UPND WON’T ACCEPT LUNGU

Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:54:30 +0000

By ANNIE ZULU

WE WILL continue boycotting President Edgar Lungu’s address to Parliament, UPND party Whip Garry Nkombo has vowed.

Mr Nkombo, who is Mazabuka Central MP, also stated that the UPND had no regrets for boycotting the address by President Lungu.

On Tuesday, the Speaker suspended 48 UPND Members of Parliament for 30 days for missing President Edgar Lungu’s Parliament address early this year.

But in an interview with the Daily Nation yesterday, Mr Nkombo described the Speaker’s ruling as an insult to the people who voted for the suspended UPND MPs.

He said there was no provision in the Standing Orders which compels MPs to be present during a Presidential address.

The MPs had boycotted President Lungu’s State of the Nation address on grounds that they did not recognise him, hence could not listen to someone whose election was a subject of petition in the courts.

In his ruling, Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Patrick Matibini found them guilty of abrogating parliamentary etiquette and decorum and asked them to resign on moral ground if they did not want to recognise President Lungu.

And Mr Nkombo has charged that it was malicious for Dr. Matibini to rule that UPND MPs should resign on moral grounds.

“The Speaker’s ruling that he thinks we should resign on moral grounds was extremely malicious, because we were elected by people and it doesn’t earn respect to people who voted us to power. So for him to get emotional and get to that extent was wrong,” he said.

Mr Nkombo maintained that the UPND did not recognise President Lungu as Head of State.

“We do not regret shunning and if another one had to come, we will probably not be there.

“When the courts have taken a position that there is a law or there is a rule in the book of the Standing Orders that compels people to be there when the President is there, then we will have no option but to go.

“But for now, I think everything was done according to the understanding of those who made the ruling, which is why we have gone to court in order to establish that. So if the court thinks that we were unreasonable we will have to go to Parliament to listen to someone who we clearly do not want to listen to,” he said.