By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
THE Lusaka High Court will today deliver ruling on the application by Bowman Lusambo and Joseph Malanji to stay by-elections in Kabushi and Kwacha Constituencies scheduled for this Thursday.
The High Court will also render its ruling on the preliminary issues raised by the State on whether the petition filed by Mr Lusambo and his counterpart is an election petition under regulation 19(7) of the Electoral Process (General) (amendment) Regulations 2021.
And if the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the petition in the absence of any challenge of the nomination of successful candidates for the two constituencies
After a two-hour long hearing held in chambers yesterday, Judges Catherine Lombe-Phiri, Mwape Bowa and Sharon Newa reserved ruling on the two applications to today.
Mr Malanji through his lawyers Makebi Zulu and Tutwa Ngulube submitted that the by-elections should be suspended to ensure justice in the matter.
“The petitioners will aver that the constitution clearly states that challenging the nomination is within seven days of the close of the nomination and that the court shall hear the case within 21 days of its lodgment and the process shall be completed at least 30 days before a general election,” he stated.
He insisted that they are eligible to contest the by-elections following the Constitutional Court judgement which clearly stated that nullification is not disqualification.
“That postponing the by-elections for Kabushi and Kwacha constituencies is necessary to ensure a free and fair election following the said judgement of the court advised on the need to avoid interpreting the constitution in a way that undermines the true purpose of the Constitutional provisions,” he said.
The duo urged the court to dismiss the preliminary issues raised by the State for lack of merit.
Attorney General Mulilo Kabesh had submitted that the High Court has no jurisdiction to determine the petition in the absence of any challenge of the nomination of candidates for the two constituencies in line with Article 52(4) of the constitution (Amendment) Act no.2 of 2016.
Mr Kabesha argued that the court has no jurisdiction to interpret the constitution in relation to Article 128(1)(a) of the constitution (Amendment) Act no.2 of 2016.
