NAKONDE PF member of parliament Lukas Simumba
NAKONDE PF member of parliament Lukas Simumba

PF SCORES AGAIN

By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA

THE Constitutional Court has reversed the High Court’s nullification of the Nakonde Parliamentary election and declared Luka Simumba of Patriotic Front (PF) the duly elected candidate.

According to the August 12,2021 Nakonde Constituency results, Mr Simumba polled 22,384 votes while Simon Simwanza of UPND got 16,826.

In the judgement of the Constitutional Court delivered on Friday by Justice Mathew Chisunka, set aside the decision of the lower court on the basis that UPND losing candidate Mr Simwanza did not prove to the required standard that Mr Simumba had knowledge of,and consented to or approved the alleged acts of intimidation and violence in the wards of Old Fife Ikumbi and Nakonde.

The court held that the UPND candidate had also failed to provide contingent evidence that the alleged intimidation and violence in the said wards prevented the majority of voters from choosing their preferred candidate.

Justice Chisunka said the number of registered voters in the wards in contention was not greater than those in the remaining wards of the consistency,thus did not meet the two-third majority.

Mr Simumba in his appeal stated that High Court Judge Bonaventure Mbewe erred in both law and fact when without any evidence on record held that he had knowledge and consented or approved to the violence perpetrated in Old Fife, Ikumbi and Nakonde Constituency.

He said there was no evidence to prove that the violence in Nakonde Constituency was widespread and voters in the three wards prevented the electorates from voting for their preferred candidate. – Daily Nation

5 COMMENTS

  1. The Concourt needs to be commended for protecting our multiparty parliamentary democracy. Or else, Zambia would have ended up with a one party democracy by, of and for the UPND. Imagine going back to the UNIP days of only one party in parliament!

  2. I believe the new guidelines put in place for dealing with petitions before the last August 21 elections have proved to be effective as Concourt judges seem to be properly guided in the manner they are presiding over such cases.

  3. Strangely, two courts reach different conclusions using the same evidence. What would it take to prove electoral malpractices? If we’re not careful, retribution and mayhem would be rife as rival political parties take the law into their own hands.

  4. CONCOURT JUGHES MUST BE CAREFUL WITH WHAT IS GOING ON. I THINK THEY ARE STILL SERVING THE PARTY THAT APPOINTED THEM. HOW DO YOU SAY YES VIOLENCE WAS THERE BUT IT WAS NOT WIDESPREAD THEREFORE YOU SHOULD PROVE THAT PEOPLE WERE PREVENTED FROM VOTING. THIS IS RUBBISH! THE FACT THAT THERE WAS VIOLENCE PERPETUATED BY PF MEANS THAT THE LAW WAS BROKEN. ARE CONCOURT JUDGES SAYING IF YOU CAUSE VIOLENCE, MAKE IT SMALL FOR AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT HURT 200 PEOPLE, IT IS OK.THEN THOSE WHO CAMPAIGN WITHOUT VIOLENCE ARE FOOLS AND THOSE WHO DO SO WITH VIOLENCE ARE THE CLEVER ONES. THIS IS NOT LAW. IT IS JUNGLE LAW.

  5. So next time losers should just fight back and cause mayhem. Going to court will require you to adduce evidence of mass violence spread all over the constituency.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here