High Court Rejects Attorney General’s Application to Set Aside Stay for 9 PF MPs
13th August 2024, Lusaka, Zambia
The Lusaka High Court has today rejected the Attorney General’s application to lift the stay granted to nine Patriotic Front (PF) Members of Parliament (MPs).
These MPs had their seats declared vacant by Second Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Moses Moyo. However, the MPs challenged this declaration in court, resulting in a stay of the decision.
Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha sought to have this stay overturned, which would have permitted the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) to proceed with announcing nine parliamentary by-elections. This move was widely criticized by many Zambians, given the country’s current financial challenges.
The main hearing for the case is set to begin on 9th September 2024.
The MPs involved are Brian Mundubile, Stephen Kampyongo, Remember Mutale, Christopher Kang’ombe, Ronald Chitotela, Nickson Chilangwa, Davies Chisopa, Mulenga Fube, and Mutotwe Kafwaya.
They had applied for judicial review following the declaration of their seats as vacant in July. When the A.G is boasting that he has never lost a case remind him of 13/08/2024
It is perfectly nornal for any lawyer to challenge a Stay, as Attorney General did in this case, and up to the Court to set aside Order or not. That does not mean case has been lost if Court does not set aside Order. It enables a status-quo for hearing of main matter.
Am telling you these editors fikopo last
Has the main matter even been heard?
Ba one Hundred is that a question to ask? Read the article let alone the comment by Chinababeleka.
For a man that thrives on dogma laced with emotions to fail to do the basics. Read the article so you have context. Establish the facts. Always jumping to some kind of conclusion like the writer in their last paragraph.
“They had applied for judicial review following the declaration of their seats as vacant in July. When the A.G is boasting that he has never lost a case remind him of 13/08/2024”
Is this necessary or objective to the article? Or some snide malicous and personal attack on the AG? Keep personal hate out of publications and state the facts.
No. That is the point of the Court not setting aside the Order for a Stay but maintaining the status-quo in the event that at the hearing of the main matter, the Plaintiffs, MPS succeed.
It seems like naka issue of “Public Interest” is there. Who wants 9 By-Elections within a year of General Elections. Courts are always impartial