Laura Miti writes
Here is my belief on the EL eligibility cases which, I must state, I cannot prove.
I am of the view that both the major cases, as brought by Pule and Chizombe, had deep political motivations. At minimum, salient influences of the EL and HH presidences were catalytic in the decisions to initiate the matters.
Let me just say that I don’t have the Abrahamic faith required to believe that either Pule or Chizombe just woke up one day and, as interested and active citizens, decided to go to court to find out if President Lungu had served one or two terms.
That said, here is the difference see between the two petitioners.
Simply, looking at the technical and professional approach to the case, one was superficial maybe even while the other was meticulous. Pule approached the case leisurely while Chizombe did his homework.
The Pule Judgement failed to completely settle the matter which Pule (and I am suggesting EL) wanted determined – that President Lungu had served only one term and that the 2016 constitutional amendment provisions on terms was retrospective. On this matter, the EL administration itself neglected (rightly, if to their disadvantage) to uncategorically make the 2016 changes retrospective.
Chizombe, on the other hand, crossed all his Ts and dotted his Is. In his arguments on each substantive question, he anticipated every question and directed the court how to think.
Interestingly, even in this latter case, the EL response to the issues raised by the Petitioner was rather cursory. Completely reliant on quoting books and cases, without developing a nuanced argument. Even the court termed their arguments skeletal.
In simple terms then, HH ultimately beat EL in court mingalato in this matter.
About the court, I will say this. In one of very rare times, I was impressed with the clear articulation of this judgement. The setting out of the thinking of multiple courts of final jurisdiction across the world, on the various questions, was solidly done.
One might politically disagree with the judgement, but cannot technically or substantially fault its articulated thinking.
That’s how it should be. Readers of judgements should be able to chew on meat and agree or disagree on substance!