FORMER President Edgar Lungu is wondering why he has been sued over his eligibility to contest elections when the Constitutional Court already president over the matter in a majority judgement rendered in 2018.
Mr Lungu, a lawyer, contends that the petitioner, Michelo Chizombe, who wants to court to interpret his eligibility to contest the 2021 elections, had an opportunity to raise the issues when the matter was before the court under three different petitions, but neglected to do so.
In the petition, Mr Chizombe, who is also a National Council of Student Unions leader, has petitioned the Constitutional Court to declare Mr Lungu, ineligible to contest future elections.
He wants the court to revisit its ruling by declaration that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) contravened the Republican constitution when it accepted Mr Lungu’s nomination papers and include him on the ballot.
The petitioner further seeks a declaration that Mr Lungu is ineligible to contest a presidential election under the current Constitution as read with the now repealed 1991 Constitution (as amended).
He has cited Mr Lungu, ECZ and the Attorney General as first, second and third respondents in the matter.
But in reply, Mr Lungu argues that the Constitutional Court already pronounced itself over the matter and Mr Chizombe is not entitled to the reliefs he is seeking in the matter.
The former Minister of Justice, Minister of Defence and Minister of Home Affairs, further submits that he will state at trial that he only served one term as head of State, contrary to what Mr Chizombe, alleges in the petition.
“The first respondent [Mr Lungu] will aver at trial that this court has already pronounced itself on the issues being raised by the petitioner. Further, the first respondent will aver at trial that he has not served two terms as alleged by the petitioner,” Mr Lungu’s answer to the petition reads in part.
In his answer to the petition, Mr Lungu submits that the dissenting Constitutional Court Judgement which ruled that he was not eligible to contest the 2021 elections was a minority opinion to set a precedent.
“The dissenting judgement does not represent the majority opinion which set out legal precedent and likely to be followed in future cases. The reasoning of the majority aligns with established legal principles and precedents. Therefore, relying on a dissenting judgement indicates that the petitioner has no case,” he submits.
Mr Lungu will state at trial that the Constitutional Court has already pronounced itself on the issues being raised by the petitioner.
“The petitioner had an opportunity to raise the issues when the matter was before the court under three different petitions, but neglected to do so,” the document reads.
Mr Lungu will also state that the Constitutional Court should embrace the principle of finality in legal decisions.
(Mwebantu, Tuesday, 21st November, 2023)
Guardian Angela
November 21, 2023 at 8:18 pm
Its never too late