By GRACE CHAILE
THE Tonse Alliance has filed a petition in the Constitutional Court challenging the decision that declared former President Edgar Lungu ineligible to contest future elections before he had formally submitted his nomination.
The petition, filed by Patriots for Economic Progress (PEP) president Sean Tembo in his capacity as spokesperson for the Tonse Alliance, argues that the ruling made under Cause No. 2023/CCZ/0021 contravenes Article 52(4) of the Constitution.
The petitioner contends that the determination of eligibility should only be made after a candidate has filed nomination papers, in accordance with Article 52(1).
The alliance through Messrs Aongola and Co. Legal Practitioners and Kang’ombe and Associates argues that the court’s decision was made per incuriam (without proper legal consideration) by failing to account for Article 267(3)(b) and (c) of the Constitution.
Mr Tembo argues that these provisions require that references to a person holding the office of President be interpreted with necessary modifications to apply to the incumbent at the time, in this case, Mr Lungu.
The petition cites past precedents, including the Daniel Pule case and the Legal Resources Foundation matter under Cause No. 2021/CCZ/0025, as well as the Sishuwa Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation case under Cause No. 2021/CCZ/0027. He argues that in those cases, the court holistically considered the constitutional provisions related to presidential tenure and eligibility. The petition seeks a declaration and order that the Constitutional Court’s decision of December 10, 2024, contravened Article 52(4) as read with Article 100 of the Constitution by determining Lungu’s eligibility before he had filed his nomination.
It also seeks an interpretation of Articles 267(3) (b) and 267(3)(c) in conjunction with Article 106(1), (3), and (6) to clarify whether the phrase “a person elected to the office of President” applies to Lungu, who was the incumbent at the relevant time, and whether these provisions should be read with necessary modifications to reflect the circumstances as they existed on January 5, 2016. The Attorney General has been cited as the respondent’s in the case.
