THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION IN THE MATTER OF EDGAR LUNGU AND MILES SAMPA The courts of law have delivered a verdict in the disputed PF presidency and Honourable Edgar Lungu has been declared PF President and sole PF presidential candidate in the forthcoming presidential by-election on 20th January, 2015. The election of Honourable Miles Bwalya Sampa at the same PF extraordinary general conference has been declared illegal, null and void. The court of public opinion has serious concerns with the court findings and rulings. 1. ELECTION OF THE PF PRESIDENT Which of the two elections in Kabwe followed the correct PF procedure for electing a president? Election of Hon Edgar Lungu as PF President Certainly the procedure used to elect Hon Edgar Lungu was seriously flawed. On Sunday evening, November 30th, 2014, those watching events at the PF Extraordinary General Conference, EGC, on television heard that Lungu was standing unopposed (what had happened to the other 8 candidates was not made clear). We then saw a chaotic crowd conduct an election by a show of hands and heard the declaration of Edgar Lungu as PF President. What took place was not a free and fair election. Election of Hon Miles Sampa as PF President On Monday 1st December, 2014, we witnessed an orderly election procedure. The EGC concluded the accreditation of delegates and ascertained the identity of delegates that were eligible to vote. Throughout the day, we witnessed the proceedings of an orderly election meeting in which 8 candidates competed freely and fairly for the vacant position of PF President. Miles Bwalya Sampa was convincingly and duly elected PF President 2. RULE OF LAW Zambia and Zambians firmly embrace the Rule of Law as a tested weapon for fighting injustice. A party to a dispute who reasonably believes that their rights are in imminent danger of being permanently lost or irretrievably damaged can ask a judge for an injunction to prevent the defeat of justice. Since injunctions are granted ex parte i.e. in the absence of the other party, courts require determination of the merits of the application be heard promptly with each party being afforded an opportunity to be heard. Secondly it requires disputes to be settled fairly and transparently by an impartial and independent tribunal. Honourable Edgar Lungu exercised this right. In the early hours of Monday morning, shortly after being pronounced PF President, he and his supporters, secured a provisional injunction directed at halting the on-going EGC. Whether or not the injunction was served on the intended party is in doubt. From all accounts the injunction was improperly served and did not reach the attention of those in a position to halt the EGC proceedings. As a candidate for the Presidency, was not directed at Hon Miles Sampa. In any case would late service of the injunction order have harmed the interests of the aggrieved party irretrievably? WE THINK NOT Take the example of an injunction directed at stopping a fugitive from leaving the country is served on the fugitive in mid-air, it would be utterly unreasonable to crush the plane in order to execute the injunction. The plane would land safely and the fugitive would then be handed over to the authorities! In our view, the fact that the EGC proceeded and concluded its business without interruption commendably preserved the evidence of what transpired. It meant that the election of Hon Miles Sampa as PF President can be challenged credibly and on merit. From the perspective of the general public, the interests of justice would not have been served if the proceedings of the EGC had been prematurely halted Was the emergency intervention by injunction warranted? Presumably, Hon Lungu apprehended the imminent loss of the position of PF President which he acquired undemocratically. The Judge gave him the benefit of doubt and granted him the injunction. It is a judgmental call, but it hardly warranted a midnight injunction application. Were the parties granted the right to be heard? Without hearing the parties on merit, the court made a startling series of court orders on Wednesday 3rd December, 2014 as follows: 1. In a consent judgment, Judge Mulenga declared “—the election of Honourable Edgar 30th November 2014 be and is hereby confirmed and Honourable Mr Edgar Changwa Lungu be and is hereby declared the president of the Patriotic Front and the sole presidential candidate on the Patriotic Front ticket in the 20th January 2015 elections”. She also declared the purported general conference held on December 1, 2014 which elected Sampa as president of the PF was illegal, null and void. Contending parties to the consent judgments: (a) Inonge Wina, the suspended PF Chairperson is the plaintiff in all the actions; (b) Bridget Atanga and others? 2. A consent Judgment filed by Inonge Wina upheld the replacement of Bridget Atanga with Davis Chama as Secretary General. Hon Lungu appointed Davis Chama PF Secretary General shortly after his ‘election’ as PF president Inonge Wina as Plaintiff and her affidavit formed basis for the ruling As a suspended PF National Chairperson, Inonge Wina does not have the locus standi to apply for and act as plaintiff in these injunctions Opposing parties to the above temporary injunctions were not heard on merit or at all. Resolution of a dispute without the parties to the dispute being afforded an opportunity to be heard and the dispute being decided on its substantive merit is derogation from the Rule of Law. Society to whom even the law is answerable has a right to expect that the grant and disposal of injunctions be conducted in a manner that does not obstruct access to justice. It is evident that in Kabwe, at the PF EGC there were two camps. One group was determined to use whatever means necessary to wrestle power and proclaim Hon Edgar Lungu PF President. The other camp stayed the course and conducted a transparent electoral process that resulted in the election of Hon Miles Sampa as PF President. These events were conducted in full view of the nation’s television audience The deafening conspiracy of silence among the various constituencies in society is a matter of great concern. History will judge us harshly, when our State Counsels, the Law Association of Zambia, senior citizens, the church, political parties, students and youth, civil society organizations and other constituencies in our country silently accommodate INJUSTICE by failing to condemn seizure of power and leadership through mob action.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:44:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015