Former President Edgar Lungu has asked the Constitutional Court to quash the Petition on his eligibility for future Presidential elections and the 2021 polls.
Mr.Lungu submitted that the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to preside over the petition.
He has argued that the court already presided over the same subject of the petition before the 2021 General Election.
This is according to the Affidavit in reply to the petition filed by Lusaka businessman Michelo Chizombe.
Mr. Chizombe has submitted before the Constitutional Court that the Electoral Commission of Zambia -ECZ breached article 52 of the Constitution by accepting former President Edgar Lungu’s nomination papers in the 2021 Presidential Election.
This is according to the Petition filed in the Constitutional Court.
[ZNBC]
ARREST BRIAN MUSHIMBA OVER THE FAKE TRAFFIC CAMERAS WITH THE LEBANESE. He’s worth over $1.5 million boasting of buying a $500,000 house in the USA. Extradite him.
Most of articles from Hamasaka ZWD are embarrassing.
Well, he didn’t have to submit anything. Our Judiciary is on trial. Let’s see how they’ll come out on this and several other cases
@Ayatollah: The judiciary is not on any trial. The bugger has been sworn twice. He is barred from running for the presidency, according to the law as written by MMD/PF.
Good luck with this, nothing will come out of this and it will keep dragging on and on
@ Buckteethlungu: A judgment will be rendered very quickly, and he will be barred from running. The delusional bugger is in another court demanding that he be allowed to continue receiving ex-president benefits while he is actively seeking the presidency
The f00Iish tonga Lusaka times editor who is paid by hh to use bad pictures of ecl, will die a painful death. When you disrespect elder leaders you will die soon
@Kaizar Zulu: I understand that you are waiting for the first white Catholic priest, who will try to test the tolerance and morality of Zambians, by marrying men to other men, so that you can take your boyfriend there, be declared man and husband..
In an ordinarily independent competent court, the Concourt would have quashed this application the moment it landed on their desk because they have ruled on this matter TWICE.
But because this is a concourt whose judgements have surprised lawyers throughout the commonwealth, they have allowed this case to be heard AGAIN.
The AG previously argued that Lungu was eligible, they won that case much to the surprise of sane lawyers. They established a precedent. We must follow precedent. The office of the AG is now back to court arguing that Lungu isn’t eligible.
Mind you, office of AG works on continuity.
We know AG is political now if we judge from consent judgements. The surprise is with the concourt which is being mischievous.
@Chiza Chirwa: This is a complete lie. In the US, in the 1800s, the Supreme Court rendered an infamous decision, in the Dred Scott case, declaring black people to be 3/5 human, and justifying from it denial of their full rights as US citizen. Of course that decision was reversed by other Supeme courts later. The US Supreme Court gave women the right to abortions in the Roe v Wade case of 1970. In 2020, a court full of judges appointed by Republican presidents reversed that decision. Right now the Republicans are setting up a show down on voting rights, to try and squeeze the space in which non-whites exercise their franchise, but such legal devices as removing ballot boxes from their precincts, or packing them in districts which ultimately dilute their electoral power
Chiza Chirwa, I am sure you want apply the continuity argument to the Office of the DPP as well. What do think about former DPP Lillian Siyunyi who refused to stand by criminal convictions secured by her predecessor in the Magistrates Court? That is what she did in the Katele Kalumba case in the Supreme Court and it earned her a rebuke from the judges.
The same ConCourt revisited their judgment on ministers illegally staying in office. They should have quashed the petition by AG Kalaluka and the PF ministers but instead they allowed it to proceed. So a precedent was set by them and now they have to revisit ECL eligibility case
@Independent:In the US-
8 Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Were Overturned
1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Child Labor …
2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) …
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) …
4. Betts v. Brady (1942) …
5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) …
6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) …
7. Baker v. Nelson (1972) …
8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992) …
I challenge you that what you have stated here is a lie. How did the Concourt revisit a decision over ministers illegal stay in government?
Just how?
The Concourt allowed the petition to proceed and 3 questions were presented before the court. You can read the pdf file of the 2nd case on the judiciary website. …..The court decided to deal with the 3rd question initially which looked at constitutionality of the AG representing the Ministers. The court ruled that the AG could not represent the petitioners and the petition thus collapsed. The 2nd question which stated that the Concourt cannot change its earlier judgment and the 1st question (main petition) which asked the Concourt to revisit their earlier ruling was thus ignored.
KKKKK BUT KWENA WHY HAVE WE BECOME SO SHALLOW MINDED TO LET OURSELVES GO SO LOW TO THIS EXTENT.WHO HAS BIWTICHED US ZAMBIA.WE ARE PUTTING OURSELVES IN AN LWKWALD SITUATION AND IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO COME OUT OF IT.SO TODAY’S RULING PARTY WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS.
There will be no squashing of the case. The written judgement by concourt should be ready in court.
Why is Upnd gittery when the hear of Lungu. Let him participate in the election s and if Zambians do not need him they will reject him again. You are having sleepless nights and wasting time to improve the lives of Zambian people by worrying on Lungus coming back into politics. Mind you Zambia is not a monarch and there will be new leaders after the current crop of leaders have left office. Just leave Lungu a lone and Zambia will decide his fate.
@Hendrix in the west/: UPND is promoting the rule of the laws enacted by MMD and PF. The law says that a man who has been sworn in twice cannot be sworn in as president of Zambia a 3rd time. Lungu is not going to prevail. The law is the law. The current Zambian justice system is notorious for its venality; the political class, particular that of Lungu, was notorious for intimidation. The use of these two factors is the sole reason and unconstitutional decision was rendered to allow the motherfa to run in 2021. Now this court is under no pressure of any kind from anyone. It can review its earlier ruling, and render a new one in accordance with the constitution. This all there is to this.
@Chiza Chirwa: The highest court in the land is not bound by its prior decisions. It is the only court that can change decisions it rendered before, and that the whole point behind such courts. Below are a list 8 Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Were Overturned by the YS Supreme Court
1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Child Labor …
2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) …
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) …
4. Betts v. Brady (1942) …
5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) …
6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) …
7. Baker v. Nelson (1972) …
8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992) …
@Chiza Chirwa: The highest court in the land is not bound by its prior decisions. It is the only court that can change decisions it rendered before, and that the whole point behind such courts. Below are a list 8 Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Were Overturned by the US Supreme Court for example:
1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Child Labor …
2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) …
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) …
4. Betts v. Brady (1942) …
5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) …
6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) …
7. Baker v. Nelson (1972) …
8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992) …
I hv enjoyed reading the arguments above. Very good guys, keep it up.