Judiciary did well to close courts – Hamududu

…argues that the protection of citizens in a country should always take precedence when the country is facing a potentially volatile situation

By BARNABAS ZULU

GOVERNMENT was justified in restricting access to the courts on the day the opposition was to file their petition against the re-election of President Hakainde Hichilema on security grounds, Highvie Hamududu has said.

Mr Hamududu, the UPND Alliance member says the protection of citizens in a country should always take precedence when the country is facing a potentially volatile situation.

Mr Hamududu said security agencies had a responsibility to protect the country and that citizens could not insist on exercising certain rights when doing so could expose them to danger.

He was responding to concerns that the closure and restricted access to the courts had affected the ability of some political parties to challenge the August 13 presidential election results.

“Look, I’ve told you, the security agencies are responsible for the security of the country. And when we civilians begin to jump into that dust, we are now entering dangerous grounds,” Mr Hamududu said.

He likened the situation to restrictions imposed during liberation struggles, where people could be prohibited from moving at night because of security threats.

“During the liberation struggle, my friend, there were security issues. For example, don’t move at night because people are fighting,” he said.

Mr Hamududu said while citizens had a right to move freely, circumstances could arise where security considerations required restrictions.

“It’s a right for me to drive at night. But if it’s a situation that will stop me from moving, it’s good for me,” he said.

He argued that the Government had a responsibility to protect citizens even where security measures could temporarily affect the exercise of certain rights.

“It’s a right for me to petition, but if the Government advises otherwise, it’s good for me,” Mr Hamududu said.

He, however, rejected claims that the closure of the courts was solely responsible for the failure by some opposition parties to file a presidential election petition within the stipulated period.

Mr Hamududu said the opposition had seven days within which to lodge a petition but lost valuable time because of disagreements within its ranks over whether to challenge the election results.

“First of all, even within our colleagues, there was no unison. We were reading, others saying we must petition, others... So there was that diddly-dallying, and that’s why they lost time. Within themselves,” he said.

He said disagreements over whether to petition could not subsequently be blamed on the closure of the courts.

“That does not justify why the party said something else. Yeah, that does not justify why they couldn’t file maybe on the seventh day, if they wanted,” Mr Hamududu said.

He compared the situation to a person who has been given an assignment with a seven-day deadline and chooses when to submit it.

“If I have an assignment to submit, you can’t tell me why it didn’t submit on the first day. I can choose to submit on the last day,” he said.

Mr Hamududu also questioned the level of unity among opposition parties that contested the election under an alliance arrangement, claiming that some parties were competing against each other in parliamentary constituencies.

“This whole arrangement, they went in an election as a makeshift, in all intents and purposes,” he said.

He cited instances where opposition parties allegedly competed against each other in constituencies, arguing that this demonstrated a lack of coordination.

“When you go to the parliamentary seats, they are competing against each other. Do you know that?...they were competing among themselves,” Mr Hamududu said.