Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:57:05 +0000
By CHIKUMBI KATEBE
THE Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by the Law Association of Zambia to dismiss the petition over the eligibility of President Edgar Lungu to contest Zambia’s presidency at the next general election in 2021.
Constitutional Court Justice Margaret Munalula said she has dismissed the application because LAZ failed to comply with the court’s directions when they filed out of time.
She explained that as a court, she was duty-bound to ensure compliance with the court’s orders to uphold the dignity of the Constitutional Court.
“I am inclined to conclude that the 1st interested party (LAZ) blatantly disregarded my directions and that noncompliance should in the circumstances be regarded as fatal,” she said.
This was after LAZ attempted to file an application to raise a preliminary issue seeking to dismiss the main action in the petition for the interpretation of the Zambian constitution in relation to the eligibility of President Lungu in the 2021 elections.
She explained that although LAZ tried to apply for an extension of time to allow them file in after the dates set by the court, Justice Munalula refused to hear the application that doing so would undermine the authority of the Court on its own orders.
Four opposition parties presidents have petitioned the Constitutional Court for the interpretation of the eligibility clause.
The four presidents, Christian Congress Party president Danny Pule, Zambia Republican Party’s Wright Musoma, Pastor Peter Chanda’s New Congress Party and Citizens Democratic Party petitioned the Attorney General over the law that restricts a president to serve a maximum of two terms in office with an exception of when the period is less than three years, as such could not be termed as a term.
According to the New Amended Constitution for the Republic of Zambia, President Lungu had not closed the required 3 years stipulation to be called a term, and so cannot be termed as such.
Justice Munalula explained that as a single Judge, she was only mandated to table preliminary issues raised prior to the hearing of the main matter by the full bench, and that there was an unnecessary delay to the proceedings to allow for the commencement of the main hearing.
Professor Munalula explained that while all parties were given same time to file in applications as well as the same time for responses, LAZ failed to make it within the 21 days allocated for the particular action.
The Lady Justice said there was no justification given by LAZ to convince the court to support their failure to file their heads of argument within time.
She explained that she agreed with the applicants when they complained that their right to a speedy hearing had been compromised by the numerous interlocutory which have evidently dragged the process.
In a double ruling delivery, Justice Munalula equally dismissed an application by LAZ to allow for an extension of time in which to file and serve the applicants.
She complained that instructions she issued in the matter were ignored by the 1st interested party, who had argued that there was no prejudice to anybody in the case as a result.
She has since instructed that with the two rulings, she now awaits for instructions from the full bench of Judges to direct on the court process.
