LAWYER CRITICIZES SPEAKER FOR RESERVING RULING ON TASILA LUNGU’S PARLIAMENTARY SEAT
By Nelson Zulu
Lawyer Jonas Zimba has criticized speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, for reserving her ruling on a point of order raised in the national assembly, seeking to have the Chawama Parliamentary seat declared vacant due to the absence of area Member of Parliament Tasila Lungu.
Mr. Zimba argues that before reserving the ruling, Ms. Mutti should have realized that the national assembly operates by rules, committees, and privileges, which should have guided her analysis of the motives behind such calls.
In an interview with Phoenix News, Mr. Zimba has described the point of order by UPND Zambezi East MP Brian Kambita, as sinister and that the speaker must have evaluated the motive behind it before reserving the ruling.
Meanwhile, Political Analyst Dr. Alex Ng’oma has advised the Zambezi East lawmaker to demonstrate leadership with a human face rather than seeking punitive measures regarding Ms. Lungu.
On Tuesday, Mr. Kambita, rose on a point of order, questioning whether the house was in order to consider Ms. Lungu as its member when she has no intention of coming back to Zambia as submitted by her mother, Esther Lungu, in the south African high court, prompting Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti to reserve a ruling on the matter.
PHOENIX NEWS
Lawyers what does “for reserving her ruling on a point of order raised in the national assembly, seeking to have the Chawama Parliamentary seat declared vacant due to the absence of area Member of Parliament Tasila Lungu” mean?
We have often read Judges in court at the end of a trial or hearing for an order state that ” they reserve their ruling on the matter on a particular date”
To mean it simply means they want to study the facts on the issue.
What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the spraker taking time to think about an issue before ruling on a matter of law and the circumstance? Mr Zimba seems widely respected but her like others in the article are offside. Prejudiced in their opinion based on their relation the subject of the ruling. Lets be objective in the way we look at issues.
These are criminal lawyers who support criminality. Even in their assessment they are leaving out the statement where her mother submitted a sworn before a South African court that the family doesn’t intend on returning to Zambia. So why these double standards? Tasila never retracted her mother’s statement. It’s very clear that the submissions were made in an open court and the information was available in Zambia instantly. She cannot want to be in Zambia but on the other side she wants to continue eating from the same government she’s disparaging. Zimba forgets that the case South Africa is between the Lungu family and the Zambian government! Tasila is a government employee with conflict interest. She shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There is no apparent explicit ill motive on the part of the point of order. The issue is that it was premature. The intent not to return to Zambia is just a wish. It may not materialise. A similar intent by the same person was made in Canada and it was not granted. So, wait for the right time for the point of order.
That doesn’t make sense and I am not sure if you really understand the implications of a sworn affidavit made in court. Of there is an explicit motive – how could you miss it. Esther told the court in her affidavit that she and her family including Tasila do not intend to remain in Zambia. That is the motive, how clear do you want it to be? The only reason the speaker reserved the ruling could be the need for Tangible evidence although this could be deduced or implied from Tasila’s continued absence.
Remember, the people of Chawama cannot and should not stay without representation by someone that is sitting on the fence that cant make up her mind.
The case of Esther when she applied for asylum in Canada is irrelevant here! She lodged the application but the Canadian Govt rejected it outright because they didn’t believe her story as nobody was persecuting her. They picked it that Govt was rather prosecuting her for a genuine case of plunder of resources. I hope the South African Govt gets to know the facts like Canadians did!