Tempting fate

Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:34:19 +0000

UPND President Hakainde Hichilema must realise that he is tempting fate and in the process may expose his members and the nation at large to an outcome that may jeopardise the peace we have enjoyed for the last 51 years.

The threat to peace should not be under-estimated.

It is understandable that he is bitter for losing the last presidential election but this is not an excuse to subvert the law and structures that form the basis of our electoral system.  He must realise that the Presidency is a creature of statute governed by very specific laws.

In this regard the constitution has established the mode of election of the President and the manner in which those disputing the outcome can challenge them.

Central is the 14-day window in which an aggrieved party may challenge the outcome.  The law is clear and unambiguous in setting a 14-day limitation.  This is in comparison to the open ended period provided in the last constitution where presidential petitions could drag out for months and even years with the proviso that the sitting president would remain in office.

Not so in the present constitution.

Drafters did not envisage a presidential vacuum for more than 14 days.  Lawyers representing Hichilema and GBM were fully aware of this time limitation which the court could not change.

The law is the law.

In the United States of America the so-called custodian of democratic norms and practices, the system makes nonsense of the one-man one-vote which we cherish so dearly in Zambia.

In their last elections, Hilary Clinton polled 3 million more votes that Donald Trump but lost elections due to an electoral system that seemingly disadvantaged her.  However, as a democrat she has accepted the outcome because the law provides for electoral colleges and not the popular one past the post applied in most democracies in the world.

Not even the allegations of Russian interference in the election will change the outcome.

We therefore find it unacceptable that HH and his colleagues have decided to misapprehend the law by suggesting that the petition should be heard and that unless this was done he would not recognize President Lungu.

This is a call to anarchy and subversion of the law because President Lungu is both de-jure and the de facto president of this country.   He scored the requisite 50 plus 1 threshold.  HH had 14 days to challenge this outcome but did not do so.  In lay man’s language the challenge lapsed or was still-born.  It did not reach the standard expected as provided for in the constitution.

As far as the highest court of the land – the constitutional – court is concerned, this matter is closed and cannot be re-opened because the lapse was created by negligence of petitioners who failed to present the case in the prescribed time frame.  This cannot be blamed on the Court or respondents.

It is therefore uncharacteristic, un-Zambian and certainly unlawful for HH to suggest that only hearing the Presidential petition would compel him and the entire UPND to stop talking about the 2016 general elections aftermath.

He is even on record insisting that coercing him to recognize President Lungu as the duly elected President of Zambia without hearing a petition was a sheer waste of time because he would not concede.  This is anarchy.

Time limitations in electoral matters is not peculiar to Zambia.

Kenyan courts have struck down numerous electoral petitions on account of time effluxion and it would be useful for the UPND to study those cases before embarking on a course that is not only destructive but posing a real threat to national peace and security.