THE Lusaka High Court has ordered that Steven Nyirenda continues to perform his functions as NAREP president.
This is according to an order of ex-parte order of an interim injunction granted to Nyirenda and three others prohibiting NAREP vice-president Charles Maboshe from interfering with the affairs of the party and use of its secretariat.
“Upon reading the affidavit on ex-parte summons for an order for an interim injunction deposed by NAREP national chairperson Jimmy Mubambwe, it is here by ordered that an ex-perte order of an interim injunctions is and be hereby granted to the plaintiffs restraining the defendants whether by themselves or by their employees or agents or whosoever from interfering with the administration, governance and the use of NAREP secretariat situated at plot no. 2386 Tuleteka Road, Lusaka,” ordered justice Wilfred Muma.
“It is further ordered that the defendants be and are here by prohibited to issue out statements regarding National Restoration Party and its leadership.”
Judge Muma further directed that the matter shall come for inter-parte hearing on August 27, 2020.
In this matter, Nyirenda and three others have sued Maboshe and six others challenging his dismissal from the party.
Nyirenda, together with NAREP secretary general Ezra Banda, Mwelwa Ngosa and Mubambwe have sued Maboshe, Ezra Ngulube, Maybin Kabwe, Frank Sichone, Evelyn Malango, Susan Chipeta and Thomas Kayola in the Lusaka High Court seeking a declaration that he (Nyirenda) was duly elected as National Restoration Party president.
Nyirenda and others want a declaration that the purported decision by the defendants to fire him be declared null and void.
The plaintiffs also wanted an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, or their agents from interfering with the party’s administration and governance.
They are further seeking an order of injunction prohibiting the defendants and their agents from using the party secretariat.
On August 15, NAREP spokesperson Frank Sichone announced that the party’s central organ had expelled Nyirenda from his position for allegedly causing division in the party and for failing to follow party procedures, among others.
Sichone further indicated that the party had decided to replace Nyirenda with Maboshe.
In their statement of claim, Nyirenda and others have argued that according to the party constitution, he cannot be removed from his position through a vote of no confidence without justification, as it was contrary to the said constitution.
“The defendants, prior to the arranged meeting which was scheduled for August 15, 2020 had a parallel meeting and that its main agenda was to ratify the new NEC members and adopt that NAREP joins the Zambia Opposition Alliance for 2021 election,” read the statement of claim.
“The Plaintiffs will show proof that the reason for the division in the party is that the defendants want the party to join the said alliance for the purposes of 2021 elections.”
Nyirenda and others stated that the leadership of the party had different ideologies of governance on the said alliance.
The plaintiffs said after the failed meeting which was slated for Saturday, the defendants regrouped on the same day and purportedly resolved that Nyirenda was no longer the president of NAREP and he was with immediate effect replaced by Maboshe.
They stated that Sichone issued a misleading statement with regards Nyirenda’s presidency.
The complainants argued that according to the NAREP constitution, there was no provision for the removal of a sitting president through a vote of no confidence than what was indicated under Article 37.
The plaintiffs said no justifiable reasons have been given to warrant Nyirenda’s removal from office as indicated by the defendants.
“The plaintiffs contend that Nyirenda was duly elected as president of the party on November 14, 2019 by the supreme body of the party which is the National Convention under Article 43 and 47 of the party’s Constitution and that its decision binds all organs of the party, including the defendants,” the statement of claim read further.
“It is the plaintiffs’ position that the action taken by the defendants is frivolous and has affected the good will of the party and its leadership. By reasons of the same, the party and the plaintiffs have suffered damages.”