Ignore this defective, highly compromised order
Celestine Mukandila Wrote;
Hakainde Hichilema REGIME’S DESPERATE PLOY TO COMPLETELY GET RID OF THE PATRIOTIC FRONT IS A COMEDY OF ERRORS AND AMOUNTS TO FORUM SHOPPING
We formally reject the said order as it is defective and factually inaccurate.
The order erroneously refers to the defendant as a male person, using the pronoun “himself.” This is incorrect and misleading. Ms. Brenda Nyirenda is a female, a mother, and identifies with the pronouns she/her.
There is therefore no male person by the name Brenda Nyirenda in the Patriotic Front. The order appears to be based on a clear case of mistaken identity or a serious clerical error.
Any suggestion that Ms. Nyirenda is transgender or that the order refers to her is false, malicious, and injurious to her personal dignity and reputation. Such an error is unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of truth, fairness, and respect for individual identity that we uphold.
I further advise my fellow members of the legal profession not to be misled or compromised by individuals who may attempt to use money or political influence to induce a departure from professional ethics and integrity.
There is a ruling of the High Court which maintained Mr. Ngona’s status as an expelled member of the Patriotic Front, and that matter remains active before the courts of law.
Both counsel and Mr. Ngona are therefore treading on thin ice of contempt of court and engaging in forum shopping.
This comedy of errors must be brought to an end if we are to safeguard our democracy, uphold the rule of law, and protect the integrity of our justice system.
What a shame.
Ignore it at your own risk, pf won’t be on the ballot next year
Oh, they made that mistake?? May be it can be amended. Still, make sure Lungu’s plan to use another part is also a critical option like it has been done during the by-election, remember won some
The author of this article purports to be a lawyer and, indeed, he may be one. Notwithstanding, advising to ignore a Court will result in people being in contempt and arrested. So, please challenge the Court proceedings through applications in Court and not mislead the public.
There has been a tendency by pf to criticize the very judicial processes they have previously relied upon. For example, there was an incident involving an injunction against a conference led by Acting President Guy Scott, which sought to elect Sampa. Notably, a judge was reportedly woken up late at night by KBF to sign the necessary papers for this injunction. While some may claim to have forgotten these events, it is important to recognize that the Zambian public remembers such actions.
Despite assertions of intentions to return to government leadership, there appears to be little behavior change. This continuity is being observed closely by Zambians, who remain vigilant about the actions and conduct of their political leaders.
When the name of the individual is correctly mentioned it leaves no question as to who the court order serves.
A fundamental mistake would be addressing it to a different name. In this case there is not doubt as to who the court order has by name identified. The error is not there very significant or fundamental as to cast doubt as to whom the court order is intended for.
Hence from a legal point of view it would be prudent to take a more cautious and legal approach to these issues. It is wise to be prepared for the battle ahead and not casually dismissing a legal court order.
Time is really not there for arrogance. Here force will be met accordingly and from a legal stand point at lot will be lost due to stubbornness and unpreparedness. Just an advice from us looking from the outside.