Only Article 52 may be used to disqualify Bowman Lusambo from recontesting his seat and not the nullification judgement
If one wants to disqualify Bowman’s desire to recontest the Kabushi Seat, one has to file in a nomination challenge using Article 52 of the Constitution.
This is to seek the Constitutional Court interpretation on whether or not Bowman can or eligible to stand in view of the Court finding him guilty of participating in corruption, violence, vote fraud among other malpractice connected to his NATO troops.
The Court decision will be final and if it will be disqualification, then that decision of the court will trigger the provisions of Article 70 and 72.
Article 52(4) states that A person may challenge, before a court or tribunal, asprescribed, the nomination of a candidate within seven days of the close of nomination and the court shall hear the case within twenty-one days of its lodgement.
After a disqualification, Clause (6) is triggered which guides that Where a candidate becomes disqualified inaccordance with Article 70, or a court disqualifies acandidate for corruption or malpractice, after the close ofnominations and before the election date, the Electoral Commission shall cancel the election and require the filing of fresh nominations by eligible candidates and elections shall be held within thirty days of the filing of the fresh nominations
Therefore, relying on the nullification judgement is not enough to disqualify Bowman Lusambo as the court NEVER DISQUALIFIED him but nullified his election.
Notably, articles 70 and 72 don’t apply because the court didn’t disqualify Bowman Lusambo except nullifying his election that brought him as Kabushi MP.
Therefore, nullification of an election does not mean disqualification of a candidate from recontesting but is a call for a fresh election which the petitioned also participate.
Inversely, disqualification calls for the non-participation of the petitioned in a fresh election
By MacDonald Chipenzi