GRACE CHAILE
ATTORNEY General, Mulilo Kabesha and the Speaker, Nelly Mutti, have submitted that Munir Zulu’s application for a stay of the Lumezi by-election, scheduled for next month, lacks merit as it fails to demonstrate any irreparable harm or constitutional prejudice.
They argue that the application not only lacks substance but also undermines constitutionalism and disregards the public interest in the electoral process.
In their submission, Mr Kabesha and Ms Mutti stated that Mr Zulu’s application fails to demonstrate any irreparable harm or constitutional prejudice.
They argued that the application undermines constitutionalism, disregards public interest in the electoral process, and lacks substance.
The Attorney General and Speaker submitted that Mr Zulu’s conviction and sentence are sufficient to invoke the disqualification clause under Article 70(2) (f) of the Constitution. They argued that the Speaker acted in fulfillment of her constitutional duty in declaring the Lumezi seat vacant.
Mr Kabesha and Ms Mutti submitted that Mr Zulu’s argument that the Nickson Chilangwa’s case was wrongly decided does not suffice to suspend the Constitution and its binding effect. They stated that the application has no demonstration of irreparable harm and no constitutional prejudice.
Chilangwa’s case refers to a landmark Constitutional Court decision in Zambia that established a precedent for the disqualification of members of Parliament (MPs) who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.The Attorney General and the Speaker argued that in the Chilangwa’s case, the Constitutional Court ruled that an MP who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment is disqualified from holding office, regardless of whether they have appealed the conviction or not.
The court held that the disqualification is automatic and takes effect immediately upon the MP’s conviction and sentencing.“The applicant is currently serving a custodial sentence. Disqualification arises not from the mere fact of conviction, but from the status of being imprisoned. This court in Chilangwa rightly affirmed that the mere filing of an appeal or petition does not suspend the operation of the constitution. Allowing otherwise would paralyse constitutional enforcement,” they stated.
Mr Zulu’s lawyers have argued that the Chilangwa case was wrongly decided, but Attorney General and Speaker contended that the case establishes a clear precedent for the disqualification of MPs who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
The Attorney General and Speaker prayed that the application for a stay be dismissed with costs. They argued that granting a stay would interfere with the lawful functioning of Parliament and upset the separation of powers.
Mr Zulu had argued that the seat should not have been declared vacant because he is still pursuing an appeal against his conviction.
However, Mr Kabesha and Ms Mutti maintained that the constitutional eligibility standards for MPs must be upheld rigorously, and that failure to adhere to these standards undermines the integrity of the electoral process and public confidence in the rule of law.
