PARTIES SEEK CONSOLIDATION IN ELIGIBILITY CASE
By CHINTU MALAMBO THE Constitutional Court yesterday heard that the four opposition political party leaders have sought to amicably resolve all preliminary issues with parties involved in the matter in which the opposition leaders want an interpretation of the Constitutional Court on whether President Edgar LunBy gu can contest the 2021 presidential elections, so that the main matter is expedited.
In the main matter, four opposition party leaders Daniel Pule of Christian Democratic Party, Zambia Republican Party leader Wright Musoma, Peter Chanda of the New Congress Party and Citizen Democratic Party leader Robert Mwanza sued the Attorney General over the tenure of office and eligibility of President Lungu.
And Attorney General Likando Kalaluka who is the first respondent told the court that he tried to engage parties but that they had failed to reach consensus.
When the matter came up before a full bench of the Constitutional Court headed by Constitutional Court president Judge Hilda Chibomba for possible hearing of the matter in which Heritage party leader Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda had asked the Constitutional Court to determine whether a single judge was eligible to proceed over an interlocutory motion in the main matter, counsel for the four opposition leaders, Bonaventure Mutable asked for an adjourn- ment that they wanted to find a way of consolidating the issues raised in the matter and also see how they could resolve the preliminary issues surrounding the case.
He said that efforts to agree with all parties had failed but that he would formally file his preliminary issue with the hope that all parties would respond.
“We had preliminary issues to raise but have not filed because we thought we would engage our colleagues so that we conclude with the preliminary issues and focus on the main matter. We have not been able to reach consensus but there is hope that we will get there, “he said.
But Gen Miyanda was not happy with Mr Mutale’s application to adjourn the matter saying that he was taken aback with the issues raised and that he expected the court to carry on with the direction given in the last sitting and that he was hoping that the court would make progress
He argued that the Attorney General did not engage him as he took the approach off the record.
“I wish to correct the impression that on engagement, I took it to be off the record that the Attorney General engage me. I was not consulted but I was being told to drop my case because of the manner in which I was being told. I was told that as a general, you cannot win all battles,” he said.
Ruling on the application to adjourn, Judge Mulenga said the applicants’ lawyers were given an opportunity to file a response on the issues raised by Brig Gen Miyanda on October 31, adding that since they have not seen anything on the record, they (judges) would take it that they did not response during the stipulated period.
She said the court was taken aback by the applicant’s request to adjourn when they ought to have responded to the issues raised on October 30 but since there was no objection, they would not decline the application, which they could have ordinarily refused.
The court adjourned the matter to December 5 2017.