…I will not win with 50% +1…

BUT 60 PERCENT

11th June, 2021.

PRESIDENT Edgar Chagwa Lungu has boasted that come 12th August, 2021 he will not only exceed the required 50 percent plus one but will safely bag 60 percent of the Zambian vote.

Delivery a vote of confidence instilled in him probably by multitudes of crowds thronged his motorcade, and passive walk in Chipata, President Lungu on Breeze FM conclusively said he will win this year’s election with at least 60 percent of the votes because Zambians have chosen to continue with his government which has shown positive development.

President Lungu said he has carried on a mantle of good leadership and all the corners of Zambia have applauded him.

Citing various infrastructure development that have turned the face of Zambia and made services of education, health, housing, transport and so on by not only making services available but of quality, President Lungu said in all his travels across the country, the request is for a continued leadership.

“… We first embarked on infrastructure development and we did just that and now we are working on rebuilding the economy,” he said.

President Lungu cited various mechanisms that the Patriotic Front was putting in place to rebuild the economy and noted that his government which is a tried and tested government would also deliver on this promise.

He also observed that some opposition political leaders exhibit very violent characteristics that have made them very unattractive to Zambians.

“Moreover, Zambians want peace imagine I am the only one and a few others talking about peace, talking about not wanting violence in these campaigns. Yesterday, I saw some disturbing pictures on social media that were very annoying breaking vehicles, beating people in full of even one opposition leader and I know Zambians cannot vote for such a guy, Zambians love peace,” he said.

“So pano palibe chake [There is nothing for him here], so the truth of the matter is that we are winning and I have no doubt about that in my mind,” he said.

And on a very pomp note President Lungu said, “When I first came in 2015 we won by 27 000 votes and 2016 we got 100 000 plus votes, this time 2021 we are getting 60 percent votes plus… it won’t be 50 percent plus it will be 60 percent plus and if they want a recount they will even find that it was 70 plus.” he laughed off.

#SmartEagles2021

Statement for Immediate Release !
11 June 2021

UPND APPLAUDS THE STATEMENTS BY THE BRITISH HIGH COMMISSIONER AND THE GERMANY AMBASSADOR !

Statements made earlier on this week by the British High Commissioner to Zambia, His Excellency Nicholas Woollley, to the media, and the Germany Ambassador to Zambia, Her Excellency Anne Wagner-Mitchell, in her address to journalists, are commendable, and must be taken very seriously by the PF leadership, as both statements emphasised the critical need for a level playing field during the ongoing electoral process.

The British High Commissioner must be applauded for rightly noting that “it’s not fair, you can’t stop opposition rallies, but ask people to attend government events”. A government event is indeed as much of a gathering as a rally, hence President Lungu and the PF must stop blinding people by the choice of terminology. Indeed a level playing field, as the Germany Ambassador rightly pointed out, is a critical pre requisite for free and fair elections, and hence President Lungu and the PF must stop denying the opposition equal Democratic space during the ongoing electoral process, for failure to do so is most likely to lead to tension and instability in the country.

We are encouraged that Zambia’s partners are closely following events as they unfold. However, be that as it may, given that this is a regime that is determined to retain power by hook or crook, we call upon the international community to continue to closely monitor the electoral process, and to apply pressure as need arises so as to ensure a free and fair electoral process. We appeal for more pressure to be exerted on the PF regime because words alone, have so far failed to make the required impact on the conduct of President Lungu and the PF.

We are seriously concerned that despite repeated calls by the international community including the United Nations, appealing for a level electoral playing field for all political players, the PF remains unphased and unrepentant in its ways.

This is not the first time that an appeal has been made by members of the international commmunity to the PF Government to respect the core values of democracy, particularly during the ongoing electoral process. Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, the EU and the United Nations have all issued similar statements in the recent past but to no avail.

If there was ever any flicker of hope by the international community that the PF would take heed of its wise counsel, that hope must now be put to rest, as the international community must have by now come to realise that they are flogging a dead horse. The PF will not abandon its ways so easily, hence the need for the international community to do more by bringing pressure to bear on the PF regime. The international community should not wait as the case was in Uganda and Brazzaville, the time to act is now !

It has become crystal clear that words alone have failed to make any impact, hence the need to do more !

Rose Sakala
Chairperson International Relations
UPND

DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH LEADERSHIP – NKANDU LUO

..as she applauds president Lungu for his continued show of confidence in women leadership.

Lusaka, June 10, 2020

President Edgar Lungu´s love and respect for women can be seen from the appointments in high offices of the government of Zambia says his running mate in the polls slated for 12th August Prof Nkhandu Luo.

The former Food and Fisheries Minister said, apart from herself President Lungu made a deliberate choice of a woman Chief Justice Irene Mambilima in a bid to show how respected women’s contribution to governance in high office.

“My nomination coming just after the current Vice President a strong woman Mrs Inonge Wina reaffirms President Edgar Lungu´s commitment to work with women,” said Prof. Luo.

The long serving Cabinet minister and accomplished scientist was speaking on a radio programme taped for Hot FM on Tuesday following President Lungu tapping her the second most coveted job in Zambia.

“In fact the way I see it is that President Lungu by choosing to work with women at the highest level is simply celebrating his own mother which is commendable,” Prof. Luo said.

The UK and Russia trained microbiologist and immunologist is known for her pioneer work in fighting the AIDS pandemic when it first hit Zambia in the early 1980´s and for her role in various ministries such as education, transport and communication, gender and chiefs.

When he tapped for running mate pit of a long list following Vice President Wina´s decision to stand down due to age, President Lungu said he went through a lot of soul searching and was confident he made the right decision in picking Prof. Luo.

When asked whether she had any presidential ambitions beyond 2026 when President Lung´s term ends, Prof. Luo emphatically said she had none.

“I am only here to serve President Lungu and like others we are here to ensure he gets his re-election,” Prof Luo said, “I always say deal with what you have because being too ambitious is what gets many people in trouble. I want to limit my ambition to what I have, I want to remain focused.”

When asked about the PF and President Lungu´s chances of victory on 12th August, Prof. Luo expressed full confidence in a Lungu and PF victory.

“We must not bring experiments to leadership and I must know because I am a scientist,” Prof Luo said, “experiments are for the laboratory.”

President Lungu and PF have a proven record of success especially in the infrastructure sector which has improved the lives of many in Zambia and therefore must continue in the trajectory aid Prof. Luo.

A constant victim of cyber bullying, Prof Luo, a mother of two sons and two grandchildren said, “I know who I am I don’t care what they try to make me be. I am confident on who I am and what I can contribute to the country and I am grateful to President Lungu.”

She said, with women being the majority voters in Zambia, the girl child must get encouraged by appointments such as hers and aspire for top jobs when they grow up.

President Lungu has been widely applauded by analysts and commentators for his continued show of confidence in women leadership in what is largely seen as a man´s world ever since he turned the page with Mrs Wina in 2016.

UPND WORRIED THAT PF MAY NOT SURRENDER POWER AFTER DEFEAT – JACK MWIIMBU

FORMER Monze Central UPND member of parliament Jack Mwiimbu says the party is concerned that PF might not want to give up power even if they lose this year’s general elections by a huge margin.

And Mwiimbu has described President Edgar Lungu’s leadership as that of a dictator.

In an interview, Mwiimbu wondered why President Lungu wanted to dictate how the election period should be managed when he was also just a player in the game.

He added that President Lungu and the Electoral Commission of Zambia had no power whatsoever to cancel rallies in the country.

“We are witnessing very clear tendencies of dictatorship under the leadership of President Edgar Lungu. Members of the public must realise that President Lungu and the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) have no power whatsoever to cancel the rallies in this country under the circumstances. The law that guides the Electoral commission is the Constitution of Zambia, the Electoral Process Act of 2016 and there we have the regulations. And because of these regulations put by Parliament and other institutions, it is clear that President Lungu and the Electoral commission have no powers to do what they are doing now,” he said.

“Further President Lungu is a candidate and a player, he is not a referee to regulate elections in this country, only dictators are the ones that can give direction to the electoral commission and other institutions on how elections should be managed. These are clear traits of a dictator and a dictatorship should not be condoned in a country that thrives under the rule of law. We believe that Zambia has laws that govern this country and we should all abide by those. Anyone who goes against the laws and established procedures is a dictator and I have no doubt in my mind that President Lungu is a dictator under these circumstances.”

He further expressed displeasure on how ECZ handled the election period.

“President Lungu’s pronouncement to cancel rallies in this country has no backing of the law when it comes to elections. The institution that regulates elections in this country is the electoral commission, unfortunately the Electoral Commission of Zambia has been making very preposterous pronouncements pertaining to management of elections. You are aware that they have been threatening that elections can be cancelled because of the pandemic and imminent declaration of a state of emergency. The ECZ has no power to declare a state of emergency in this country. There is no parliament in this country and authority and power to declare a state of emergency is parliament, unless parliament is recalled to do so,” Mwiimbu said.

Meanwhile, Mwiimbu said UPND was worried that PF would not easily give up power even if they lost this year’s presidential elections by a huge margin.

“We are not afraid, we are concerned as a party and on behalf of the Zambian people that the PF even through an established electoral process may not want to give up power even when they lose with a big margin. They would want to resist. But we call upon the security wings of this country and Zambians at large to protect the integrity of the elections and the process that have been established by the laws of this country,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mwiimbu called on security institutions to be bold and stand on the side of the people by ensuring that law and order prevails in the country.

“From the time Zambia gained its independence to date, we have never had a situation where the rights of individuals and institutions have been eroded as it is now. During the reign of UNIP and MMD, any contestant in elections were given a free lane to sell themselves to the electorates without any hindrance. But under the PF what is obtained is impunity and a breakdown of law and order,” he said.

“The cadres of PF are reigning supreme. They are above the law, they cannot be controlled by anybody apart from President Lungu and this situation is very unfortunate and it is leading us to anarchy in this country. We call upon the security institutions in this country to be bold and stand on the side of the people and ensure that law and order reigns in the country otherwise we will be destroying our nation.”

Three foreign-based Zambian lawyers, Professor Chaloka Beyani, Melvin Mbao, and Cephas Lumina, whose application to join to the President Edgar Lungu eligibility matter as friends of the court was denied, have written to the Justice Hildah Chibomba President Constitutional Court of Zambia.

The foreign-based academicians who were to be represented by former LAZ President Eddie Mwitwa, have complained to the President Constitutional Court saying they were mortified to learn that the Court declined to hear their application, which was duly filed in Court within the time prescribed for the hearing of the petition, without the Court making a judicial determination thereon.

In their letter of complaint to the President of the court, said they would want to protest in the strongest terms possible, and seek an explanation from the Court regarding the way their application was treated.

Read full letter below:

The Honourable Madam Justice H Chibomba
President
Constitutional Court of Zambia
Independence Avenue
LUSAKA

Dear Madam Justice Chibomba,
Legal Resources Foundation and Others v Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Another, Petition No. 2021/CCZ/0025 and 2021/CCZ/0027 (Consolidated)

We, the undersigned, being genuinely concerned with a matter of considerable constitutional importance and overwhelming public interest before your Court and in compliance with the Constitution, section 12 of the Constitutional Court Act (No. 8 of 2016) and Order IX, rule 20 of the Constitutional Court Rules (Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2016), did on 7 June 2021, file an application for admission as amicus curiae in the above-mentioned matter.

Our pleadings were duly certified by the Master of the Court as compliant with the Act and Rules of Court.

In our application aforesaid, we made it clear that we had no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings save a professional interest in seeing that the Court fulfils its mandate as guardian of the Constitution under Article 128 of the Constitution in a manner that promoted the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, as well as the development of the law.

We also pointed out that as Zambian professors with considerable experience in Constitutional Law and other areas of Public Law pertinent to the Petition, it was our bounden duty to assist the Court by way of providing pertinent additional information and insights in respect of legal principles as well as local and comparative constitutional jurisprudence.

We were also mindful of the time constraints under which your Court is required to hear and determine the petition. However, our application was well within the period of 21 days under Article 52(4) of the Constitution.

With that in mind, it was our firm conviction that our arguments and the authorities relied upon would assist the Court in arriving at a just outcome. Our request to join as amicus curiae was not unusual.

Superior Courts in both common law and civil law jurisdictions all over the world do receive and entertain amicus curiae briefs. The international and regional courts have a similar practice.

We were, therefore, mortified to learn that the Court declined to hear our application, which was duly filed in Court within the time prescribed for the hearing of the petition, without the Court making a judicial determination thereon.

We view this turn of events in the most serious light and would like, therefore, to, by way of protest in the strongest terms possible, seek an explanation from the Court regarding the way our application was treated.

In our considered opinion, the Court either failed or declined to exercise its judicial authority and violated, in a most egregious and flagrant manner, our constitutional right of access to the Court and of our right to a fair and impartial hearing by an independent Court.

In our view, the matter before the Court is of immense weight and has far- reaching implications for our constitutional democracy.

We respectfully request that the Court consider and formally rule on our application, as it is bound to do in respect of any application properly before it, prior to delivering the judgment in the Petition.

Yours sincerely,

Copies to:

(1) The Chief Justice of Zambia
(2) Judges of the Constitutional Court
(3) Legal Resources Foundation (First Petitioner)
c/o Messrs Simeza Sangwa & Associates
Lusaka
(4) Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa (Second Petitioner)
c/o Messrs Simeza Sangwa & Associates
Lusaka

(5) Chapter One Foundation (Third Petitioner)
c/o Messrs Simeza Sangwa & Associates
Lusaka
(6) Edgar Chagwa Lungu (First Respondent)
c/o Messrs Eric Silwamba Jalasi & Linyama Legal Practitioners
Lusaka
(7) The Attorney-General (Second Respondent)
New Kent Building
Lusaka
(8) Messrs Mwenye & Mwitwa Advocates
Lusaka

HE IS NO LONGER THE HH WE KNEW

I have seen all maneuvers against HH being foiled by who I believe is God. Bill 10 needed just two members of parliament from upnd side and it was going to pass. Can you imagine those two MPs who have just defected to PF what they could have done had it not been for God all mighty to delay them.

The gassing that was meant to implicate HH, seer 1 came and exposed the real blood suckers. That can only be God. God protected HH not once but, several times from live ammunitions. First at force headquarters on 23rd December, 2020 because of it, two young men lost lives and secondly last week in Chingola also not forgetting the one they had to rescue him through the roof of a radio station on the copperbelt. Oh God, you’re really showing us something. Continue to protect your servant, you people are yearning for a leader free of corruption and one who will uphold the rule of law and protect the treasury for the survival of your children in Zambia.

Looking at this year’s elections from the African political perspective, we can comfortably say HH has matured and completely understands what our politics is and he has offered himself for this country. HH Hhas said yes to a better Zambia, what about we the citizens?

Without favoritism, we wish to congratulate him for standing his ground and making key political statements.HH is the most abused, humiliated and fought by the current regime. But in all battles he has come out clean and emerged victorious that even his oppressors are now left galavanting all over .

Why have we written this article? We want to remind Zambians that from our assessment the man is ready for the job and he needs our support as long as you are a Zambian who hate injustice and criminality you will agree that he needs your support. First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge that his move and that of the alliance partners to disobey Lungu’s order of canceling rallies is outstanding. It was a brilliant idea. A player in a football game can’t be a referee at the same time unless, you’re playing ichimpombwa.

Secondly we would like to say UPND youths have resolved to die with their leader this can be seen how they have protected him the last few days. They feel inspired by their master who has stepped out and face his competitors head on. And it is our prayer that many more youths will get motivated to stand strong with their leader.

To the police, this election is there to liberate you from PF cadres slavery where they can walk into a police station and beat you up and your commander in chief is quiet. My advise is that use this very last opportunity to redeem yourselves.

To the Zambia army Please, do your trainings of military day in your camp and desist displaying those military grade hardware in public because you will be just misunderstood for nothing. I know someone instructed you to go round to try to scare people. But sorry this time around we are not scared of a gun but God the giver of life. So please, keep those military weapons in barracks and allow Zambians to choose their destiny peacefully.

SIKAILE C SIKAILE
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST FOR ZAMBIA AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

By Peter Sinkamba President The Greens

In the next 24 hours, Zambia shall know how to be, and how not to be a President or Vice President of the Republic of Zambia.

The Constitutional Court, an apex body that we the People of Zambia have delegated authority in terms of Articles 1(5); 5: 127; 128; and 129 to hear and determine matters relating to the Constitution, will be making a final determination on qualifications a of a President or Vice President of the Republic of Zambia.

Until the next review of the Constitution, the determination we anticipate from the Constitutional Court in the next 24 hours, will bring to finality lingering questions on qualifications to hold one of the two apex offices in the Republic of Zambia.

Generally speaking, there are four ways in which one can hold office of the Vice President in the Republic of Zambia, as follows:

1. First, when one is appointed as a Running Mate by a Presidential Candidate, and that Presidential Candidate is duly elected and sworn-in as President
2. Second, subject to approval by Parliament, when a minister is appointed by a Vice President who assumes office of President on account of the office of the President has fallen vacant
3. Third, subject to approval by Parliament, when a Cabinet Minister is appointed by another Cabinet Minister who assumes office of the President after being elected by fellow Cabinet Ministers on account that the offices of the President and the Vice President have fallen vacant at the same time
4. Fourth, after Parlianent is dissolved, a Vice President continues to hold office of Vice President until the next President-Elect is sworn-in

Generally speaking, there are six ways in which one hold office of the President in the Republic of Zambia, as follows:

1. First, after being elected and sworn in as President
2. Second, after Parlianent is dissolved, a President continues to hold office of the President until the next President-Elect is sworn-in
3. Third, a Speaker of the National Assembly assumes office oc the President on account that an incumbent President who recontested elections vacates office because his or her re-election has been petitioned in the Constitutional Court
4. Fourth, a Vice President who assumes office of the President on account that office of the President has fallen vacant
5. Fifth, a Cabinet Minister who is elected by fellow Cabinet Ministers after the offices of the President and Vice President simultaneously fall vacant
6. Sixth, subject to approval by Parliament, a President whose tenure is extended account that elections cannot be held because the Republic is in a state of war, state of emergency or state of threatened emergency

In all above scenarios for qualification to assume office of the President, where tenure is less than three years, such a period is not recognised by the Constitution as a term. If the tenure is three years and above, then that period is recognised by the Constitution as a term.

According to prior decisions of the Constitutional Court, a person who has served for less than three years as President, that period so served does not count in terms of qualification of that person for election or re-election as President of the Republic of Zambia.

We await to hear what the Constitutional Court will determine on above issues in the next 24 hours.

From me, all I can say is: all the best to the litigants and their supporters.

By Mwaka Ndawa

CHAPTER One Foundation limited has petitioned President Edgar Lungu for assenting to the Correctional Service Bill no.35 of 2021 when his parliamentary mandate expired following the dissolution of Parliament.

Among other clauses of the Bill, well behaved inmates will be given a fortnight leave to visit their families. Prisoners will also be released on a special license apart from being pardoned.

Chapter One Foundation wants a conservatory order staying the operation of the Zambia Correctional Service Act no.35 of 2021 and restoring the Prisons Act Chapter 97 of the Zambian laws pending determination of the petition.

It wants a declaration that to the extent that the Zambia Correctional Service Bill no.35 of 2021 was assented to by the President after the dissolution of Parliament on May 13, 2021, the Zambia Correctional Service Act no.37 of 2021 was not law enacted by Parliament of Zambia therefore it is null and void.

COF is further seeking an order of certiorari that the Zambia Correctional Service Act no.37 of 2021 be quashed.

In its petition, Chapter One Foundation said that following the dissolution Parliament on May 13, 2021, President Lungu ceased to be part of Parliament.

It said after the dissolution of Parliament until the period when the President-elect assumes office of President in accordance with Article 104 of the constitution, the Head of State can only continue to perform the executive functions of the Republic.

The NGO stated that the constitution vests the legislative authority of the Republic to be exercised by Parliament.

It said according to Article 92 of the constitution, the executive functions of the President, without limiting other provisions of the constitution, are: Appoint ambassadors, high commissioners, plenipotentiaries, diplomatic representatives, consuls and heads of international organisations, receive and accredit foreign ambassadors, high commissioners, plenipotentiaries diplomatic representatives and consuls, negotiate and sign international agreements and treaties and subject to the approval of the National Assembly, ratify or accede to international agreements and treaties.

COF said other duties are to establish, merge and dissolve government ministries, subject to the approval of the National Assembly, appoint people as required by the constitution or any law to be appointed by the President, initiate Bills for submission to and consideration by the National Assembly, among others.

The NGO stated that on April 14, 2021, the Zambia Correctional Service Bill no.35 of 2021 was published and the date when the said Bill was passed by the National Assembly is currently unknown.

“On May 19, 2021, six days after the dissolution of Parliament, the respondent ceased to be part of Parliament and purported to assent to the Zambia Correctional Service Bill no.35 of 2021,” COF said.

“After the dissolution of Parliament on May 13, 2021, President Lungu’s legislative authority conferred by Article 63(1) of the constitution to assent to Bills passed by the National Assembly expired.”

It argued that President Lungu breached Articles 81(😎 and 92(2) of the constitution on May 19, 2021 when he purported to assent to the Zambia Correctional Service Bill no.35 of 2021.

UPND ARE A BANCH OF MORBIDS, ZAMBIA IS NOT A WAR ZONE, THEREFORE HH SHOULD TAME HIS CADERS.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED AT ALL.
=======================

By: *Chanda John Chimba.*

Every Zambian has a democratic right to support which ever political party they feel like supporting and no one should take that away from them.

In the last few days, we have seen UPND going violent whenever they see anyone exercising their rights of supporting PF and President Lungu.

In Namwala, southern province, a PF entourage was stoned and many people seriously injured, not because they have done anything against the law but only that they have supported PRESIDENT LUNGU AND PF.

This barbaric trend was moved to Lusaka yesterday, If you look at these pictures and this videos, that is the PF office of Buffalo Branch under Munali constituency on Zambezi road, yesterday, UPND caders turned violent again, attacked this office, beat up everyone who was in the office, burnt cars, damaged cars of innocent citizens who were only using the said road, all this was happening in the full view of Hakainde Hichilema.

Like that’s not enough, their leader preaches about coming to help the poor and uplifting their lives my foot how? Upnd caders violently attacked innocent youths who deal in mobile money around Zambezi road, beat them up and stole their money phones and damaged their booths.

Whoever was seen wearing a PF chitenge, shirt or cap was beaten up too, innocent women wearing chitenges were beaten up mercilessly.

PF youths have the capacity to defend themselves but our Leader and President, H.E Dr Edgar CHAGWA Lungu has time and again cautioned all PF youths not to be violent and those directives have been obeyed.

It’s sad that the UPND, a party which is vying to take over the affairs of the country can behave in such a way and terrorize innocent citizens like this.

I wish and hope the zambia police service will get to the bottom on this and ensure that all culprits are brought to book and face the wrath of the law.

With all this violence, we have not heard from Laura miti, Changala, Pilato and any other anti PF vuvuzelas.

Zambia is a peaceful country and we certainly cannot take that away only because of the selfish, barbaric behavior of a UPND and its leaders.

May God bless zambia.

Chishimba Kambwili, a former cabinet minister in the PF government and once upon a time opposition ally of the UPND has asked Zambians to ignore politicians who are equating the economy to ´magic.´
The vociferous politician with a wide following among the grass roots said politics and economic governance are about tenacity and prudent planning and not bluster.

Mr Kambwili was speaking on the PF live interactive programme that aired for the first time on the state broadcaster ZNBC on Wednesday in an apparent reference to Hakainde Hichilema, the leader of UPND.
In a recent political advert, Mr Hichilema promised Zambians that he would “fix” the rate of the kwacha to the US dollar within hours if elected President on 12th August, a promise Mr Kambwili said was not only impossible to keep but was laughable.
“Once sworn in at 10 hours, I will improve the kwacha by 14hrs,” Hichilema confidently said in ana advert circulated online and on TV stations.
But Kambwili said Hichilema was merely being rhetorical and playing to the gallery because economic management is not “magic where you simply say adacadabra adacadabra and something happens.”
Kambwili also said while it is sad the prices of essential commodities have risen in Zambia; the situation was worse in other countries on the continent.

He gave comparison figures of commodity prices in Africa´s second largest economy South Africa which appears to be fairing quite badly too during the widely followed programme.

Mr Kambwili said, “the United Nations has declared that food world over, isonde lyonse, nafinina (the world over prices have gone up) by two or three times more because of draught, and the pandemic…Global food has extended to the highest in almost in a decade, this is not me, not Lungu but the UN who is stating.”

He added that, “Mealie Meal today in South Africa is at R230 – K380 for 25kg bag of mealie meal and in this country [Zambia] a 25kg is costing at K140, a kg of meat is R73- K120 in South Africa… and in Zambia meat is ranging between K70 to K90 kg, lets come to cooking oil 2.5ltrs in South Africa is costing R79 – K130.”

He noted that even the pump prices in South Africa are much higher as compared to Zambia.

“When we come to petrol I have heard people hallucinate that petrol is expensive in Zambia and cheaper in South Africa, where are you getting the statistics from? Petrol in South Africa is R16.91 per litre which translates to K28 per litre, how much are we paying in Zambia, K17,” he queried.

“Ba puti, ba mundye mundye mwe bena Zambia, bela mi bepa.”

Dr Kambwili observed that it was a pure fallacy and selfish act to state that the Patriotic Front Government had failed.

“You go to the poor people in the compound and you want to mislead them to remove a legitimately elected government, a government that has done so much in ten years, a government that has brought dignity in terms of roads, hospitals, and schools and saying they are a failed government because of the price of commodities. And prices are better in other countries,” he said.

Until recently, Mr Kambwili was a harsh critic of the PF and President Lungu but he has made amends and returned to the party he helped found under the late Michael Sata.

Mr Kambwili said Hichilema whom he recently worked with had no chance of winning the 12th of August poll after losing five times in the past.
“HH in Kalusa…taka imwene again,“ said Kambwili.

UPND PRESIDENT HAKAINDE HICHILEMA SAYS THOSE OPPOSITION MEMBERS ATTACKING HIM ARE PF SARROGATES

UPND president Hakainde Hichilema says it is shocking that certain opposition parties have continued to attack him.

In an interview, Hichilema wondered why some opposition leader had continued to attack him when the “destruction” of the country’s economy was done by the PF.

When asked why he thought some opposition leaders had continued de-campaigning him, Hichilema said it was because they were beneficiaries of the economic “mess” the country was in.

“They are beneficiaries of a country which is in a mess like now. One, they are beneficiaries, they are surrogates of the PF, why would you attack HH who is not in government? Is HH responsible for the high price of fertilizer? No! We are offering a K250 price of fertilizer, we know the true value of fertilizer. If they are bringing in fertilizer at $1,100 per tonne, we will bring fertilizer at $450 per tonne, which will allow us to sell the fertiliser at K250 per bag. So why are they focusing on HH? Because it is the corruption that is in PF that is causing the high cost of food, high cost of living. So, why would they attack HH? It is laughable,” Hichilema said.

“The destruction of the economy and hunger has been brought about by the PF, not HH, not the UPND Alliance. So, we can only conclude, because it is completely weird, but let us not spend time on them, the election result will show that they are not competitors, as we sit now there is no third force. This country is a de facto two-party state. There are only two groups here, those on the wrong side, the corrupt and all of those trouble makers on the left, on the right are the people of Zambia. This struggle is not for UPND, it is a struggle for the people of Zambia.”

Hichilema stressed that a change of government was certain in the upcoming election.

“We are grateful to our alliance partners who have really come to the conclusion together with us and the people of Zambia that we must be on the right side of history. As you know unity of purpose has always prevailed to deliver independence. Now it is the people, unity of purpose who will deliver this country,” said Hichilema.

“The people of Zambia must remain strong; they must remain hopeful. They must not lose heart, definitely transition will happen this year. The people of Zambia must not lose heart. I ask all the 10 provinces of the country to stand up for their rights. We have had these things before, we had a one-party state and we overcame it. We will overcome this.”

THE SUSPENSION OF POLITICAL RALLIES BY ECZ IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL – HIGH COURT

NDOLA – 10/06/21

The Ndola High Court has granted UPND secretary-general Batuke Imenda leave to apply for judicial review challenging the failure by the Electoral Commission of Zambia to prescribe the amount of airtime allocated to participating political parties on public television and radio media platforms.

The High Court has however refused to grant Mr Imenda leave to commence judicial review on the decision by the ECZ to ban political rallies saying the the Elections body acted within its constitutional mandate.

Making her ruling today,High Court judge Mary Mulanda said the prescription of airtime to all participating political parties is highly necessary to enable parties including independents to have equal campaign opportunities in the run upto to the August General elections.

And on the banning of campaign rallies,Judge Mulanda relied on Article 229 of the Republican Constitution amendment number 2 of 2016 which provides under sub -article 2(e) that the ECZ shall regulate the conduct of voters and candidates.

She further relied on paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Electoral Code of conduct which confers a duty on the ECZ to ensure that a campaign meeting or rally which is duly organised by a registered by a political party is not disrupted or arbitrary prohibited.

She said the decision by the commission to ban the rallies in view of the surge in the pandemic in the country was not arbitrary as the country has been on Alert State since March 2020 describing the decision as having been made to safeguard the lives of people and was in the best interest of the country and its people.

Judge Mulanda added that campaigns have been allowed to go ahead with parties advised to use appropriate campaign strategies such mobile public address system,distribution of flyers and other political party materials with minimal or no contact with the crowds.

Each party to bear own costs.

Mr Imenda acting in his capacity as UPND Secretary-general applied for leave to seek the relief of the court to declare the decision by the ECZ to ban political party rallies ahead of the August 12th General elections illegal as well as compelling the commission to prescribe the amount of airtime given to all participating political parties and independents on public Electronic and Print Media.

Mr.Imenda was represented by Counsel Marshal Mucheende of M associates.

Leave to appeal has further been granted.

(C) UPND MEDIA TEAM

TWO former UPND members who defected to PF recently on Friday reacted angrily to attacks by some Chipata residents who charged that they were forced to defect because of poverty and hunger.

Former UPND Eastern Province publicity secretary Victor Mbuzi and former Zambia’s diplomat to Angola Mung’omba Ngoma and many other UPND members defected to PF.

Responding to callers who attacked him and his colleague during Breeze FM’s political hour programme on Tuesday, Mbuzi wished those who accused him of being hungry well.

“I don’t get bitter with what someone is saying. The issue is that if I mention the property and the farms that I have, it has no meaning to the people of Zambia. What you should know is that we cannot let this country go into the hands of people who only know how to destroy because others are promising that they are going to sell the Presidential jet once they win elections. They are just promising to sell this and that after winning because they are used to selling things,” he said.

Mbuzi dispelled accusation that he was a mushanina bwali (dances for food) saying he was a farmer.

He said they were not misleading people because the Zambian constitution allowed every person to join a party of theirchoice.
Mbuzi said he had joined the PF, a big family which also knows how to take care of people.
He said he feels at home in PF because even if he does not hold any position he was allowed to talk to the people.
When asked whether there was anything nice that he could say about UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema, Mbuzi said every person has got a good side and bad side.
“Munthu aliyense anapabwino ndipoipa, HH nimunthu wabwino nalekeza pomwepo (Every person has got a good side and bad side, HH is a good person, I end here),” he said.
And Ngoma said it was unfortunate that some people were accusing them of being hungry.
“Those of you who are saying we defected because of poverty, njala(hunger), it is very unfortunate. I can even challenge you, come and see where I stay. Those who are talking about poverty na njala, come and see where I live, come and count how many houses in my yard are on rent. I challenging you today to come and see how many houses are in my yard. Some of you, you are talking about things that you do not know. You don’t know of the private assets that some of us have and own, you just see us on the street, probably that one who said we are hungry is the one who is hungry,” he said.
Ngoma said him, Mbuzi, Nedson Undi and Charles Nyoka were expelled from UPND which prompted them to join PF.
He said the economic crisis that had hit the country was as a result of the pandemic.
Ngoma said the world economy had been hampered by the pandemic.
Other callers commended the two for joining PF while others said they had no value in politics.
Isaac Zulu from Nabvutika said Mbuzi had misled people when he was in UPND.
Zulu said Mbuzi accused PF of engaging in corruption and said all sorts of things about PF and that it is difficult for people believe him now.

By Mwaka Ndawa

CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer John Sangwa has petitioned Attorney General Likando Kalaluka in the Constitutional Court for demanding for exagarated costs after the court dismissed his petition against the Electoral Commission of Zambia.

He wants an order of certiorari quashing section 30 of the Constitutional Court Act and the award of costs in cause no.2021/CCZ/0021.

In his petition, Sangwa said he petitioned the Electoral Commission of Zambia for omitting the clause which requires presidential candidates to state the number of times they have held office in its affidavit for presidential candidates and running mates when filing in nomination papers.

He said the petition was pursuant to Article 128(3) of the constitution.

Sangwa said his contention in the said petition was that the affidavit for presidential candidates and running mates did not meet the requirements of Article 52 of the constitution because it did not require a candidate to state on oath the number of times he has held office as president as required by Article 106(3) of the constitution.

He stated that on May 5, 2021, Kalaluka applied to be joined to the proceedings as a second respondent before a single judge.

“The petitioner opposed the application but the objection was overruled and the Attorney General was joined to the proceedings as the second respondent,” Sangwa said.

He explained that on May 11, Lusaka lawyer Lewis Mosho applied to be joined to the proceedings as an interested party which he opposed but the court proceeded to join him.

Sangwa stated that on May 14, the petition was heard and before closing his case, he informed the court that depending on the outcome of the matter, he desired to address the Constitutional Court on the issue of costs but the court ignored him.

He said the court dismissed his petition with costs and further indicated that a full judgement would be delivered on May 27, 2021 but the same has not been delivered.

“By letter dated May 17, 2021 from Lewis Nathan Advocates to the petitioner, Mosho demanded costs in the sum of K1,500,000. By another letter on the same date, Milimo Chooka and associates representing Mosho demanded K1,500,000 and another law firm representing him, Makebi Zulu advocates, by letter dated May 18 demanded costs in the sum of K1,500,000,” Sangwa stated.

“In effect, Mosho has demanded costs from the petitioner in the sum of K4,500,000 in a case which lasted three days.”

Sangwa further explained that by letter dated May 20, 2021, the state demanded costs in the sum of K5,000,000 but that ECZ never demanded costs after the petition was settled.

He said Mosho and Kalaluka were demanding K9,500,000 from him as costs which was more than US$400,000.

He said section 30 of the Constitutional Court Act no.8 of 2016, to the extent that it confers discretionary power on the Constitutional Court to award costs in proceedings before it contravenes Articles 2, 52(4), 67(3), 101(4), 103(1) and 128(3) of the constitution.

He wants a declaration that section 30 of the Constitutional Court Act to the extent that it confers discretionary power on the Constitutional Court to award costs violates Articles 2, 52(4), 67(3), 101(4), 103(1) and 128(3) of the constitution and is null and void.

Sangwa is further seeking a declaration that the award of costs by the court in cause no.2021/CCZ/0021 contravened Articles 2, 52(4), 67(3), 101(4), 103(1) and 128(3) of the constitution and the award of costs is null

DICTATORS NEVER GOES DOWN ALONE-SANGWA WILL BE REMEMBERED IN OUR HISTORY

One crystal clear thing is that the concourt bench has people who want to say Lungu is ineligible, only they cannot speak out for not knowing who may report them and whether their jobs will be maintained or terminated.Facts are that, all concourt judges including chief Justice Ireen Mambilima knows very well that Lungu is not eligible to contest these elections. But they are deadly scared of him and losing all the huge sums of money they are receiving this is why any person who practices law should have integrity unfortunately the man in state house has none because if he had integrity he was not going to swindle a widow and today he want to parade himself as a humble man. There is no humbleness in stealing and abusing a republican constitution.

These judges deep down their hearts they know that they are putting our country on fire just like Kanganja, judge Esau Chulu, and Shindano are using the police, PF cadres and the ECZ to cause confusion as well. All these institutions have been captured by Lungu.

However, if that court rules in favour of ECL with the very direct clause that prohibits third time holding office, they will actually have killed the constitution and all will understand that the concourt is not before satisfying the interest of Zambians but Lungu alone. It will mean there is no law on which we stand as a people and Lungu will be the law himself. Remember Lungu and his minions have on several occasions daylight without shame threatened judges and key public institutions. How I wish Zambians could clearly follow with keen interest and patriotism of what Lawyer John Sangwa SC has brought out since the appointment of these judges then later bill 10 to date. He has guided the country on what was/ is supposed to be done.

Even during the appointments of these judges Mr. Sangwa made it clear to us in line with the constitution of Zambia who should have qualified to be among the concourt bench but as usual Lungu did deliberately to appoint cowards and none patriots who would dance to his tune and here we are today. As I said it last year that between the two Lawyer Sangwa and president Edgar Lungu, there is one difference one is a true patriot whilst one is an abuser of the law and the constitution of Zambia with impunity.

The biggest challenge Mr. Lungu is going through right now is that he has committed alot of atrocities more than what an ordinary Zambian can see and his fear is that if he let go of power he will be in trouble. His current wish is to make sure that even after 2026 PF rules under a friendly user to him like Nkandu Luo who cannot prosecute him. Sources within the system has charged that he would rather see the country getting into trouble than surrendering power easily.

Lately I have been wondering if the concourt is even necessary in the first place because, if you think about it, almost all its cases concerning constitutional offences committed by the top man or his Government; in which case that court saves to only defend them. May our God be present with you son of the soil John Sangwa and surround you always, in this battle. We don’t care about the outcome, however, this injustice will be put on record and all those office bearers aiding criminality one day they will properly explain to the country why they opted to undermine our supreme law of the land.

SIKAILE C SIKAILE
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST FOR ZAMBIA AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

[By Prof Chaloka Beyani, Prof Melvin Mbao and Prof Cephas Lumina]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………………………iii

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………1

II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE …………….2

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………..4

IV. ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………….4

A. The correct approach to constitutional interpretation ……………………….4

B. The Second Respondent has been improperly joined to the proceedings and, accordingly, his name should be struck out …………………………………

8
C. The cause of action and issues in these proceedings are not res judicata
13

D. The present Petition does not constitute an abuse of process by the Petitioners ………………………………………………………………………………………

16
E. The Court should reconsider the Pule case as it is incorrect, unsound and has created complexity and controversy rather than clarity regarding the meaning of Article 106(3) of the Constitution ……………….

18
F. By filing his nomination for election as President in the election scheduled for 12 August 2021, in circumstances where he has twice been elected to and held the office of President of the Republic, the First Respondent has contravened Article 52(1) of the Constitution and/or is not eligible for election as President under Article 106(3) of the Constitution ……………………………………………………………………………………….

24
V. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 36

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Access Bank (Zambia) Ltd v Group Five/ZCON Business Park Joint Venture, Appeal No. SCZ/8/52/2014 (unreported)

Adams v Adams [1970] 3 All ER 577

Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 273

Amtim Capital Inc v Appliance Recycling Centres of America 2014 ONCA 62

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728

Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93

Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC)

Atlantic Bakery Ltd v Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd, Selected Judgment No. 61 of 2018 (unreported)

Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA)

Benner v Canada (Secretary of State) (1997) 42 CRR (2d) 1 (SCC)

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association & Another v Harrison & Another 2011 (4) SA 42 (CC)

Cassell & Co. Ltd v Broome (No. 2) [1972] All ER 849

Chama & 213 Others v National Pension Scheme Authority, SCZ/8/230/2012, [2020] ZMSC 51 (unreported)

Chibote Ltd & Others v Meridien BIAO Bank (Zambia) Ltd (In Liquidation)

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384

Cook v Gill 1873 LR 8 CP 102

Deported Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers [1999] 1 EA 55.

Fawehinmi v Nigerian Bar Association (No. 1) (1989) 2 NWLR [Pt. 973] 494
Finsbury Investments & Another v Ventriglia & Another

Flast v Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Another v Sandoz Ltd [2016] EWHC 2743 (Ch)

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC)

Gonzales v Cabigao G.R. No. L-27833 (18 April 1969) (Philippines Supreme Court)

Hichilema & Another v Lungu & Others, 2016/CC/0031, [2016] ZMCC 4 (Majority Ruling, 5 September 2016) (unreported)

International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC)

Kapalasa & Another v Attorney-General, 2021/CCZ/0011 & 2021/CCZ/0014 (unreported)

Kapoko v The People, Selected Judgment No. 43 of 2016

Kariisa v Attorney-General & Another, SCCA No. 7 of 1994

Katuka & Another v Attorney-General & Others, Selected Judgment No. 29 of 2016

Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologists Board & 6 Others v Attorney-General & 4 Others [2017] eKLR

Klaase v van der Merwe NO 2016 (9) BCLR 1187 (CC)

Law Association of Zambia & Another v Attorney-General, 2019/CCZ/0013 and 2019/CCZ/0014, [2020] ZMCC 4 (3 July 2020) (unreported)

Maambo & Others v The People, Selected Judgment No. 31 of 2017

Masara v Tsepong (Pty) Ltd [2015] LSLC 59

Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison 1994 (4) SA 592 (SE)

McKenzie v Farmers’ Cooperative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16

Mpongwe Farms Ltd v Dar Farms and Transport Ltd, Selected Judgment No. 38 of 2016 (unreported)
Molaudzi v S 2015 (2) SACR 341 (CC)

Mwau v Haysom & Others; Attorney-General & Others (Interested Parties) [2021] eKLR, Civil Suit 115 of 2019 (Kenya High Court)

Ndii & Others v Attorney-General & Others, Petition No. E282 of 2020 (Consolidated), Kenya High Court (Constitutional & Human Rights Division, 14 May 2021)

Ndyanabo v Attorney-General [2011] 2 EA 485 (Tanzania Court of Appeal)

Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Odinga & Another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2017] eKLR

Patterson v Maclean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989)

Payne v Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)

Phillips v Botha 1999 (2) SA 555 (SCA)

Pule & Others v Attorney-General & Others, Selected Judgment No. 60 of 2018 (unreported)

Republic of Namibia & Another v Cultura 2000 & Another 1994 (1) SA 407 (Nm.)

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [1999] 1 AC 119 (HL)

R v Home Secretary, ex parte T & V [1997] 3 WLR 23

S v Makwanyane & Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)

Snyders & Others v De Jager (Joinder) 2017 (5) BCLR 604 (CC)

Texas v United States, 523 US 296 (1998)

Varawa v Howard Smith Co Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 35

Virgin Atlantic Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46

Zambia Textiles Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kalemba & Others [2017] ZMSC 65 (10 August 2017) (unreported)

Legislation

Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 18 of 1996

Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016

Constitution of Zambia, 1991 (as amended)

Constitutional Court Act, 8 of 2016

Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (S.I. No. 37 of 2016)

Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1951)

Miscellaneous

Dixon R and Landau D, Transnational Constitutionalism and a Limited Doctrine of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment (Oxford University Press 2015)

Driedger EA, ‘Statutes: Retroactive Retrospective Reflections,’ (1978) 56(2) Canadian Bar Review 264

Du Plessis M, Penfold G and Brickhill J, Constitutional Litigation (Juta 2013)

Kaaba O, ‘“South Africa Look What You Have Done to Us”: Exploring the Reasons for the Likely Failure of the South African Constitutional Court Model in Zambia,’ Paper presented at the Constitutional Court Review Conference IX, 2-3 August 2018, Johannesburg, South Africa (on file with amici)

Negretto, GL, ‘Replacing and Amending Constitutions: The Logic of Constitutional Change in Latin America,’ (2012) 46(4) Law & Society Review 749

Peabody, BG and Grant SE, ‘The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment’ (1999) 83 Minnesota Law Review 565

Rautenbach IM and Malherbe EFJ, Constitutional Law (4th edn, LexisNexis 2004)

Republic of Zambia, Report of the Constitution Review Commission (2005)
Republic of Zambia, Report of the Mvunga Constitution Review Commission (1991)

Republic of Zambia, Summary of the Recommendations of the Mwanakatwe Constitutional Review Commission and Government Reaction to the Report (1995)

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this submission is to provide the Constitutional Court of Zambia with additional information in respect of legal principles as well as local and comparative constitutional jurisprudence to assist the Court reach a decision in accordance with its mandate as set out in the Constitution of Zambia 1991 as amended (‘the Constitution’), in particular Article 128(1) read together with Articles 9(1)(a) and 118 (1) and (2).

2. We (Professors Chaloka Beyani, Cephas Lumina and Melvin Mbao) believe that the case raises important questions, including the correct approach to constitutional interpretation, the power of the Court to revisit its previous decisions, application of the principle of res judicata, intervention of the Attorney-General in proceedings between private parties before the Court, the purpose of Article 52(1), the rights conferred under Article 52(4) and the purpose of Article 106(3) of the Constitution.

3. The submission identifies legal standards pertinent to the foregoing questions.

4. In this brief, we rely upon and adopt the facts and procedural history as presented in the Petition. The Petition – together with the First Respondent’s Answer to the Petition, the Second Respondent’s Summons for Joinder and Affidavit in support thereof and Heads of Argument, and the Second Respondent’s Combined Answer to the Petition – were made available to us by the Petitioners for the purposes of this submission.

5. Based on analysis of the pertinent legal principles and case law, the submission concludes that:

(a) The Second Respondent has been improperly enjoined to the proceedings and, accordingly, his name should be struck out.

(b) The cause of action and issues in these proceedings are not res judicata.

(c) The present proceedings do not constitute an abuse of process by the Petitioners.

(d) The decision of the Court in Pule and Others v Attorney-General and Others (‘Pule’) is incorrect, unsound, legally fictitious and should, in the interests of justice and in keeping with the constitutional values and principles, be reversed.

(e) By filing his nomination paper to a returning officer supported by an affidavit stating that he is qualified for nomination as President, the First Respondent, who has twice been elected to and held the office of President of the Republic of Zambia, has contravened Article 52(1) of the Constitution and/or is not eligible for election as President under Article 106(3) of the Constitution.

II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

6. This Amicus Brief is respectfully submitted by three (3) Professors of Law, namely Chaloka Beyani, Cephas Lumina and Melvin Mbao – all Zambian nationals. These Professors have considerable experience in constitutional law and other areas of law pertinent to the Petition, having taught in these areas at universities in Zambia and other countries. Amici have no personal interest in the outcome of these proceedings but a professional interest in seeing that this Court fulfils its mandate (as ‘guardian of the Constitution’) under Article 128 of the Constitution in a manner that promotes the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, in particular the supremacy of the Constitution, the sovereign will of the people, democracy, constitutionalism, good governance and accountability, as well as the development of the law.

(a) Chaloka Beyani is a Professor of Law at London School of Economics (LSE) and a member of the Expert Advisory Group to the United Nations Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement. He has taught public law at the University of Zambia (1983-1988), Oxford University (1992-1995) and Public International Law in the Department of Law at LSE since 1996. He has served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (2010-2016), a member of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons of the African Union on the Formation of an African Union Government in 2008, a member of the Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review of the Republic of Kenya that drafted the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and also drafted amendments to the constitution of Mozambique in 2019 to implement the outcome of the agreement on devolution in the peace process. He has drafted and negotiated the adoption of the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons 2009 and 11 peace treaties under the framework of the Pact on Peace, Stability and Development of the Great Lakes Region 2006. Professor Beyani holds a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and a Master of Laws (LLM) awarded by the University of Zambia in 1982 and 1984, respectively, and a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in law from Oxford University, awarded in 1992.

(b) Cephas Lumina is an Advocate of the Superior Courts of Zambia (admitted December 1986) and, formerly, a full Research Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa. He has taught Constitutional Law at the Universities of eSwatini and KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and has served as an Extra-Ordinary Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Pretoria (2010-2018) and a Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Sweden (2007-2008). He serves a Visiting Professor at the University of Lusaka where he convenes and lectures the LLM course in Constitutional and Human Rights Litigation. Professor Lumina has published in various areas of law, including on constitutionalism in Zambia. His most recent publication is a contribution on the 2001 third presidential term bid in Zambia to a volume on presidential term limits in Africa. He holds a Bachelor of Laws (with Merit) from the University of Zambia (1985), a Master of Laws (LLM) from the University of Essex (United Kingdom, 1993), a Doctor of philosophy (PhD) in Law from Griffith University (Australia, 1999) and a Postgraduate Diploma in the International Protection of Human Rights from Abo Akademi University (Finland, 2003).

(c) Melvin Mbao is an Emeritus Professor of Public Law and Legal Philosophy and lately, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Law, North West University, South Africa. He has taught Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Human Rights and Public International Law at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at the Universities of Zambia and Botswana and at North West University. He has also supervised LLM and LLD research in various areas of Public Law and Human Rights, and has published widely and presented numerous conference papers in the broad areas of Constitutional Law and Human Rights. Professor Mbao served as a resource person to the Technical Committee on Drafting the Zambian Constitution (established in November 2011) and is currently co-authoring a book on ‘Constitutional Law in Zambia.’ He holds an LLB (with Distinction) from the University of Zambia and Master of Philosophy and PhD degrees from Cambridge University.

7. This Brief is filed pursuant to section 12 of the Constitutional Court Act, No. 8 of 2016.

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

8. The submission begins with an outline of what we believe to be the correct approach to constitutional interpretation and its implications for these proceedings. The submission then addresses several key issues. First, it is contended that the Second Respondent has no identifiable stake, legal interest or demonstrated duty to assist the Court in these proceedings and that, accordingly, he has been improperly enjoined. Secondly, the cause of action and key issue in the proceedings are not identical to those in Pule and are thus not res judicata. Moreover, the parties or privies in the present proceedings are not the same as those in Pule. Thirdly, the proceedings do not constitute an abuse of process as neither the issue of the alleged contravention by the First Respondent of Articles 52(1) and 106(3) of the Constitution nor his eligibility under Article 106(3) has ever been determined in clear and definitive terms by this Court. Fourth, Pule was incorrectly and prospectively decided, is unsafe, legally fictitious and has created complexity rather than clarity regarding the import of Article 106 of the Constitution and ought to be reconsidered. Finally, by filing his nomination paper to a returning officer supported by an affidavit stating that he is qualified for nomination as President, the First Respondent, who has twice been elected to and held the office of President of the Republic of Zambia, has contravened Article 52(1) of the Constitution and/or is not eligible for election as President in Article 106(3) of the Constitution.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The correct approach to constitutional interpretation

9. The interpretation of a constitution entails that a meaning is attached to its provisions and the meaning of a particular provision is determined by employing several complementary and interrelated approaches.

10. In several of its decisions, this Court has acknowledged:

(a) The supremacy of the Constitution in the Zambian legal order and that the validity of all laws and actions must be assessed against it.

(b) Its duty under Article 267(1) of the Constitution to interpret the Constitution in a manner that gives effect to the Bill of Rights, permits development of the law, and contributes to good governance: see, e.g., Kapoko v The People; Katuka and Another v Attorney-General and Others.

(c) That the constitutional values and principles set out in Article 8 of the Constitution apply to the interpretation of the Constitution: see Law Association of Zambia and Another v Attorney-General. See also Constitution, Articles 9(1)(a) and 118(2)(f).

(d) The Constitution must be given a generous and purposive interpretation and that constitutional provisions must be construed in the light of the Constitution as a whole: see Maambo and Others v The People.

11. Comparative constitutional case law indicates that a ‘purposive’ interpretation of a constitution entails a focus on the ‘purpose’ (or object) of the provision in question, not primarily on ascertaining the ‘intention of the legislature.’ In other words, in purposive interpretation, the text’s ‘purpose’ is the criterion for establishing which of the semantic meanings yields the legal meaning. In practice, this requires that the interpreter consider the terms and spirit of the particular provision, its purpose, the values, and principles underpinning it, the intention of the framers and the context (both textual and extra-textual): see, e.g., Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal and Another; Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison; R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd.

12. In several of its decisions (including Pule), this Court, while acknowledging that a supreme constitution must be given a ‘purposive’ interpretation, appears to follow the literal (or ‘plain meaning’) and golden rules of interpretation. Several of its judgments contain numerous references to the ‘literal rule’, ‘plain meaning,’ ‘ordinary and grammatical meaning,’ ‘ambiguity and absurdity’, etc. According to the Court:

‘The primary principle in interpreting the Constitution is that the meaning of the text should be derived from the plain meaning of the language used. Only where there is ambiguity or where the literal interpretation will lead to absurdity should other principles of interpretation be resorted to’ (our emphasis).

13. We respectfully submit that this approach is incorrect for the following reasons:

(a) The ‘literal’ and ‘golden’ rules developed in a system in which parliament is sovereign (i.e., parliamentary sovereignty) and the interpretive role of the courts is restricted to giving effect to the ‘intention of the legislature.’

(b) It is generally accepted that a literal and technical approach that focuses exclusively on the literal meaning of the phrases or ascertaining the ‘intention of the legislature’ has no application in a legal order where the constitution is supreme and all branches of government, including parliament, are subject to it: see, e.g., Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison; Government of the Republic of Namibia & Another v Cultura 2000 & Another. See also the Preamble and Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution.

(c) Constitutional provisions (including those in our Constitution) tend to be formulated in abstract terms and cannot, therefore, be construed in the same manner as statutes whose provisions tend to be formulated in more concrete terms. It is for this reason that a supreme constitution must be given a generous and purposive interpretation (see Shabalala and Others v Attorney-General of Transvaal and Another ).

(d) Where a court reads a text literally, it risks missing the spirit and purpose of the provision in question. In Ndyanabo v Attorney-General, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal held that:

‘The Constitution … is a living instrument with a soul and consciousness of its own as reflected in the preamble and fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. Courts must therefore endeavour to avoid crippling it by construing it technically or in a narrow spirit. It must be construed in tune with the lofty purposes for which its makers framed it. So construed, the instrument becomes a solid foundation of democracy and the rule of law. A timorous and unimaginable exercise of judicial power of constitutional interpretation leaves the Constitution a stale and sterile document.’
14. Thus, while the starting point for interpretation is the text of the provision to be interpreted (grammatical interpretation), such provision must be interpreted by also taking into consideration the constitution as a whole (contextual or systematic interpretation), the values and principles underpinning the Constitution and the purpose of the constitution or particular provision (teleological interpretation), the history preceding the adoption of the provision in question or the constitution (historical interpretation) and international and foreign law (comparative interpretation): see S v Makwanyane; Ndii and Others v Attorney-General and Others.

15. It should be noted that the ‘context’ (as used in purposive constitutional interpretation) includes the historical factors that led to the adoption of the Constitution and the social and political environment in which the Constitution operates. In S v Makwanyane, the South African Constitutional Court stated:

‘Our Constitution was the product of negotiations conducted at the Multi-Party Negotiating Process. The final draft adopted by the forums of the Multi-Party Negotiating Process was, with few changes adopted by Parliament. The Multi-Party Negotiating Process was advised by technical committees, and the reports of these committees on the drafts are the equivalent of the travaux préparatoires, relied upon by international tribunals. Such background material can provide a context for the interpretation of the Constitution and, where it serves that purpose, I can see no reason why such evidence should be excluded. The precise nature of the evidence and the purpose for which it may be tendered, will determine the weight to be given to it.’

16. In CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd, the Australian High Court emphasised that ‘[t]he modern approach to interpretation … insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when an ambiguity might be though to arise’ (our emphasis).

17. In the present case, since the demise of the One-Party State Constitution in 1991, the historical factors militate against a president holding office in perpetuity and attempting to manipulate the Constitution to do so.

18. Finally, it bears emphasis that the approaches outlined are complementary and interrelated and should be applied in conjunction with one another. In addition, the nature and number of the sources used and the way they are used has a decisive bearing on the outcome of a particular case.
B. The Second Respondent has been improperly joined to the proceedings and, accordingly, his name should be struck out

19. We respectfully submit that the Second Respondent has been improperly joined to these proceedings because he has no identifiable stake, legal interest or demonstrated duty to assist the court effectively and completely adjudicate on all the issues in the proceedings.

20. In making the submissions hereunder, we note that the Second Respondent is the Attorney-General of the Republic of Zambia and he has been enjoined in that capacity. The Attorney-General’s office is established in terms of Article 177(1) of the Constitution. As provided in Article 177(5), the Attorney-General is ‘the chief legal adviser to the Government’ whose functions include to ‘represent the Government in civil proceedings to which the Government is a party’ (emphasis).

21. Article 177(5)(c) is worded in clear and unambiguous terms. The phrase ‘representing the Government’ does not and cannot be taken to mean representing a presidential candidate regardless of whether such a candidate is the incumbent.

22. The First Respondent filed his nomination to contest the election scheduled for 12 August 2021, which is at issue in these proceedings, as a candidate of the Patriotic Front, not in his capacity as current President of Zambia.

The test for joinder

23. The fundamental aspect of standing (including as an intervenor or interested party) focuses on the party, not on the issue to be litigated: see Flast v Cohen.

24. In general, a case may be appropriate for intervention where: (a) it raises one or more issues of public importance; and (ii) there is a risk that the public interest may not be sufficiently well-addressed by the submissions of the parties alone: see R v Home Secretary ex parte T & V; Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologists Board and 6 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others.

25. It is trite law that the party that is alleged to be a necessary party for purposes of joinder must have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation which may be affected prejudicially by the judgment of the court in the proceedings concerned. In Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologists Board and 6 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others the High Court of Kenya (Constitutional and Human Rights Division) held that an applicant for joinder must demonstrate that he or she has an identifiable stake, legal interest and duty to assist the court effectively and completely adjudicate on all the issues in the proceedings. See also Mwau v Haysom and 2 Others; Attorney-General and 2 Others (Interested Parties); Katuka and Another v Attorney-General and Others; Klaase v van der Merwe NO.

26. In Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd, the court stated that:

‘A person is legally interested in the proceedings only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally, that is, by curtailing his legal rights.’

27. Under the standard reflected in these cases, the Second Respondent has been improperly enjoined to these proceedings.

28. In applying for joinder under Order V, rule 4(b) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016, the Second Respondent made the dubious claim that ‘it is imperative’ that, as ‘Chief Legal Adviser to the Government,’ he be enjoined to ‘the proceedings in order to represent Government interests in this matter.’ He did not explain what those ‘Government interests’ are. Nevertheless, his contention is fundamentally flawed for two main reasons. First, while his constitutional mandate as ‘chief legal adviser to the Government’ includes representing the Government in civil proceedings to which the Government is a party, the Government is not a party to these proceedings nor is it contesting the Petition. Secondly, representing ‘Government interests’ (whatever those might be) is not a recognised basis for considering an application for joinder.

29. The Second Respondent also contended that the First Respondent (as current President of the Republic of Zambia) ‘has a huge following and that having filed in his nomination papers to contest as Republican President in the election set for 12th August, 2021, the public is interested in the outcome of the Petition’ (our emphasis). In effect, the Second Respondent incorrectly equated public curiosity or interest in the outcome of this matter with the ‘public interest’.

30. Public curiosity in the outcome of private proceedings in which one of the parties happens to be President of the Republic (although he is a party to these proceedings in his capacity as a candidate of the Patriotic Front party for election to the office of president) does not amount to ‘public interest’ for the purposes of joinder. In Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa, Langa CJ observed (without making a finding on the issue) that ‘[t]o support his claim that he acts in the public interest, the applicant refers to the ‘massive amount’ of public interest in the matte, as evidenced by the public opinion polls and media reports.’ As du Plessis et al correctly argue, ‘[w]hile there may often be substantial public interest in constitutional matters – it does not follow that any particular person automatically has standing in the public interest.’

31. In Adams v Adams, it was held that the Attorney-General may intervene, with leave of the court, in litigation between private parties where the litigation involves a crown prerogative or raises any question of public policy on which the executive may have a view it wishes to bring to the attention of the court. However, this is not the case here: there is no prerogative or public policy question involved in the present petition.

32. In sum, the Second Respondent did not meet the standard test for joinder. In particular, he had no identifiable stake, legal interest, or duty to assist the court in these proceedings. Moreover, he did not demonstrate how the outcome of the present proceedings will affect him or the Government.

33. We further respectfully submit that joinder of the Second Respondent contravenes the accepted principle that a plaintiff is dominus litis, and can sue whomever he or she thinks he or she will obtain relief from; and that a plaintiff cannot be forced to sue somebody whom he or she has not chosen to sue: Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologists Board & 6 others v Attorney General & 4 others.

34. In Fawehinmi v Nigerian Bar Association (No. 1), it was held that a person against whom the plaintiff has no cause of action and against whom he has made no claim cannot be joined as a co-defendant and/or made a party to the action. The Petitioners in the present proceedings have no cause of action against the Second Respondent or the Government (which he represents in civil proceedings). On this basis alone, he ought not to have been joined as a respondent in these proceedings.

35. We are, of course, aware that the overriding consideration is whether it was in the interests of justice for a party to intervene in the litigation. However, we respectfully submit that the Second Respondent has been improperly enjoined to these proceedings and there are, in the circumstances outlined above, no interests of justice to be served by allowing the Second Respondent – whose constitutionally mandated function is to act as chief legal adviser to the Government and to represent the Government in civil proceedings to which it is a party – to participate in these private proceedings.

36. Accordingly, we urge this Court to strike out the name of the Second Respondent pursuant to Order V, rule 4(a) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016.

The Attorney-General as an ‘interested party’

37. While we strongly urge the Court to strike out the name of the Second Respondent for misjoinder, we are of the view that it may be possible for the Second Respondent to participate as an ‘interested party’ subject to his satisfying the test for such joinder. In this context, the Kenyan Supreme Court has provided guidance on the nature and participation of the Attorney-General in proceedings involving electoral petitions before a superior Court of equivalent standing such as the Constitutional Court of Zambia. We urge the Court to take consideration of the Kenyan Supreme Court’s position on the matter.

38. In Odinga I and II, the Attorney-General of Kenya applied and was joined to the proceedings but only as amicus curiae. In its decision to enjoin the Attorney-General following his application to join the proceedings as amicus curiae in Odinga I, the Supreme Court stated that:

(14) [T]he Attorney-General, is the custodian of the legal instruments of the Executive Branch, and the recognised advisor of the State in matters of public interest. Secondly, and interlinked with the foregoing point, the said office is the main player in the performance of the Executive’s role vis-a-vis the operationalization of the Constitution. Thirdly, the Constitution expressly provides that, in certain instances, the Attorney-General may obtain the Court’s permission to appear as amicus. Fourthly, the Court, which is the custodian of rules of validity, propriety and fair play under the Constitution and the law, remains in charge, in regulating such precise role as the Attorney-General may play if admitted as amicus curiae’ (our emphasis).

39. However, in Odinga II, although the Supreme Court of Kenya also enjoined the Attorney-General as amicus curiae following his application, it was guarded in doing so and did not grant the Attorney-General audience on all the issues on which he had sought audience because he had appeared as a petitioner before the same Court in a previous related case:

‘(15) While we appreciate that the Attorney General will enrich the material placed before this Court, on issues of law, relevant in determining the Petition, we find ourselves guarded against granting the Attorney General leave to address all the issues proposed and for good reason.

[16] The Attorney General was the 4th Respondent in the Maina Kiai case and opposed that Petition in various respects. He has however listed the issue: what was the effect of the jurisprudence enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of IEBC- vs- Maina Kiai & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017) on how IEBC conducted the presidential election in issue? as one of the proposed questions to be addressed in the amicus brief. We recognize that instances such as, call for intervention and guidance by Courts, and this Court in particular, while enforcing the provisions of Article 156(5) of the Constitution and Section 7(1) and (2) of the Office of the Attorney General Act, 2012. Such an intervention is indeed permissible under Section 7(2) (b) of the Office of the Attorney General Act. Permitting the Attorney General to address us on this issue, would, with respect, be allowing the Attorney General to re-litigate issues in a matter to which he was an active party to the adversarial proceedings and in which he preferred a clear position for or against a party which is also before this Court, directly or by association. This bears the risk of prejudicing the Party (ies) concerned negating the core principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.’

40. In the event this Court considers enjoining the Second Respondent to these proceedings as amicus curiae, we urge the Court to do so on the basis that his participation be confined to issues which had not arisen previously in the Pule and Kapalasa cases in which he participated as respondent.

41. Nevertheless, we reiterate our position that the Second Respondent has been improperly enjoined, and his name should be struck out from these proceedings in accordance with Order V, rule 4(a) of the Constitutional Court Rules, because justice must not only be done but be seen to be done by this Court.

Discretion of the Court

42. It is trite that the exercise of the Court’s discretion, including that in terms of Order V Rules 4(b) and 6, is not absolute (as the Attorney-General incorrectly suggests): it is constrained by, inter alia, the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, legislation, precedent, etc.

43. Regarding the exercise of judicial discretion in applications for joinder, the High Court of Kenya has observed as follows:

Regarding the exercise of the court’s discretion on its own motion in applications of this nature, like all discretions, it must be exercised judiciously based on sound principles.[2] Importantly, the main purpose of joining parties is to enable the court to deal with matter brought before it and to avoid multiplicity of suits. It is a fundamental consideration that before a person can be joined as party, it must be established that the party has an interest in the case. In addition, it must be clearly demonstrated that the orders sought in the suit would directly and legally affect the party seeking to be enjoined.

C. The cause of action and issues in these proceedings are not res judicata

44. Res judicata as applied in common law jurisdictions covers several distinct legal principles. Key amongst these principles is ‘cause of action estoppel’ and ‘issue estoppel’. Broadly speaking, a plea or defence based on cause of action estoppel, if accepted, prevents a party pursuing a claim which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties (or their privies ). Conversely, a plea or defence of issue estoppel, if successful, prevents a party in proceedings from contradicting a finding of fact or law that has already been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties (or their privies), provided that the determination was central to the decision in those proceedings.
45. The classic distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel was restated in Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc as follows:
‘Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in earlier proceedings, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter. In such a case the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged, such as to justify setting aside the earlier judgment. The discovery of new factual matter which could not have been found out by reasonable diligence for use in the earlier proceedings does not, according to the law of England, permit the latter to be reopened.
Issue estoppel may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant one of the parties seeks to re-open that issue’ (our emphasis).
46. The foregoing is also the position under Zambian law: see, e.g., Zambia Textiles Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kalemba and Others; and Mpongwe Farms Ltd v Dar Farms and Transport Ltd. See also Molaudzi v S.

47. In brief, the requirements for res judicata are:

(a) there must be a previous judgment by a competent court

(b) between the same parties

(c) based on the same cause of action; and

(d) with respect to the same subject-matter (our emphasis).

See, e.g., Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others.

48. The cause of action and issues in these proceedings are not identical to those in Pule. Moreover, the parties to these proceedings are not the same as the parties in Pule. Neither the Petitioners nor the First Respondent were parties to Pule. Although the Second Respondent was a party to Pule, this is not sufficient for res judicata to apply: the doctrine will not apply where one of the parties is different.

49. It is also notable that Article 52(4) of the Constitution, on the basis of which the Petitioners have brought the present proceedings, was not invoked in Pule.

50. In our considered view, the cause of action in these proceedings arose when the First Respondent filed his nomination paper and supporting affidavit, pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Constitution, for election to the office of President. Conversely, in Pule, there was no live controversy between the parties: The Petitioners had presented a hypothetical question (which the Court incorrectly, we respectfully submit, reformulated) for determination by the Court and, importantly, the First Respondent had not, at that time, declared his intention to stand for re-election as President by filing the prescribed declaration.

51. The core issue in these proceedings concerns the alleged contravention of Articles 52(1) and 106(3) of the Constitution by the First Respondent, having been twice elected and held office as President, through the act of filing his nomination paper supported by an affidavit stating that he is qualified for nomination as candidate for President in the election scheduled for 12 August 2021.

52. Moreover, as we respectfully submit below, we believe Pule (and, by extension, Kapalasa & Another v Attorney-General ) was incorrectly decided and should be reconsidered by this Court.

53. In Masara v Tsepong (Pty) Ltd, the Lesotho Court of Appeal stated that the defence of res judicata requires that the party relying on the plea or defence must establish that the present case and the previous case are based on the same set of facts that have been finalised by a competent court or tribunal by the same parties on the merits of the same cause of action. The Second Respondent has failed to discharge this burden. Other than make references to the Pule and Kapalasa cases, the Second Respondent has not demonstrated that the cause of action, issues or parties in the present proceedings are the same as those in Pule (or Kapalasa).

54. It should also be noted that comparative constitutional jurisprudence indicates that the doctrine of res judicata should not be rigidly applied. In Bafokeng Tribe v Impala Platinum Ltd and Others, it was been held that the principle of res judicata ‘must be carefully delineated and demarcated to prevent hardship and actual injustice to the parties.’ In Amtin Capital Inc v Appliance Recycling Centres of America, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the purpose of the principle is to balance the public interest in finality of litigation with the public interest of ensuring a just result on the merits.

55. Furthermore, as comparative jurisprudence shows, the doctrine is not absolute. For example, in Molaudzi, the South African Constitutional Court held that the Court could depart from the doctrine of res judicata where the case at hand demonstrated ‘exceptional circumstances that cry out for flexibility on the part of the Court’ and the interests of justice require the relaxation of the legal principle.

56. We respectfully submit that the plea of res judicata does not apply in these proceedings and accordingly urge the Court to dismiss it.

D. The present Petition does not constitute an abuse of process by the Petitioners

57. In his Combined Answer, the Second Respondent alleges that these proceedings constitute an abuse of proceedings by the Petitioners ‘as they seek to re-litigate the eligibility of His Excellency President Edgar Chagwa Lungu to stand for the position of President in the General Elections set for 12th August 2021’ because ‘the eligibility of the current Republican President, His Excellency Edgar Chagwa Lungu, to stand in the forthcoming general elections has already been determined by this Honourable Court under cause numbers 2017/CCZ/004 (Judgment No. 60 of 2018), 2021/CCZ/0011 and 2021/CCZ/0014, respectively’ (see Combined Answer, paras 2 and 8). The First Respondent makes a similar assertion in his Answer. This contention is plainly incorrect and misguided for the reasons set out below.

The standard for abuse of process

58. Abuse of process refers to the improper use of a legal procedure for a malicious or perverse reason. Case law indicates that ‘purpose’ or ‘motive’ of the litigation are relevant considerations in determining whether there is an abuse of process. In Phillips v Botha, the Supreme Court of South Africa endorsed he definition of ‘abuse of process’ from the Australian case of Varawa v Howard Smith Co Ltd:

‘The term “abuse of process” connotes that the process is employed for some purpose other than the attainment of the claim in the action. If the proceedings are merely a stalking-horse to coerce the defendant in some way entirely outside the ambit of the legal claim upon which the Court is asked to adjudicate they are regarded as an abuse for this purpose’ (our emphasis).

59. In Beinash v Wixley, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that ‘an abuse of process takes place where the procedures permitted by the rules of the Court to facilitate the pursuit of the truth are used for a purpose extraneous to that objective’ (our emphasis).

60. The above statement was cited with approval by the South African Constitutional Court in Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister in the Presidency.

61. More recently, in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation & Others, the South African Constitutional Court reiterated that:
‘Abuse of process concerns are motivated by the need to protect the “integrity of the adjudicative functions of courts,” doing so ensures that procedures permitted by the rules of the Court are not used for a purpose extraneous to the truth-seeking objective inherent to the judicial process’ (our emphasis).

62. We respectfully submit that there is no abuse of process by the Petitioners as contended by the Second Respondent for the following reasons.

(a) First, the Petitioners are entitled in terms of Articles 2 and 52(4) of the Constitution to bring this Petition. Under Article 2, the Petitioners have the right and duty to defend the Constitution. By bringing this Petition, the Petitioners are merely exercising their constitutional right and complying with their constitutional duty to defend the Constitution.

(b) Secondly, the Petition alleges a contravention by the First Respondent of the Constitution, in particular Articles 52(1) and 106(3) thereof. As we have argued in Section C above, these issues have never been determined by this Court (that is, the cause of action and issues in these proceedings are not res judicata).

(c) Finally, the Second Respondent has not demonstrated in what respect these proceedings are actuated by improper motive or extraneous considerations on the part of the Petitioners.

Abuse of process by the Second Respondent

63. Conversely, it is in fact the Second Respondent whose intervention in these private proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. As we have argued in section C above, the Second Respondent’s joinder application disclosed no identifiable stake, legal interest or duty to assist the Court and he has been improperly enjoined to these proceedings.

64. It is also plain from the Second Respondent’s Combined Answer that he is not advancing the public interest but rather the interests of the First Respondent who is a party to these proceedings in his private capacity (not as the current President of the Republic).

65. We respectfully submit that the Second Respondent participation in these private proceeding is clearly a meritless attempt to undermine the role of this Court as prescribed in Article 128 of the Constitution, to prevent the Petitioners from lawfully exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and to prevent a determination on the merits of issues that have never been determined (or at least determined in clear and definitive terms) by this Court.

66. Furthermore, the Second Respondent’s participation in these proceedings appears to form a pattern of conduct where he has sought to intervene in any proceedings in which the First Respondent’s interests as a private individual are implicated. The Second Respondent’s conduct constitutes a breach of his constitutional mandate as set out in Article 177 of the Constitution and accordingly an abuse of process. Given this pattern of conduct and to preserve the constitutional integrity of the office of the Attorney-General, it is important that this Court expresses its displeasure by issuing an appropriate personal costs order against him.

67. As a public servant who, in terms of Article 177(5)(c) of the Constitution, is only mandated to represent the Government in civil proceedings to which it is a party, the Second Respondent cannot use public resources to represent individuals pursuing personal political interests in their private capacities which in seeking presidential office, candidates do. Accordingly, his participation in these proceedings as a ‘respondent’ constitutes an abuse of office and abuse of process and we urge the Court to express its displeasure by making an adverse costs order personally against the Second Respondent.

E. The Court should reconsider the Pule case as it is incorrect, unsound and has created complexity and controversy rather than clarity regarding the meaning of Article 106(3) of the Constitution

68. We respectfully submit that Pule was incorrectly decided and that rather than provide clarity concerning the meaning of Article 106(3) it has created complexity and controversy as shown, for example, by the Kapalasa case. In our respectful view, the purpose of the interpretive mandate of the Constitutional Court is to provide clear guidance on the meaning of constitutional provisions.

69. We believe the Court misdirected itself on the facts and the law in Pule for the following reasons:

Reformulating the question presented by the Applicants

(a) The Applicants sought determination of the following questions:

(i) Whether His Excellency President Edgar Chagwa Lungu will have served two full terms for purposes of Article 106(3) of the Constitution of Zambia at the expiry of his current term.
(ii) Whether, as a matter of the Constitutional law of the Republic of Zambia, His Excellency President Edgar Chagwa Lungu is eligible for election as President for another 5 year term following his current term of office which commenced on 13th September 2016.

(b) However, the Court reformulated the first question as follows:

Whether in terms of Article 106(3) and (6), a presidential term of office that ran from 25th January, 2015 to 13th September, 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes can or should be considered as a full term?

(c) In reformulating the question without affording the parties an opportunity to make submissions thereon and basing its decision on the question thus reframed, the Court ignored the accepted principle that a court should restrict its decision to the questions presented by the parties. In Chama and Others v National Pension Scheme Authority and Others, the Supreme Court reiterated that a court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties to a matter before it. It recalled its caution in Atlantic Bakery Ltd v Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd:

‘[A] court should confine its decision to the questions raised in the pleadings … Litigation is for the parties, not the court. The court has no business extending the boundaries of litigation beyond the scope defined by the parties in their pleadings. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties’ (our emphasis).

(d) We respectfully submit that the Court erred by extending the scope of the issues before it through reformulating the question presented by the Applicants, without affording the parties to make submissions on the Court’s intentions and on the question so reframed, and then basing its answer on the reformulated question. Put differently, the Court overstepped its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court should reconsider its decision.

Incorrect approach to interpretation of Article 106(3) in Pule

(a) In Pule, this Court reiterated its view that ‘the starting point in interpreting the constitutional provisions in this matter is the literal rule of interpretation’ and that ‘only where this results in an absurd or ambiguous meaning’ would it ‘resort to the purposive approach’ (our emphasis).

(b) The Court went on to state as follows:

‘[W]hen the Constitution is read holistically, we believe, the intention of the Legislature was that when a person takes over the unexpired term of a previous president, that person should be able to serve a substantial part of the unexpired term in order for such a term to be considered as a full term’ (our emphasis).’

(c) While the Court briefly outlined the historical background of the country’s constitutional development and reviewed pertinent provisions concerning presidential limits (pages 62-73 of the Pule judgment), it did not review any of the pre-enactment background material which constitute the historical underpinnings of Article 106(3), including earlier drafts, the reports of the various national constitutional review commissions, technical committees and other relevant bodies.

(d) The Court made several references to the ‘intention of the legislature.’ This suggests that the interpretation of Article 106(3) of the Constitution advanced by this Court was based on a literal approach (meant to ascertain the ‘intention of the legislature’), which as we have stated above, is not the correct approach to interpreting a supreme constitution.

(e) In our respectful view, the Court’s approach was incorrect and led to an interpretation of Article 106(3) that is inconsistent with its purpose as well as the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, notably democracy, constitutionalism, good governance, and sovereignty of the people.

(f) A ‘purposive’ interpretation of Article 106(3) focusing on the purpose of Article 106(3), rather than the ‘intention of the legislature’, and employing the complementary sources of constitutional interpretation we have outlined above (including the historical underpinnings of the provision) in fact indicates that the purpose of Article 106(3) is to prevent ‘oppressive rule’ or rule in perpetuity by ensuring that a person did not serve more than two terms of an aggregate period not exceeding 10 years beginning from the date when they first assumed the office of President.

(g) As the comparative constitutional jurisprudence which we have referred to in Section A of this Brief shows, the background material (travaux préparatoires) is an important part of the constitutional context and a core component of the purposive approach to constitutional interpretation. Appropriate review of this background material would have assisted the Court to understand the rationale for term limitations in our Constitution and the purpose of Article 106(3), in particular.

The legal fiction of ‘two constitutional regimes’

(a) In Pule, the Court made several references to the notion of ‘two constitutional regimes’ (see pages 68 and 81-83 of the judgment). It seems to us that this notion was pivotal to the Court’s conclusion that:

‘It therefore, follows that in the current case, the term served which sits astride the pre and post 2016 constitutional amendments and having looked at the intention of the Legislature as we have done, and the holistic approach we have taken in interpreting Article 106 of the Constitution in its entirety, our answer to the question that we rephrased is that the Presidential term of office that ran from 25th January, 2015 to 13th September, 2016and straddled two constitutional regimes cannot be considered as a full term.’

(b) We respectfully submit that the notion that the first term of office served by the incumbent president ‘straddled two constitutional regimes’ and thus required some form of transitional wording is legally fictitious and untenable. It is based, with respect, on an insufficient or incorrect understanding of the means of constitutional change and their implications.

(c) There are two main means of constitutional change: ‘replacement’ and ‘amendment.’ These have different constitutional implications. ‘Replacement’ formally displaces an existing constitution. Importantly, replacement changes the basic structure of the state and political regime whereas amendment modifies procedural details and policy issues in the constitution.

(d) In the constitutional history of Zambia, only two Constitutions – the Independence Constitution of 1964 and the ‘One-Party State’ Constitution of 1973 – have ever been replaced. The Constitution of 1991 (which introduced presidential term limits) has merely been amended, in 1996 and 2016. Neither the 1996 nor 2016 amendment has changed the basic structure of the state and political system. The 1991 Constitution remains the Constitution applicable in Zambia (albeit with amendments). It is therefore incorrect to speak of ‘two constitutional regimes.’

(e) We respectfully submit that the Court’s conclusion that ‘[t]he Presidential term of office that ran from 25th January, 2015 to 13th September, 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes cannot be considered as a full term’ is based on the erroneous assumption that there were ‘two constitutional regimes’ under consideration is incorrect and should be revisited.

(f) It should be noted that the three-year rule (in Article 106(6) of the Constitution applies only in situations where: (i) the office of President falls vacant and the vice-president automatically takes over; and (ii) when an election is held because the vice-president who should take over to serve the remainder of the president’s term is their unwilling or unable to do so. This rule did not apply in 2015 (pre-constitutional amendment) when the First Respondent was first elected to the office of President. Importantly, the First Respondent did not assume the presidency because he was vice-president or as a result of an election held because the then vice-president could not, for any reason, assume the office of President.

(g) The Pule decision in effect retroactively applies Article 106(3) in contravention of the principle that, unless expressly stated to be so, legislation does not apply retroactively or retrospectively. In this regard, it is important to underscore that Article 106(6) applies as from the date the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016 came into effect, namely 5 January 2016 and has no bearing on the First Respondent’s first term of office.

(h) In effect, the Pule decision improperly ‘resets’ the clock in favour of the First Respondent and, in doing so, undermines the purpose of Article 106(3) and the constitutional values of democracy, constitutionalism and good governance, and for this reason also, should be reconsidered.

The power of the Court to reverse its previous decisions

70. The ‘doctrine of precedent’ requires that a legal principle that has been established by a superior court should be followed in other similar cases by that court and other courts.

71. Under Article 125(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is bound by its decisions but may reconsider them ‘in the interests of justice and development of jurisprudence.’ There is no equivalent provision in relation to this Court (the Constitutional Court). But since, according to Article 121, the Supreme Court and this Court rank equivalently, the question is whether Article 125(3) applies mutatis mutandis to this Court. We submit that this provision must apply to this Court’s exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in terms of Article 128(1)(d), its judicial review and interpretive jurisdiction and as a matter of public law when its decisions reveal jurisdictional errors of law on the face of the record as was the case in Hichilema and Another v Lungu and Others. That decision demonstrates that this Court can reconsider and reverse its own decisions.

72. Comparative constitutional jurisprudence from, inter alia, India, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa, indicates that a court of final jurisdiction (such as this Court) may, in appropriate circumstances, reconsider and reverse its earlier decision.

73. In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court (or High Court) can be reviewed by means of a review petition. Even after dismissal of a review petition, the Supreme Court may consider a ‘curative’ to prevent abuse of its process and to a cure gross miscarriage of justice. In the United States, the Supreme Court will reconsider its previous decisions only ‘for compelling reasons’ In Cassel & Co Ltd v Broome (No. 2), the court set aside its earlier order for costs because it had not afforded the parties to address it on the issue of the award of costs. In Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another, the Constitutional Court of South Africa stated that a court of final jurisdiction may depart from precedent only if it is convinced that the previous decision was ‘clearly wrong.’ In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, ex parte Pinochet (‘Pinochet’), the House of Lords held that it had inherent and unfettered jurisdiction in appropriate cases to rescind or vary an earlier of the House.

74. In Chibote Ltd and Others v Meridien Biao Bank (Zambia) Ltd (In Liquidation), the Supreme Court cited Pinochet, stating that it agreed with the House of Lords on the unfettered inherent jurisdiction of the court. In Finsbury Investments and Another v Ventriglia and Another, the Supreme Court stated that it could reopen its final decision or rescind or vary such decision in exceptional circumstances and where it is necessary to do so in order to avoid a real injustice. We respectfully submit that not revisiting the Pule case would be a ‘real injustice’ to the Zambian people.

75. We also note that while the Court stated (in Pule) that it would address the two questions posed by the Applicants ‘in the order in which they (were) presented,’ it did not address the second question at all, stating that ‘the second question (had) become otiose.’ In view, this stance by the Court has, to a significant degree, contributed to the lack of clarity concerning the meaning of and continuing controversy concerning the true import of Article 106(3) of the Constitution.

76. As we have stated above, our considered view is that Pule was. We therefore respectfully urge this Court to reconsider that decision, in particular its interpretation of Article 106(3) of the Constitution.

F. By filing his nomination for election as President in the election scheduled for 12 August 2021, in circumstances where he has twice been elected to and held the office of President of the Republic, the First Respondent has contravened Article 52(1) of the Constitution and/or is not eligible for election as President under Article 106(3) of the Constitution

Introduction

77. In making the submissions in this section, we wish to respectfully remind the Court that its ‘authority derives from the people of Zambia and shall be exercised in a just manner and such exercise shall promote accountability’ and that, in exercise of its authority, this Court has a duty to adhere to the principles set out in Article 118(2) of the Constitution, in particular to do justice to all without discrimination and to promote the values and principles of the Constitution.

78. The very essence of the judicial authority of Constitutional Courts deriving authority from the sovereignty of the people is to protect constitutional democracy as the sovereign will of the people expressed in such Constitutions. Constitutional Courts are created and exist to protect the people by safeguarding their Constitution.

79. Therefore, the protection of the sovereignty of the people and the safeguarding of their democracy as enshrined in the Constitution, is a sacrosanct judicial duty of this Court.

The transcendental question

80. The Petition before this court involves a transcendental question of constitutional law arising under Article 106(3) of the Constitution (as amended), namely whether the First Respondent, having twice held office as President of the Republic, is eligible to stand for election as President in the 12 August 2021 elections.

81. The transcendental constitutional question that this Court is petitioned to determine arises from the combined application of Articles 52 and 106 of the Constitution that enshrine constitutional democracy as the sovereign will of the people by pre-empting the immediate or creeping advent of authoritarianism that is antithetical to constitutional democracy. As a safeguard against this eventuality, Article 52(4) of the Constitution empowers ‘any person’ to challenge the nomination of a candidate for election as President, Member of Parliament or councillor.

82. On 17 May 2021, the First Respondent, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, filed his nomination to be a presidential candidate in the general elections scheduled for 12 August 2021, together with an affidavit stating that he is qualified for such nomination. The reference to Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu is made with respect to his nomination as a candidate in the stated forthcoming general election, which distinguishes the candidate from the incumbent President Edgar Chagwa Lungu.

83. Acting on the basis of Article 52(2), a returning officer of the Electoral Commission of Zambia did not duly reject the nomination papers of the First Respondent, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, contrary to the proviso that if the candidate does not meet the qualifications or procedural requirements specified for election to that office, their nomination paper must be duly rejected. The failure of the returning officer to reject the First Respondent’s nomination paper was a dereliction of duty amounting to an illegal act or omission under Article 1(2) of the Constitution.

84. The qualifications for election to the office of the President as referred to in Article 52(1) are clearly specified in Articles 106(3) of the Constitution. As stated above, Article 106(3) stipulates that ‘[a] person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President’ (our emphasis).

85. It is common knowledge that the First Respondent has twice held office as President. He first held office as President when he was elected and sworn in, in 2015 and then in 2016. Consequently, his nomination violates Article 106(3) and results in an unacceptable state of constitutional affairs that the sovereign will of the people of Zambia so clearly prohibited, against the background of their experience of President Kenneth Kaunda’s 27 years in office which ended in 1991, to safeguard constitutional democracy. The originality of the 1991 Constitution, which continues as amended in 1996 and 2016 is effective: since then, no other Zambian President has held office more than twice. This Court should not reverse this historical constitutional trend.

86. For these reasons, the Petitioners have moved this Court, bearing in mind the solemn judicial responsibility of the Court to safeguard constitutional democracy as a hallmark of the sovereignty of the people from which this Court derives its authority and legitimacy.

87. It is worth recalling that:

(a) Article 1(2) of the Constitution makes clear that ‘[a]n act or omission that contravenes the Constitution is illegal.’

(b) Article 2 of the Constitution enshrines the right and duty of ‘every person’ to defend the Constitution and ‘to resist or prevent a person from overthrowing, suspending or illegally abrogating’ the Constitution.

Contextual background of Article 106

88. We reiterate that a purposive interpretation of Article 106(3) entails a focus on its purpose and the context of the provision, which including its historical underpinnings, is essential to ascertaining the purpose of the provision.

89. The Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States (US) Constitution (Amendment XXII) informed the formulation of Article 106. It is therefore instructive and in keeping with a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation to briefly review the background to the Twenty-Second Amendment.

90. The Twenty-Second Amendment has two aspects. First it restricts only the re-election of an already twice-elected President, without limiting the length of time, consecutively or cumulatively, that a person may serve as President, and secondly, it limits to one election to the office of the President for any person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected.

91. The ‘eligibility’ limitations placed on ‘successor’ presidents was a feature of the 1991 Constitution of Zambia prior to its amendment in 2016. Article 106(3) separated out the limitation to the number of times (that is, twice) that a person holds the office of the president from the term of years of presidential service (that is, four in the US and five in Zambia, as reflected in Article106(1)). In this way, Article 106 avoided the confusion inherent in the Twenty-Second Amendment regarding the limitation of being elected twice on the one hand, and a term of presidential service based on an unexpired term, on the other, on which this Court erroneously based its decision in Pule.

92. How the 2016 Amendment to the Constitution got to the position reflected in Article 106(3) is evident in how the Twenty-Second Amendment came about in the US as well as the inherent ambiguity it carried by virtue of the compromise that was reached in its language.

Brief historical overview of the Twenty-Second Amendment

93. President George Washington’s disinclination to run for a third term reinforced by Thomas Jefferson and others, had established a precedent in the US in 1796 in retiring from Presidential office after his second term. President Washington’s precedent had become, by universal concurrence, a time-honoured convention and part of the republican system of government in the US. The convention deemed that any departure from it would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to the free institutions of the US. The same risk is inherent in the First Respondent’s quest to thrice hold the office of President of Zambia and the lesson of the Twenty-Second Amendment must be heeded by this Court.

94. Relatively little attention was paid to the two-term issue in the US until President Ulysses Grant was re-elected in 1872 and the possibility of his running again in 1876 was raised. Opposition grew to President Grant’s presidential service beyond two terms through a series of resolutions that were passed by the Republican Conventions and several states in 1875, including the ‘Springer resolution’ passed by the House of Representatives by a 234 to 18 vote.

95. However, the two-term issue received greater attention with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms of service against a convention of the constitutional limitation of presidential service. As Vice President, Roosevelt had served almost a full term after President William McKinely’s assassination in 1901 and he was re-elected in 1940 and 1944, thereby becoming the first US President to be elected to third and fourth terms.

96. In response to his re-election in 1940, resolutions were passed between 1940 and 1943 by eight state legislatures calling for presidential term limits, while the Republican National Convention in 1940 sought a constitutional amendment to enforce a two-term limit ‘to insure against the overthrow of our American system of government.’

97. These developments prompted the House Judiciary Chairman, Earl C. Michener, and Speaker of the House, Joseph Martin, to introduce, on 3 January 1947, a presidential term limit amendment by means of a House Joint Resolution 27 (H.J. Res. 27) and House Judiciary Committee (136 H.J. Res. 27) which, as originally written, specified that:

‘No person shall be chosen or serve as President of the United States for any term, or be eligible to hold the office of President during any term, if such person shall have heretofore served as President during the whole or any part of each of any two separate terms.’

98. This proposal was modified by the House Judiciary Committee (H.J. Res. 27) on 5 February 1947 as follows:

‘Any person who has served as President of the United States during all, or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of President.’

99. The House Judiciary Committee’s language does not appear to have altered the original substantive content of the proposal: under each proposal, regardless of whether a President was elected or assumed the Office through some other means, his or her service was limited to a maximum of two terms. Departing from this posture however, the Senate Judiciary Committee subsequently modified this provision to provide that:

‘A person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, on three hundred and sixty-five calendar days or more in each of two terms shall not be eligible to hold the office of President, or to act as President, for any part of another term.’

100. It should be noted that up to that point, the evolution of the Twenty-Second Amendment had only addressed limits to the terms of presidential service. This changed from 10 March 1947 when a Democratic Senator, Warren Magnuson, offered a straightforward amendment to the proposal of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating as follows:

‘No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.’

101. We respectfully submit that it was Senator Magnuson’s amendment on which Article 106(3) of the Zambian Constitution is based. The similarity in language is striking, except that Article 106(3) substitutes the word ‘elected’ with ‘held office.’ Magnuson explained that the language in his proposal, unlike the ‘complicated legal language’ of the Committee version, ‘could be easily understood by everyone, and … would not involve complicated legal questions.’ In Senator Magnuson’s view, his proposal focused on what was ‘really intended to be reached’ – namely preventing a President from ‘perpetuating himself in office’. Article 106(3) must be understood in the same way.

102. Senator Magnuson’s position was echoed and received support from Senator Joseph Tydings whose words are instructive in understanding the content and purpose of Article 106(3):

‘What we are trying to do is to stop any man from being elected President more than twice …. But under the committee amendment a man could be prohibited from being elected President more than once, provided that he had served more than 1 year prior to the time he was elected President….’

103. In the event, a compromise was reached between Senator Tydings and others which would eventually become the Twenty-Second Amendment.

104. In adopting the Twenty-Second Amendment, the US Congress focused on elections by prohibiting only re-election of an already twice-elected President. Pointedly, the evidence concerning the circumstances of the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment shows that most of the members of Congress who discussed it held the view that it was designed to prevent an individual (like the First Respondent in these proceedings) from becoming entrenched in the presidency, even if supported by the electorate. Correctly understood, this concern is alive in these proceedings and it counters the Second Respondent’s claims regarding the perceived popularity of the First Respondent.

105. For these reasons and because of the concerns expressed in the lead up to the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment, the adopted text specifies that:

‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.’

106. It is noteworthy that the Twenty-Second Amendment has never been the subject of litigation. This makes the question for this Court to determine the applicability of the provisions of Article 106(3) a transcendental one inheriting as it does the spirit and content of the Twenty-Second Amendment but with more stringent prohibitions.

107. There are two aspects to understanding the text of the Twenty-Second Amendment. First, it restricts only the re-election of an already twice-elected President, such as the First Respondent (Edgar Chagwa Lungu), without limiting the length of time, consecutively or cumulatively, that a person may serve as President, and secondly, it limits to one election to the office of President for any person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected.

108. The difference with Article 106(3) is that while the first limb of the Twenty-Second Amendment restricts only the re-election of an already twice-elected President, Article 106(3) makes ineligible for election as President any person who has twice held office as President whether elected or not, and regardless of however such a person became President, provided he or she has twice held office as President.

109. As Senator Tydings explained, ‘what we are trying to do is to stop any man from being elected President more than twice.’ Senator Magnuson provided the rationale that his proposal focused on what was ‘really intended to be reached’, namely preventing a President from ‘perpetuating himself in office.’

110. We submit that descending from the language and concerns behind the Twenty-Second Amendment, both the content and historical affirmation of Article 106(3) forbids the First Respondent from being elected President more than twice. This is a different issue to that decided, albeit erroneously, in Pule and Kapalasa.

111. The second limb of the Twenty-Second Amendment limits to one election to the office of the President for any person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected. This provision relates to a term of presidential service for a President who held office of the President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected. A similar provision, no doubt derived from the Twenty-Second Amendment, was contained in the 1991 Constitution as amended by Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 18 of 1996 (prior to the 2016 Amendment).

112. However, the 2016 Constitutional amendment made a fundamental and significant difference to the completion of years of terms of service to which some other person was elected considering:

(a) The introduction of a running mate to the President who is constitutionally positioned to succeed the untimely departure of an incumbent President under Article 106(5), which was not the case before the 2016 constitutional amendment. Therefore, the same principle governs the position of the Vice-President in Article 111(3) that a person who has twice held the office of Vice-President shall not be selected as a running mate. Under this provision, for example, having twice held the office of Vice-President, the Republican Vice-President, Inonge Wina, would not have been eligible to be selected as running mate. Under Article 266, ‘running mate’ means a person who is selected by a presidential candidate to stand with the presidential candidate in a presidential election so that the person becomes the Vice-President if that presidential candidate is elected as President; ‘presidential election’ means an election to the office of President and includes the election of a Vice-President as a running mate to the President.

(b) Unlike the Twenty-Second Amendment which does not establish a term of years of presidential service, the term of office of a President remains five years which shall run concurrently with that of Parliament.

(c) However, and this is the difference brought about by the 2016 constitutional amendment, presidential terms of service are contingent upon the prohibition of having twice held office under Article 106(3), which makes no mention of serving an unexpired term and stands on its own.

(d) That the application of the restriction on twice having held office to both the President and Vice-President is a fundamental principle of the basic structure of the Constitution serves as a check and limitation on the number of times that a President and Vice-President can assume their offices, respectively. An interpretation to the contrary alters this basic structure which is balanced in terms of the sovereign will of the people regarding executive, legislative and judicial authority. The Court must not bend the sovereign will of the people by which they adopted and gave themselves the Constitution.

(e) The issue of succession and unexpired terms are addressed in other provisions of Article 106. Under Article 106(5)(a), when a vacancy occurs in the office of the President, the Vice-President assumes the office of President immediately, this in view of the introduction of a Vice-Presidential running mate in Article 110(1). This means, for example, that Vice-President Inonge Wina would assume the presidency immediately if a vacancy were to occur in the office of President.

(f) Article 106(5)(a) is clearly inapplicable to the First Respondent as he did not ascend to the presidency either as Vice-President or as a running mate contemplated by the 2016 constitutional amendment. The principle of a running mate who would become president when a vacancy occurred in the office of President did not exist before the 2016 constitutional amendment. It was introduced in the 2016 constitutional amendment to resolve the perennial problem of holding presidential by-elections when a vacancy occurred in the office of President.

(g) An unexpired term under the Constitution as amended is addressed by Article 106(5)(b) under which, if the Vice-President is unable for some reason to assume the office of President, a presidential by-election must be held under Article 105(8)(b). However, we submit that in the context of the introduction of a Vice-President as a running mate who would assume the presidency immediately in the event of a vacancy under Article 106(5)(a), the reference to the Vice-President who is unable for a reason to assume the office of President in Article 106(5)(b) is to a Vice-President who was a running mate under Article 110(1) and elected together with the President and who would have assumed office immediately. In that event, an election to the office of President is constitutionally justifiable and the provisions on the unexpired term of presidential service are applicable, including construing Article 106(3) in that respect as stipulated in Article 106(6)(a) and (b).

113. We respectfully submit that these provisions are inapplicable to construing the First Respondent’s presidential service of an unexpired term because he was neither a Vice-President nor a running mate who immediately assumed the office of President on here being a vacancy in that office following the death of President Michael Sata. Then there was not a running mate as Vice-President who was unable for a reason to assume the office of President. In any event, Article 106(5)(b) is imperative that an ensuing presidential election is subject to the requirement that the Speaker of the National Assembly shall perform executive functions pending elections. That was not the case either.

114. Consequently, how the First Respondent became President and whatever his term of presidential service then was is immaterial to Article 106(3) and cannot be construed correctly with respect to Article 106(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution (as amended). What matters is that it is indisputable that he has twice held office as President. Having held office twice and serving a presidential term are not the same thing legally and do not have the same legal significance as our analysis above has shown.

115. The First Respondent and this Court should respect the manner in which the First Respondent became President in 2015 under the 1991 Constitution as amended in 1996, and the modification of those terms, of which the First Respondent and this Court ought to have been aware, when the First Respondent signed into law the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016 on 5 January 2016 and swore to defend the Constitution (as amended) upon being elected for the second time in the same year (2016).

The purpose of Article 106(3) of the Constitution

116. We submit that it is evident from the history of the Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution which informed the content of Article 106(3) of the Constitution of Zambia and from the country’s own constitutional history reflected in the reports of the various constitutional review commissions and other bodies which this Court, with respect, did not seem to consider or give due weight to in Pule, that the purpose of Article 106(3) is to safeguard democracy and constitutionalism by preventing the possibility of the emergence of ‘dictatorial’ or tyrannical rule.

The role of this Court

117. As a creature of the 2016 constitutional amendment, the critical date for this Court’s existence and exercise of jurisdiction is the date of assent of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016, namely 5 January 2016, when it entered into force.

118. We respectfully submit that this Court cannot purport to exercise jurisdiction retroactively beyond 5 January over the 1991 Constitution as amended in 1996, and prior to 2016 amendment by reaching back to interpret an unexpired term under the Constitution prior to the 2016 amendment, when it did not exist, and the basis of which changed under the 2016 amendments.

119. The originality of the 1991 Constitution and successive amendments to it in the context of a perpetual presidency since 1964 leading to the introduction of the One-Party State in 1973 which ended in 1991, show that the people of Zambia were aware of, and guarded against, a clear and present danger to the incidence of perpetual presidents. The nomination of the First Respondent in the quest to hold office beyond two terms against the express sovereign will of the people reflected in the Constitution (as amended) presents such a clear and present danger. When faced with such situations, Supreme or Constitutional Courts must decide in favour of the greater good and the lesser evil to protect constitutional values against the abuse of constitutionalism.

120. Comparative constitutional experience from Latin America is instructive. There, Constitutional Courts tend to safeguard individual presidential interests over and above those of the people. They have ended up sanctioning presidential authoritarianism and the tyranny of perpetual presidents against constitutional democratic gains that the Twenty-Second Amendment and its descendants, such as Article 106(3) of the Constitution of Zambia 1991 (as amended), prohibit to safeguard democracy and constitutionalism.

121. In deciding the transcendental question posed to it in this Petition, the Court is faced with the issue of the substitution of the Constitution by the First and Second Respondents by using the Court to substitute that which the Constitution prohibits, to which the Court must not acquiesce. The substitution of the Constitution was exemplified in two decisions of the Constitutional Court of Colombia against the fact that the Constitution of Colombia historically limits presidents to just one term in office as an important check on Presidents overstaying their terms. President Alvaro Uribe, elected president in 2002, emerged as an unusually popular president of the type eulogised by the Second Respondent. After serving out most of his first term and retaining a very high approval rating, Uribe sought and received approval of a constitutional amendment allowing presidents to serve two consecutive terms. In the First Re-election Case in 2005, this amendment was challenged both on procedural grounds and as an unconstitutional ‘substitution of the constitution,’ but the Constitutional Court upheld the amendment.

122. With his second term coming to an end, supporters of a still-popular President Uribe passed a proposed referendum through Congress, which would allow presidents to serve for three consecutive terms. The court became alive to the danger of overstaying in power and blocked the attempted third term as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment in 2009 in the Second Re-election Case on the grounds that the amendment constituted a substitution of the Constitution.

123. We respectfully submit that while the Court here is not faced with an amendment, it must be alive to the clear and present danger that the Colombian Constitutional Court had first sanctioned and allowed a second term against the Constitution but were able to prevent the consolidation of power by President Uribe. Similarly, the clear and present danger was signalled by the ill-fated Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, No. 10 of 2019 (‘Bill 10’) that sought to amend the Constitution in a pervasive unconstitutional ‘substitution of the constitution.’

124. This Court faces a similar issue in that the First and Second Respondent are obliging it to interpret the Constitution in a manner that the First Respondent should hold office more than twice or more than two times or on more than two occasions in substitution of what the sovereignty of the people so clearly prohibit in Article 106(3). For the Court to acquiesce to that argument would be an unconstitutional substitution of the Constitution on its part, an act that is unlawful under the preamble, Articles 1, 2, 106(3) and 118 of the Constitution inclusive, and which would ineluctably lead to the foreseeable amendment of the Constitution to perpetuate a presidency to hold office more than twice. Article 106(3) and its ancestor in the Twenty-Second Amendment were designed to pre-empt this happening. If the Court overrides Article 106(3), it would provide spacious cover for constitutional illegality, be a party to such illegality as well as bear testimony to the perpetuity and tyranny of the presidency that would unfold in Zambia for years to come, reversing the gains of constitutional democracy that the people fought hard for and made democratic gains against a presidency in perpetuity, from 1991 until now.

G. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should:

(a) Strike out the name of the Second Respondent from these proceedings

(b) Dismiss the pleas of res judicata and abuse of process

(c) Reconsider and reverse the Pule (and, by extension, Kapalasa) judgments.

(d) Grant the petition.

This application by the three constitutional law experts to be admitted as Amicus Curiae in the matter between Legal Resources Foundation, Sishuwa Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation was formally filed in Zambia’s Constitutional Court on 7 June 2021)

The Voice Opinion: Kinako, The Time Has Come for HH to Be the President of Zambia.

*The failure by the PF to attain their campaign promises and proclamation and the terrible economic performance of Zambia from 2016 to 2021 has provided HH with boom conditions under which to portray the ruling party as an unreliable lot who cannot and should not be trusted with another vote yet again this year and fortunately for HH, the people can feel the pain of the dead economy without any doubt.*

*By Daimone Siulapwa*

If there was a time that HH could clearly and without any doubt become the president of Zambia, now is the time. The mode is right and the fruits are ripe for harvest. The 2021 elections have without any doubt presented the best ever opportunity for HH to become Zambia’s president if he can push a little further.

Bally, as UPND president Hakainde Hichilema is currently being called, is offering campaign messages that show how he will solve most of the people’s grievances and hardships inflicted by past governments and how he will bring a new world of opportunity and prosperity in Zambia.

To the young, to the homeless, to the farmers, HH has become an idol, a political magician whose performances and oratory skills have generated a sense of excitement, of hope, of expectation among many citizens.

HH’s far-reaching appeal has spread to trade unionists, intellectuals, serving and ex-servicemen, clerks, petty traders, civil servants alike and now students. Simply put, HH’s message has stretched to a new generation, frustrated and impatient, seeking a better way of life.

To those without money, without employment, without position, without property, HH’s call of economic emancipation is an offer of salvation. HH has in the past been diplomatic to a point where some people might have regarded him as being weak but this is a trait that is now gaining him immeasurable support countrywide.

The failure by the PF to attain their campaign promises and proclamation and the terrible economic performance of Zambia from 2016 to 2021 has provided HH with boom conditions under which to portray the ruling party as an unreliable lot who cannot and should not be trusted with another vote yet again this year and fortunately for HH, the people can feel the pain of the economy without any doubt.

And because of the PF’s empty promises, people have welcomed HH rapturously and the UPND leader has now come to the political fray with renewed vitality and great enthusiasm. The highly disputed marginal loss to Lungu in the 2015 and 2016 presidential by-elections and general elections respectively also opened up possibilities of UPND forming government and the memory is still fresh.

HH has realized that people voted the PF into office because their expectations were raised; there was a sense of euphoria in 2011 because the PF had pledged, among others, to reduce taxes, fuel pump prices, the cost of mealie-meal and all. The people also voted Lungu into office to continue the legacy of Michael Sata, all this has been white washed with PF’s failures and now HH’s message now pinpoints these failures.

Furthermore, HH is in his campaign messages, capitalizing on the PF government’s failure to provide better education, medical care, employment and a people-driven constitution, the current constitutional amendment that was signed by Lungu is a half cast constitution HH claims and it does not offer Zambian what they need.

He is also highlighting how the cost of living has become so high in the short time the PF has been in power underscoring soaring prices of mealie-meal, fuel, basic commodities among others.

Evidently, HH and his party have the mass of people behind them and there is no other opposition political party with appreciable public support to which one can turn to.

As the poll date nears, there is every indication that HH will win more votes in areas where he never used to obtain as much support from the electorate, it is also prudent to assume that he will get about 80% votes of all the new registration in many if not all provinces. In this year’s election, HH’s participation will certainly raise the level of popular excitement even higher.

Inarguably, such popular political excitement was last experienced during the 2001 general elections when there was great wave of enthusiasm spreading through the country.

Then, the main contenders were MMD’s Levy Mwanawasa and Anderson Mazoka of the UPND.

Through his campaign messages, the UPND leader and his team avows that it is now apparent that without HH, the economic growth will become moribund, and prosperity will just be a pipedream for Zambia.

HH’s campaign has shown small-scale farmers and government suppliers that there is nothing to hope for in PF, their aspirations and dreams are lost and they will be plunged into disorder and abject poverty if they do not vote for the UPND leader. It is, therefore, not surprising that HH has been received to a tumultuous welcome from disgruntled farmers and business people across the country who now perceive the PF with mistrust and suspicion.

HH has without doubt established some respectable measure of trust among the Zambian electorate and international community alike. He has evidently sent a shockwave across country, causing anxiety in some quarters, inspiring awe in others.

*This year’s election provides yet another momentous opportunity for the UPND to sail to State House if their campaigns continue to be well-coordinated. HH’s campaign messages are equally unparalleled but this prospect could be the last for the UPND if they do not form government after the August 12 poll.

HARRY KALABA IS JUST DAY-DREAMING – MCC KAMBA

… says Victory for the PF is guaranteed come August 12, 2021.

Lusaka … Tuesday, June, 08, 2021

WE have read systematic headlines in opposition inclined tabloids, putting up illusionary claims that there is wind of change of government in the country, and that the PF will lose the forthcoming general elections.

The latest illusionary claims about change of government are attributed to Harry Kalaba, former Foreign Affairs minister and now president of the relatively new political party the Democratic Party.

We want to advise these political parties that it is important to face reality in life and the reality in this case is that President Edgar Chagwa Lungu is too popular and strong on the ground. The PF is still passionately loved by Zambians and it will bounce back to power.

We have already advised these opposition political leaders to begin telling their sponsors, those giving them financial support, facts that the PF is too strong and it is winning the August 12 elections.

While it is not a crime to be ambitious and that dreaming is free, It is however, very important to face reality to avoid depressions and self deceit.

Excited by small crowds he pulled in Samfya, in his home region, Harry Kalaba is quoted in the media saying the PF episode of lies is expiring and that he is going to form government.

We want to tell Harry Kalaba that the PF he left is very much intact. The very PF has gone further to transform the lives of people in many rural areas including Samfya and the entire Luapula Province and indeed the whole nation.

The people in these areas can attest to the fact that President Lungu’s government has delivered in terms of health, education and agriculture. Today Samfya is the new tourist destination because of the pro-poor policies of the PF that has endeavored to provide the locals with the much-needed empowerment to attract investment and utilising the full potential of lake Bangweulu.

The tourism activities happening in Samfya and the entire Luapula Province are unprecedented and the people cannot allow anybody to cheat them that they wiĺl do more than the PF.

This is not about Luapula alone, this is happening across the country. So we wonder what kind of lies Harry Kalaba is talking about. The PF has always been a people’s party and the boat is still loading.

It is wishful thinking for anyone in the opposition to stand on the podium and claim that the PF has lost popularity. It’s mere hallucinations.

The PF has delivered development, we know that our candidate President Edgar Lungu and Professor Nkandu Luo are loved by the majority Zambians who are the electorates.

Theres is so much development delivered to warrant a PF victory in the forth coming elections. The rural development delivered by President Lungu that has focused on human integral progression is unmatched and unprecedented.

The health system which was the biggest challenge in rural areas has been significantly improved and decentralised with over six hundred and fifty centres, water reticulation and water development has been improved, with Aquaculture, Horticulture Farming strengthened to boost the family food basket. The Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) is being managed effectively and farmers are happy.

The roads have been improved, and this anybody can testify. The education system is being effectively managed, no child has been left behind under the education for all campaign. Teachers, nurses and various graduating professionals have been drawn closer to the people for effective delivery of social services.

This is the kind of leadership that must be rejected with the contempt it deserves. Zambia is bigger than all of us and nobody with a tribal mentality or regionalism must be allowed to occupy the highest office of the land.

Victory for the PF is guaranteed come August 12, 2021.

With Kind Regards,

Kennedy Kamba MCC
PF Chairman Lusaka Province

By Kapya Kaoma

Since taking Anderson Mazoka’s mantle as the UPND President, HH’s palm has pointed forward, but every election cycle is reversed to rest on his cheek and wipe his tears, wondering what just happened. The man boasts of being the best business executive, but if his running of UPND is something to go by, fate and not strategic thinking make one a billionaire. Just ask Donald Trump!

The UPND has been in opposition for two decades, but since 2006, the Party has lacked a sustainable strategy of taking power from the two most corrupt and incompetent regimes. Surely Mazoka is in tears wondering how his Party that came so close to winning the December 27, 2001 election (won by Levy Mwanawasa’s MMD) lost to PF–the Party that came from nowhere. Mazoka could understand the 2006 defeat, but the 2008, 2011, 2015, and 2016 defeats were simply illogical. Yet in 2021, UPND is begging Zambians to give HH another chance!

The UPND messaging has been chaotic; “HH knows the business world”, “the economy”, “workers,” corruption”, “chimbwi has no plan”, “free education”, “Bally will fix it” and now “HH will rescue Zambia” are among the many messaging problems that characterize UPND. The Party has failed to sell HH to Zambians with a sustainable message. Sata had one; HH has none but everything.

The UPND lacks political strategy; repeating the same plan over and over again but expecting a different outcome. The alliance with PF and MMD vomits like GBM and Nevers Mumba didn’t deliver either, so why do the same thing over again? Under his leadership, the Party has had many years to build sustainable alliances but failed; confirming accusations that UPND is a one-man Kantemba. The number of high-profile UPND members leaving him is not helping either.

Each election cycle, we are swamped with large crowds of UPND cadres in HH-styled red attires. Social media has magnified these gatherings in cities; but is this new? In addition to its traditional strongholds, the UPND has been competitive on the Copperbelt, Lusaka, and Central Province. This year the Party believes it has gained extra support in urban areas, overshadowing the PF. The popular city slogan, “We want Change, ” however, is generic and not UPND’s–every opposition party has a claim to it. Zambians sympathetic to the opposition cause are apt to join the chant on the streets. To UPND supporters, such chants translate in HH votes; they don’t.

But so is the power of mob psychology; people are likely to shout “Forward” when surrounded by UPND cadres, and “Pamaka” or “Alebwekelapo” when surrounded by PF cadres. It is a survival strategy in the nation where two well-known violent political parties are engaged in bloody campaigns. Since opposing voices are victimized, when PF is in Matero, Zambians will shout Lungu. When UPND is in Matero, the same people will shout HH. In addition to poverty, the ugly UPND, PF, and other political attires can be found in the same household; why buy if I can get it for free? The real gauge of popularity will only be known on election day when people cast their votes in secret.

In their wisdom, UPND strategists are counting heavily on the urban vote–it is a wrong strategy. This election will be won in rural Zambia–the reason Lungu and PF have abandoned the cities for rural areas. Economic stress impacts urban dwellers the most. Besides, the city vote is shared by many parties–almost all presidential candidates are counting on getting a share.

Belatedly, UPND strategists are sorely focused on dislodging PF from power. PF is a major player, but not the only player. It is like competing in the World Cup. Of course, you can focus your strategy on beating Brazil or France. But you must first qualify by knocking off smaller teams. Even then, you must study all teams. Soccer is unpredictable–even big teams can be knocked out in the first round. Like soccer, the electorate is unpredictable.

HH shouldn’t assume all Zambians are set to only vote for Lungu or him–rather he must campaign against Mumba, M’membe, Mwamba, Kalaba, and many others. He must also respond to their attacks on him as a tribalist, loner, and greedy as Socialist Party President and UPND founder Mazoka’s in Law Fred M’membe recently told Zambians. According to M’membe, HH is a greedy politician who should not be entrusted with power. As we move toward elections, HH should expect such attacks to increase since these parties want to win too. HH has never run in an election of this nature before, thus he needs to return to the drawing table.

Nonetheless, there is something to be said about smaller party cadres willingness to go door to door and even match the streets. They are awkwardly aware that they have the mountain to move, yet they are determined to fight to win. In the sociological theory of religion, I would compare them to members of religious sects. They are highly united to their cause and are most likely to show up on election day. In this regard, Socialist Party, Democratic Party, and other small party Presidential candidates are likely to be competitive in this election to an extent that they may shatter UPND’s dreams to enter Plot 1.

Alas. When my people dance akalela and shout “Forward,” they mean “Backwards.” Come August 12, is UPND ku Wire?

ConCourt has never prounounced itself on Lungu’s eligibility – Sangwa

CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer John Sangwa has argued that the Constitutional Court has never pronounced itself on whether President Edgar Lungu is eligible to contest elections for the third time and nowhere is it written in its judgments in the Dan Pule and Bampi Kapalasa cases.

He said if the court secures President Lungu’s third term bid based on the argument that a period less than three years does not constitute a term, the court would create irrational laws as there would be Presidents in perpetuity (wamuyayaya).

Sangwa said Presidents would be resigning before they attain three years in office and still contest elections because the one-year period is not counted as a term.

This is in a matter where the Legal Resources Foundation limited, Historian and political commentator Sishuwa Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation limited have petitioned President Lungu for abrogating the law by filing in his nomination papers as the PF presidential candidate in the August 12 general elections after being sworn into office as President twice.

The petitioners’ contention is that the Head of State has been sworn into office twice because he was not a vice-president of the country when he concluded late President Michael Sata’s term following the latter’s death as ruled by the Constitutional Court in the Dan Pule case.

When the matter came up for hearing before judges Hildah Chibomba, Ann Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, Palan Mulonda, Margaret Munalula, Martin Musaluke, Mwila Chitabo, Matthew Chisunka, and Judy Mulongoti, Sangwa, who is representing the petitioners, argued that President Lungu had violated Article 106(3) of the Constitution which was serial in character and content.

Sangwa, who was given 10 minutes in which to argument his case, said President Lungu has already held office twice because he was not a Vice-President when he ascended to the presidency in 2015 when a vacancy occurred following the death of President Sata.

“President Lungu was elected by people twice; the first was in 2015 and the second in 2016. It is about the number of times you have been sworn into office despite the period served. He does not qualify to stand for election for the third time,” Sangwa said.

He submitted that it was never the intention of the draft committee of the constitution to allow anyone to go for a third term as the intention was to prevent anyone from doing so.

“By arguing that a period less that three years is not a term, we will create a situation where one will be a president in perpetuity because I can resign before I attain three years in office and contest elections, this is not Russia,” Sangwa said.

“It was never the intention for perpetuity, when you hold office twice that is it. President Lungu has violated Article 106(3), his nomination be declared a nullity because it violates the constitution.”

Presindent Lungu’s lawyer Bonaventure

Mutale said there were no new issues that had arisen warranting him to orally argument the case.

“The Dan Pule case has covered everything that counsel for the petitioners has submitted. We will not delve into the history of constitution drafting. The Dan Pule judgment will never be vacated as long as no application is made in that matter, it will stand the test of time,” said Mutale.

Sakwiba Sikota asked the court to condemn the petitioners to costs because the issue regarding President Lungu’s eligibility was dealt with twice and this was the third time it was being determined.

He said there was a serious conspiracy by the petitioners to disregard the integrity of the court.

Attorney General Likando Kalaluka said the argument by the petitioners that the Head of State was not a vice-president when he ascended to Presidency to conclude President Sata’s term, was academic and unfortunate.

He said the election of the President was changed after 2016 as the 50 plus one threshold was introduced unlike the simple majority and it was unfortunate to argue that there was an unfriendly judgment.

And Solicitor General Abraham Mwansa said it was inconceivable that the petitioners cannot comprehend what the court ruled in the Dan Pule and Kapalasa cases that the one-year period which President Lungu served in 2015 when he was first sworn into office did not constitute a term.

In reply, Sangwa said the change in the mode of voting was not mentioned by the court that President Lungu was staggering between two constitutions and Kalaluka cannot fill up the gaps for the court.

He submitted that the country never had two constitutional regimes.

Sangwa stated that there was a difference between the Dan Pule and Kapalasa cases as the petitioners in the two cases were seeking an interpretation while the Legal Resources Foundation limited, Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation were alleging breach of the constitution.

“Mode of commencement is a factor. It will be incompetence on my part to bring the same case. Validity of nomination was not an issue in the Dan Pule and Kapalasa cases,” Sangwa said.

“How many people will be coming to court if the consequences are costs? Nobody will defend the constitution. It will be a bad idea to award costs. This is a new matter; the petitioners were not parties to the two cases. To award costs will be in violation of Article 52(4) of the constitution.”

He added that the petitioners had demonstrated that the petition had merit and the court should nullify President Lungu’s nomination because nowhere in the two cases – the Dan Pule and Kapalasa – did the court say President Lungu was eligible.

“It is now that the issues have become ripe for interpretation,” said Sangwa

Earlier, the court declined an application by former LAZ president Eddie Mwitwa to join three professors Chaloka Beyani, Cephas Lumina and Melvin Mbao to the matter as friends of court.

Justice Chibomba said the matter was urgent and the court would not allow anything to delay the matter.

Sangwa said the argument by Kalaluka that the matter was res judicata, the implication of the Dan Pule and Kapalasa cases was to curtail the issue of standing and the jurisdiction of the court.

“The right to come to court is conferred by the constitution and not common law, it can only be curtailed by the constitution. A party is at liberty to come to court and cannot be stopped by relying on the issue of res judicata,” Sangwa said.

“The preliminary derogatory by describing to the court’s interpretation in the Dan Pule and Kapalasa case as bogus.

Judgment has since been ConCourt sets June 11 as judgment day in the Lungu eligibility case.

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT EDGAR CHAGWA LUNGU

08/06/2021

REF: THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE UPND LEADER MR. HAKAINDE HICHILEMA BY YOU AND STATE HOUSE

Greetings to you Mr president sir. It is my hope that immediately you receive this letter you will come to reality and choose the right path for you in the few remaining days for you to be in state house. Mr. President, this is not time for arrogance please! make peace with your opponents.Because for us Zambians we have already decided.

Your Excellency, it is with sadness to learn that you could sink too low to engineer and authorize the attempted assassination of your opponent in the name of HAKAINDE HICHILEMA. We are aware that you gave those directives through your surrogates such as Kaizer Zulu, Kampyongo, Kanganja and many others. Mr. President you are trying your lucky in a very dangerous and disastrous way. No matter how desperate you are in wanting to stay in power, killing HH is the most easiest thing if you want to exit this nation and seek asylum and further forget about all the wealth you have amassed within a short period of time.

Your act was, is and will forever be criminal and lack of patriotism to this nation. You have done so much damage to this nation. Look at how you have made the job of our security wings difficult. We know that thugs you have infiltrated in our Police system is the reason for such dangerous acts under your instruction.
I wish our officers can learn from that constable who was ordered to assassinate Prosecutor Nsama Nsama and upnd member Joseph Kaunda. The young man has since been abandoned after executing a political scare tactics, those that ordered him are nowhere near. The other officer is battling for his life after his jaw was broken by PF cadres.

My humble reminder to you Mr. Lungu is that Zambia is bigger than any one of us including yourself.Therefore, threatening the peace of the entire country through attempting to kill your opponent who seem to be the only option for millions of Zambians explains it all that, you don’t deserve to be our president anymore sir.

The Bible in Proverbs 10:11; The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence. You are a violent president sir. Evidence is all over you either instructing your cadres to attack or kill innocent civilians who should have been protected by your office. Remember the letter I wrote to you last year demanding for justice in all state sponsored killings of innocent Citizens such as Mapenzi Chibulo, Obed Bwalya Kasongo, Mark Choongwa, Lawrence Banda, Frank Mugala, Kennedy Mudenda, Vespers Shimunzhila, Matapa Glayzia, Malesu Mukonka, Nsama Nsama, Kaunda Joseph and many others. You never disputed to the letter because you know that you are a guilty person. The blood of these citizens plus many others is on your head sir.

In Ezekiel 34:4, the Bible teaches us that ; The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. In Ephesians 6:4, the Bible says; Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Mr President in reference to the two last Bible verses you have ruled us in a harsh and brutal way. You have been a provoking father and we feel this is the right time to say goodbye and let the people of Zambia choose their destiny in peace. Stop instructing your cadres and police to kill your opponents.

May the almighty God bless Zambia.

Yours sincerely

Sikaile C Sikaile
Good Governance and Human Rights Activist for Zambia and Amnesty International

CC: UNITED NATIONS
: ALL DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS ACCREDITED TO ZAMBIA
: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
: ALL THE THREE CHURCHES AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN ZAMBIA

THE Attorney General has submitted in the Constitutional Court that the eligibility of President Edgar Lungu to stand as President in the August 12 General Elections was already determined and settled.

And the Constitutional Court will deliver judgment in the matter on Friday.

Legal Resources Foundation (LRF), Chapter One Foundation and UNZA lecturer Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa are challenging President Lungu’s eligibility to contest the forthcoming elections.

They are arguing that the Head of State has twice held office. The petitioners want the court to nullify President Lungu’s nomination papers on account that he was not eligible to stand as President.

But Attorney General Likando Kalaluka, during hearing of the main matter and preliminary issues raised, he urged the court to dismiss the petition because it is an abuse of the court process.

He said the issues raised in the petition before court were already settled by the same court in the Danny Pule and Others petition and also the Bampi Kapalasa and Joseph Busenga petitions.

Kalaluka argued that the petitioners needed to show cause as to why the court should vacate its earlier decisions in the other two petitions in which it was declared that President Lungu had not twice held office.

“The petitioners have failed to show why this court should vacate its decision and should therefore, be prepared to suffer the consequences,” he said.

Solicitor General Abraham Mwansa urged the court to throw out the petition and condemn the petitioners in costs.

And President Lungu’s lawyer Bonaventure Mutale submitted that the Danny Pule and others vs the Attorney General selected judgement of 2018, which was delivered by the Constitutional Court, would stand a test of time as the issues raised in the case in casu were already determined.

He urged the court to dismiss the petition because the court cannot vacate its decisions in the previous cases. President Lungu’s other lawyer Eric Silwamba argued that the court authoritatively and conclusively interpreted what amounts to a term.

He submitted that the Head of State has not twice held office as President and should be allowed to stand.

Meanwhile, John Sangwa, who is representing the petitioners, urged the court not to entertain the preliminary issues raised because they lack merit.

He argued that nowhere in the two petitions did the Constitutional Court declare that President Lungu was eligible to stand because the petitions were about the interpretation of the law.

Sangwa further argued that the issue of res judicata raised by the respondents does not hold water. On the argument that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and that the petitioners were not competent to take out the action, Sangwa said a person can go to court even with mere allegations.

The court has reserved judgment to Friday, June 11.

PRESS STATEMENT

8 TH JUNE 2021

PF AND THE POLICE COMMAND MUST STOP CREATING TENSION IN THE COUNRTY

PF and the Police Command must stop creating unnecessary tension in the Country. We had elections before and will continue having elections. But why is this year’s election being managed with a lot of tension? We urge PF and the Police Command to quickly come to terms that Zambians have rejected PF with its message of the so called massive infrastructure development.

Both PF and the Police have failed to provide answers on why and who gassed Zambians. Zambians through the ballot will be asking why they were given expired drugs. Zambians will also seeking answers on why PF carders have been killing and maiming innocent people with impunity. Zambians will use their vote to stamp out corruption and shielding of corrupt elements in PF, the issue that your former chief Government spokesperson openly admitted. Which normal person can vote for people with such a record? Not even Lucifer would vote for PF; leave HH alone.

Zambians are not a problem, but you PF and your Police Command are a problem to the Zambian people. Both of you are living in denial that PF is very unpopular. Create peace for yourselves by accepting that PF is going, come what may. The best PF can do is to start preparing for their exit. You took over a peaceful Country and you should leave it in peace if both of you don’t want to end up at the Hague Don’t behave like a suicide bomber who would like to die along with innocent people

We warned you that don’t base your popularity on by election results. You kept on cheating yourselves that you were popular by going in a ward or constituency bribing voters with all sorts of things. You thought you were too cleaver by having high numbers of voters in areas you cheated yourself were your strongholds. Are you not surprised and ashamed that even in the wards and constituencies where you claimed to have won; now people don’t want you anymore?

Through ECZ you allowed political parties to do road shows, but now it’s a treasonable offence for HH to do road shows in your bed rooms. By your careless and irresponsible behavior you are making HH more and more popular. HH is about to make history to win an election without campaigning UBUNCHENJESHI BWANKOKO PUNWA TASAKAMANA.

Percy Chanda

UPND – Chairman for Mines and Freedom Fighter

JUST BECAUSE ECZ ACCEPTED THE NOMINATION PAPERS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE VALID….CAN BE CHALLENGED BY LAW AND EVIDENCE – SANGWA TELLS CONCOURT

CONSTITUTIONAL Lawyer John Sangwa State Counsel, has told the Constitutional Court that although the Electoral Commission of Zambia accepted President Edgar Lungu’s nomination papers, it does not mean that the documents are valid, as that can be challenged by law and evidence.

And the Constitutional Court yesterday rejected an application of admission to the matter by three law professors who have also argued that President Lungu does not qualify to stand as presidential candidates, having already twice held office.

Arguing in support of his petition against Lungu, Sangwa said the PF candidate does not qualify to stand for elections for the third time, adding that allowing him would likely create a situation where one can be in office in perpetuity.

Sangwa has argued that the situation which will be created is that a sitting President can resign a day short of three years, put the Vice-President in office and wait for the next election in order to stand again.

But the Attorney General and lawyers representing President Lungu have insisted that the issue relating to the President’s eligibility to contest the elections has already been settled by the court and that the same matter should be dismissed with costs.

Meanwhile, the Court has set Friday, June 11 as date of ruling in the matter.

Sangwa is in this matter representing Legal Resources Foundation, Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation who are seeking a declaration that President Edgar Lungu having been elected, sworn into and held office twice is not eligible for nomination for election as President in the election set for August 12, 2021.

President Lungu and the Attorney General are the first and second respondents in the matter, respectively.

When the came up for hearing before a full bench of nine Constitutional Court judges who included; Justices Hilda Chibomba, Annie Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, Martin Musaluke, Prof Margaret Munalula, Palan Mulonda, Mwila Chitabo, Matthew Chisunka and Judy Mulongoti, Sangwa submitted that President Lungu did not qualify to contest the elections for the third time.

“The first respondent (President Lungu) does not qualify to stand for election for the third time. It is as simple as that. Here is a problem that is likely to be created if at all we accept what the respondents are saying, that it is okay for one to be in the office provided that it is less than three years, it doesn’t count. We are likely to create a situation whereby one can be in office in perpetuity. I can serve in that office, a day short of three years, I resign. It doesn’t count. I can put my Vice President there; wait for the next election I stand again as President. Same again, less than two days, I come back. The drafters [of the Constitution] intended that you hold the office twice. That is, it,” he submitted.

Sangwa further submitted that the fact that the returning officer has accepted one’s papers during nominations does not equate to the said papers being valid.

“A returning officer may accept your nomination but if evidence emerges that you actually do not qualify, that is no bar. You can’t go to court and say ‘but my nomination was accepted by the returning officer, therefore it is a bar’. No, the fact that it was accepted is the reason we are before this court so that the court can interrogate the constitutionality of the nomination. The fact that the returning officer has accepted your papers does not equate to those papers being valid. The validity or invalidity of nomination papers is a matter of both law and fact and beyond the jurisdiction of the returning officer. Only this court can determine that issue,” he submitted.

“The petitioners are not disrespecting the Court’s decision in the Dan pule and [Bampi] Kapalasa cases, no. We have acknowledged that decision and we have come to this court and pointed out why this court should vacate those two decisions. Citizens should be allowed to come as many times as they can before this court. What they have to do is to convince the court why the court should depart from its earlier decision. Where they fail, the court will say ‘we uphold what we said in the earlier decision’.”

But in response, one of the lawyers representing President Lungu, Bonaventure Mutale, State Counsel said they would rely on the submissions earlier filed into court but insisted that the case should be dismissed as the issues were already dealt with by the court.

Another lawyer, Sakwiba Sikota also concurred with Mutale, and asked the court to condemn the petitioners to costs.

“As stated by State Counsel Mutale, these matters were already dealt with adequately by this court not only once in the Dan Pule matter, but a second time in the Kapalasa matter. We are coming [for] a third time on the very same matter. I am aware that this court is shy and slow to condemn a party to costs because of the nature of this court. However, this is a case which the petitioners are well aware has been determined by this court, not once [but] twice before. And counsel who represented the Law Association of Zambia in the Dan Pule case is the same counsel in this matter. So clearly the parties know the history of this matter has been adjudicated upon,” he said.

“How many times will the court be called upon to come and adjudicate on the same matter? Clearly the petitioners’ counsel ought to have known, being an officer of the court, that to accept a brief from their clients in this matter knowing fully well that the issues of the eligibility has been settled by this court, is conduct short of the standard of a lawyer, as an officer of the court.”

Attorney General Likando Kalaluka Kalaluka in his argument said, “Our submission is that the argument by the petitioners is academic and unfortunate because indeed, the period in issue involve two Constitutional regimes. That is to say after January 2016, there was a different way of electing a President. That is, it required 50 percent plus one. Which is different from a single majority of a period before then. There was a running mate after 2016. All these demonstrate two different regimes.”

But in reply, Sangwa argued that it would be a violation of the Constitution to award costs in the matter.

He further argued that the current petition was totally different from the Dan Pule and the Kapalasa cases as it is alleging contravention of the Constitution, whereas Kapalasa and Dan Pule cases was about interpretation.

“This issue was never settled. This is a new matter. The first respondent and the petitioners were never parties to the two cases and the nomination was never an issue. We submit that we have demonstrated that this petition has merit and the reliefs should be granted,” Sangwa said.

He added that no where in the judgements of Kapalasa or Dan Pule cases did the Court declare that President Lungu was eligible to stand in 2021.

After the parties concluded with their submissions, the court reserved Judgement to Friday, June 11.

Earlier, Mutale had brought to the attention of the court that Dr Sishuwa had been making commentaries on the merits of the matter on social media.

“We wish to make certain observations which are pertinent. There are issues that relate the misconduct of one of the petitioners. The second petitioner (Dr Sishuwa) has been at large on social media discussing the merits of this case in very derogatory terms. Scandalising the first respondent and to some extent this court,” he said as he referred the court to one of the articles published on Lusaka Times.

However, after being advised that Sishuwa was not present, the court ruled that it would deal with the matter later.

The court earlier also refused to entertain an application by three professors, Chaloka Beyani, Melvin Mbao and Cephas Lumina who were seeking to be admitted to the proceedings as amici curiae (a friend of the court).

(An amicus curiae is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case.)

According to an affidavit in support of notice of motion, their lawyer Musa Mwenye of Messrs Mwenye & Mwitwa Advocates stated that the three were professors of Law with considerable expertise in constitutional law and other areas of law pertinent to the Petition, having taught in these areas at Universities in Zambia and elsewhere.

He added that their in-depth knowledge could be of considerable assistance to the Court.

Mwenye stated that while the trio were all Zambian nationals, they have no personal interest in the outcome of these proceedings but a professional interest in seeing that the Court implements its mandate as ‘guardian of the Constitution’ in a way that promotes the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, notably, the supremacy of the Constitution, the sovereign will of the people, democracy, constitutionalism, good governance and accountability, as well as allowing the development of the law.

He added that the Constitution also permits the participation of third parties in proceedings before the Court where the public interest is engaged as in this case

Press statement

For immediate release

08/06/2021

Former ZANASU President endorses President Hakainde Hichilema and the his running mate Honorable Mutale Nalumango

Fellow country men and women it is with a saddened heart that few former union leaders such as those former charlatans who once served in the CBU Union would parade themselves before the cameras to endorse a government and especially a minister that abolished.

– students unions in the year 2018 at the University of Zambia and replaced it with a weak system taken from Makerere University called the guild students leadership. The guild leadership was a cartel iniated by the failed minister of higher education who had an insatiable appetite to suspend any opposing voices around various campuses in various universities more especially the University of Zambia and Copperbelt University.

You must be informed as a nation that the guild type of leadership as spearheaded by Luo has yielded results such as union leaders who are now puppets of an oppressive regime which is the ruling party that removed students meal allowances.

It is on record that in the year 2014 a total number of more than 4,0000 students at only the University of Zambia received bursaries, meal allowances and including book allowances.
However, when the minister who thought she knew it all named Nkandu Luo took office, the numbers deteriorated so bad; such that many students hard to stop school, forced into begging and also for female students they resorted to becoming night workers for suger daddies in a bid to earn a living and sustaine themselves both at CBU and UNZA.

It’s all total lies to try and praise Luo cause she messed up the education system killing the abilities for students to decide what forms of governance they wanted to embrace between the governance of Unionism or that of a guild leadership as championed by Luo, so that she facilitates for appointments of students who are surrogates of the ruling party. She is not good in human interactions, but maybe good in academics.
You must understand that the women who surrogates of PF masquerading as Unionist are endorsing has never left any institution with a briefing space be it for students, chiefs or even in health where she was privileged to serve.

I wish to state to the ordinary citizens that personally I was suspended twice at Unza due to failure to comply as a puppet or become a mouth peace for an oppressive government when Luo served as Higher education minister. But am happy I sued the University and we the seven guys suspended at that time won the case in the disciplinary committee after been forced to apologize via the state media ZNBC in a bid for Ministry of Higher Education education under luo to find evidence through her surrogates she used at the University of Zambia.
You must remember that numbers spread out in the other colleges and Universities as recipients of bursaries was not even exceeding 500 per institution so what is there to praise about other institutions benefiting? Only a cader student would praise such nonsense.

As we speak due to the guild leadership Unza has last held elections in 2019. As students leadership is like a chiefdom where a minister decides who continues to lead the students. It is laughable that a normal student union leader would endorse an oppresser of students.

If you do a background check those masquerading to speak for CBU graduated a long time ago with low grades. They continue to address themselves as Cobusu only naive person would believe such lies. My call to the ordinary Zambians is to consider such students as caders that have not been reformed although having undergone University education, infact consider them as jokers who using use their bellies to think due to little change their masters give them to parade themselves before the media.

To my able media friends I say before giving such bogus students space, do investigative journalism to find out if the people who claim to speak for students are registered as union leaders. CBU or Unza as far as the students constitutions are concerned has no unions collapsed by Luo so I find it wrong to see young caders masquerading as current unionist yet there individual students do no approve them, as their terms expired.
Nkandu Luo is on record in 2019 as been happy according to her, the country’s biggest and second biggest public universities, the University of Zambia (UNZA) and the Copperbelt University (CBU) had to receive 1,900 scholarships each while only 1,000 of them will be distributed amongst five other public universities. This was a reduction under her leadership of the higher education in the year 2014 and previous years students on bursaries went beyond 4000 that just shows how the education system was crippled when she was minister.
She suspended union leaders with different view points and treated higher education like her bedroom. Reason for her suspension of Students unions was based on the fact that unions only talked of bursaries, but one would wonder what she expected unions to talk of, were unions supposed to be caders for Luo no one knows.

All in all luo is a representation of authoritarian type of leadership, that does not fit well with a Democrat state such as Zambia founded on democratic principles.

Based on the worsening propaganda and unproven propaganda against President Hakainde Hichilema I personally wish to endorse him in my capacity as former ZANASU President. Reasons for my endorsement are a lot but just to mention a few. For now based on the political landscape HH in my opinion is what Zambia needs.

1. Hakainde Hichilema is well informed on economics and suffering of the Zambian people. He has a heart for many students education as seen from the massive support he gives to orphans who pursue education in zambia and abroad.

Hakainde Hichilema has never been involved in an privatization of an state property. All those accusing of such are actually the criminals who hard a hand or are part of the current state capture of Zambia. Where caders are respected more than graduates or doctors. Various government institutions are filled by caders or those in support of the ruling party although not having the qualifications. President Hakainde Hichilema is the opposite of corruption and I believe he will not tolerate state capture by a few individuals, states, caders or companies. He will equalize the opportunities for all graduates, be it race, tribe or sex.
Thirdly, he is a God fearing man and a man who respects individual liberties of state institutions and human rights.
Zambia needs a listening president who respects all professions and means well with the countries values.
Hakainde Hichilema is the definition of the peaceful Zambia, free from tribalism, nepotism, free of intimidation, better politics and better country direction. All I would ask of normal Zambians and all my constituents followers is to support him massively. This will avoid Zambia been termed as a Banana republic.

Also when you hear that ZANASU as an institution has endorsed Luo that’s fake news prepared by the regime through its puppets prevailed to serve in ZANASU. ZANASU is not an individual position but involves various unions across the country so no one or two men can come to the media and speak on behalf of various unions that have not been consulted on endorsing a failed minister. This applies to fake self imposed union leaders that have graduated trying to speak for normal CBU and UNZA normal students especially or any institutions. Consider such fake union leaders as having an insatiable appetite for money and they are willing to force themselves on students as it’s representatives.

Released by

Misheck Kakonde former ZANASU President

By CIC Investigations.

HH RECIEVES 16 DIFFERENT POLICE VEHICLE ESCORT FROM CHINGOLA TO LUSAKA.

Over 16 armed police vehicles escorts the UPND leader Mr Hakainde Hichilema from Chingola to Lusaka covering a record breaking distance of about 500 KM with so much fuel costs and food just to make sure he is out of Copperbelt. The police further ordered all units along Great North road to join the escort that made the entire journey suspicious. UPND Copperbelt Security youths responded with a huge convoy as well to escort their leader from Chingola till Kapiri Mposhi. The rough journey that CIC observed to be too tense and confrotational where police could not even allow UPND vehicles to stop and answer the call of nature or buy water or any food.

At Kafulafuta in Mpongwe a near fight almost erupted between the police and UPND youths where the UPND leader’s vehicle stopped for passengers on board to answer the call of nature. The argument was so tense as UPND shouted at police to do what they want else open their vehicles so that they urinate from there.

HH wonders what priorities are if a huge convoy like that could escort him at a what cost when there is no money to pay doctors salaries. Mr Hichilema writes on his official Facebook page that priorities must be put right.

“We recieved the police escort all the way from Chingola on the Copperbelt to Lusaka, which is distance of about 500 kilometers. We can only imagine the cost to the treasury when hospitals and clinics have no drugs and medical personnel are few. We have different priorities”. Said HH on the Facebook posting.

CIC further is informed that a huge mob of Lusaka division police officers awaits him at Heroes stadium to escort him up to his house with about 11 vehicles and armoured police military tanks.

CIC will crossover to Lusaka correspondence to give you live coverage of the situation.

CIC PRESS TEAM