LUSAKA lawyer, Bonaventure Mutale has moved two motions asking the Supreme Court to state whether or not former Solwezi central MMD Member of Parliament (MP) Lucky Mulusa and his Kasenengwa counterpart Victoria Kalima are eligible to re-contest their seats.
This follows the decision of the Supreme Court to nullify Mr Mulusa and Ms Kalima’s seats on grounds that they engaged in corrupt practices.
The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has since announced February 25 as date for voting the in Kasenengwa and Solwezi central by elections as well as Katuba constituency.
Mr Mutale, State counsel, in his two separate notices of motion to the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought an explanation on whether the duo is eligible to contest any parliamentary election held in the same constituencies where their election was nullified.
Mr Mutale also wants the court to clarify whether the High Court, ECZ, director of public prosecution should take any steps in view of finding by the Supreme Court that Mr Mulusa and Ms Kalima were guilty of having committed corrupt practices in connection with the election.
Mr Mutale stated in his affidavit in support of notice of motion that he was an advocate for PF losing candidates for Kasenengwa, Saul Zulu and Solwezi Central Newton Malwa.
He said Mr Zulu and Mr Malwa had appealed to the Supreme Court from judgments of the High Court dismissing their petitions of the election of Ms Kalima and Mr Mulusa as MPs in the next five years.
He said on December 10, 2013 and December 23 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgments respectively finding the duo guilty of corrupt practices and nullified their elections.
Mr Mutale said it was unclear whether the two were eligible to re-contest their seats in the next five years the reason he is seeking an explanation or interpretation from the court.
PF: Pa Fwaka
Ifyaamba! aba bantu
Corrupt people that caused the bye-elections should not be allowed to re-contest. That is the law. Thanks PF, electoral malpractices will soon be a thing of the past.
Leave them to recontest, what is the fear, when their ‘irregular’ election was nullified? Are they too strong even without the so-called monetary inducement to the voters? Washa-awutu! They donated offerings to the churches, which may not be a criminal act per se, unless they stole the money they used for the offerings. Since there is no one claiming loss of money that was used in the offerings, and the govt has failed to prove that it was proceeds of crime comitted elsewhere, washa-awutu; refer to Liato’s case!
these bye-elections are really dragging the nation into a lot of mud. in civilized nations no one nullifies seats half way like this. once one is voted in let them finish
their term especially if you can’t even convict them of a crime, now people will be without representation for a long time, these nullifications are flawed hence they bring a lot of legal issues, which even the acting Justice Lady can do nothing but watch including ECZ .
This fight against corruption will be bring sanity to our election process. Candidates have been taking advantage of the poor people by bribing then with utumajinga, ututenge na fichibuku. Corruption should not be allowed . All corrupt people should not re-contest their seats. If anything they deserve to go to jail.
Always mudslinging, Let Mulusa and ms Kalima stand.What are you sacred of?
Surely the lawyer should know by now that to be rendered ineligible to stand ,one has to be convicted of the crime that caused the nullification of the election .Nullification on its own does not warrant a conviction as there has to be a trail to that effect proofing that a certain number of people present in church gained from the donation and solely based on that voted for the donor giving him a numerical advantage
The case to restrain Mr Mulusa and Kasenengwa Mp will really put the Supreme Court in a very difficult situation because I have read the Judgement for him alleged donated K 1000 000 [ K 1000.00] to the Church which led to his nullification of his seat.Now compare the latest judgement for Ms Namugala who allegedly donated K2000 000 [ K2000] to the Church and her seat was not nullified. Now, would it not mean a trial again because the two situations / events are very similar. So people would be interested to know the dividing line between the 2 judgements as there seem to be more questions than answers. Could Legal Counsels and LAZ shade light on these two judgemnts for Ms Namugala and Mr. Mulusa as this is a very good academic exercise for law scholars, I wait for the summary of the two.