized (or jailed) and game rescheduled….!!
Ba LUNGU created alot of CONFUSION WHICH NEED REMEDYING!!! He messed up big time. The reason Mambilima didn’t ANOINT HIM TO BE THE PRESIDENT!! I hope my president HH WON’T MESS UP THINGS IN TRYING TO COLLECT!
It’s not a bad example, anyways, even your example supports my opinion. The whole team may be disqualified (in this case, PF) but the tournament does not get invalidated (in this case, elections).
Truth be told a fact needs no one to back it. It’s stands true all by its self as sure as the sun rises from the East every single day. Every day it is determined to crash darkness no matter how it may be resisted It does not need any help from any educated person’s. It’s a fact it will shine daily that’s all.
Similarly, no illegal means can make a legal action illegal no matter what is done. Factually the truth stands strong on its own. So all it it to be subjected to the test. If it is true it will stand the test and prevail. If found waiting no one will be able to make it stand. These are facts. No in betweens.
Therefore I really don’t understand why the desperation by the opposition to defend a position which the claim to be a legal position. Can it sail through on the strengthen of it is own validity. How can a truth be manipulated when in itself it blazes the light and removes any attempt to cover it.
On the other hand , if inwardly there is doubt of the fundamental truth in the subject matter being discussed. Then it makes sense to panic and try to help the truth from falling from the strong position it should hold so graciously all by itself.
Sangwa is nothing but an hungry man who has no credibility. If he was reasonable, he would have picked up that the Zambian government salaries are fairly low when the president warned people who wanted to make money that the should try the private sector because as president he is paid about K57,000.00 per month. So for him to come and complain about Judges getting K50,000.00 per month just shows you that he has no capacity to analyse things. He complained like it’s HH who sets the salaries of Judges. Come to think of it, he has never worked anywhere overseas. I think it’s time the university retired him, so that he stops confusing up coming law students and lawyers. Sata had problems with identifying people with integrity! That’s how come out of the whole group he had as Ministers he would end up picking Lungu to act as a President! The combination of Lungu and Sangwa is catastrophic! You want to trust him as a lawyer? You can do it at your own risk. He would get the money, and run ♂️ as they drag you to prison. Sangwa’s confused legal reasoning was the so called plan B in addition to causing violence.
This whole saga just goes to show what character Mr. Lungu is. Like has been pointed out, why did the Chief Justice and her deputy “refuse” to swear in Mr. Lungu in 2016? Both were present at the swearing in ceremony. Then came the third term attempt when the Constitutional Court bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Lungu’s wishes.
Mr. Lungu is an extremely divisive character marked by lawlessness and confusion wherever he goes. Where is UKWA today? Where is the multi-faction PF?
It would be good for the country for the courts to establish the legality of Mr. Lungu’s candidature in 2026 so that we have a record. He should not be spared. We don’t want another dictator to arise comfortable in the belief that he can shred the constitution at will and life will go on like nothing happened. Let us not fear to face our demons.
Meant…candidature in 2021.
These are quack lawyers…to think Sangwa even lectures at UNZA makes me shudder in awe. No wonder UNZA is now one of the worst in the world. I am glad we left when Mwauluka was VC and there was no single mediocre lecturer.