9.5 C
Alba Iulia
Saturday, October 31, 2020

Lawyers Failed Hichilema-Chitimukulu

Columns Lawyers Failed Hichilema-Chitimukulu

Chief Chitimukulu
Chief Chitimukulu

By Henry Kanyanta Sosala

Martin Luther King said:

‘’our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.’’

My heart and mind throb and swell in great anguish over the deplorable state of the legal system in our country and I have therefore not written on this important national issue with kid gloves, but to tell it like it is ___ the truth as seen through my own spectacles and nothing but the truth.

The sequence of the development of our country’s laws follows that the Members of Parliament (sometimes referred to as law-makers) enact laws which are interpreted by the courts and enforced by the police. But the most unfortunate dilemma has happened where judges and lawyers have lamentably failed to interpret the Constitution and have thrown the entire nation into the worst type of uncertainty. We have embarrassing situations where High Court and Constitutional Judges are making 180 degrees u-turns on their own earlier rulings.

And deducing from the press reports of what went on at the Constitutional Court I strongly believe that the petitioners, i.e., Hakainde Hichilema and Geoffrey Bwalya Bwalya Mwamba who were represented by the supposed strong legal team of thirteen lawyers with the total accumulation of over fifty years of legal experience were not effectively and adequately represented.

What Confucius, the Chinese sage, said has not lost one iota of importance after 25 centuries: ‘

’if language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not meant, then what ought to be done remains undone; if this remain undone, morals and acts will deteriorate; if morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless and confusion. Hence, there must be arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.’’

And indeed our country as at now stands in total legal confusion.

Mr. Colin Cunningham (the most shrewd lawyer this country has ever had) used to say that any lawyer can twist law in anyway, but must never try to break it. I think the greatest challenge the legal system is facing in relation to the Constitutional Court is that there have been a great laxity in our courts to adjourn cases on flimsy excuses. And unfortunately this is the hangover which both the Judges and the petitioners’ lawyers over-carried to the Constitutional Court.

And to my great disappointment as you will note from this article, they seem not to understand the ‘’ power’’ and the ‘’rigidity’’ of the Constitution, which is regarded as any country’s ‘’Bible.’’ And I had learned from Mr. Cunningham that no one can even change a full stop into a comma in the Constitution when I asked him why Dr. Kaunda had refused to entrench the Barotseland Agreement in the Constitution at the time when the Zambian delegation was negotiating the independence of Zambia in London in 1964.

And indeed I later learned from Gerald L. Caplan’s paper: Barotseland: The Secessionist Challenge to Zambia:

‘’….. Clement Zaza, UNIP’s political assistant in Barotseland openly acknowledged a year later: ‘The Barotseland London Agreement was agreed upon merely as a passport to enable Zambia to integrate Barotseland and proceed to independence as one country. After all, the Zambian government has no moral obligation whatsoever to honour the said agreement’….’’

And when the UNIP administration decided to diffuse the ‘’power’’ and the ‘’rigidity’’ of the Constitution in order to pursue its tyrannical agenda without interference, it introduced the ’’referendum to end all referenda.’’ And on the 1964 Constitution, let me quote from Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika’s manuscript, Sower of the Independence: Case for Re-Decolonization of how the UNIP regime maneuvered to take total power to control and silence their political opponents.

‘’Clearly, the 1969 referendum result was, and was intended to be, a licence for easily changing the Constitution, and everything else government wants, in the direction of further consolidating and concentrating power in the presidency, including imposing proscribing all opposition parties and imposing a one-party state and continuing with the colonial practice of detaining non-conformists. Indeed, before and since then, post-colonial governments have been ‘preoccupied with how to win and retain power, overriding the need for due sense of balanced and restraint.’ Thus, the post-colonial nation-state has not only been inappropriate, but also much abused, at the cost to civil and human rights and there have been no sacred cows.’’

The lawyers who were representing the petitioners, i.e., Messrs. Hakainde Hichilema (HH) and Geofrey Bwalya Mwamba (GBM) were: John Sangwa, Robert Simeza, Musa Mwenye, Jack Mwiimbu, Nelly Mutti, Mwangala Zaloumis, Keith Mweemba, Majo Muchende, Mulambo Haimbe, Martha Mushipe, Chad Muleza, Vincent Malambo and Gilbert Phiri.

The lawyers who represented the first and second respondents i.e., Mr. Edgar C. Lungu and Mrs. Inonge Wina were: Bonaventure Mutale SC., Professor Patrick Mvunga SC., Erick Silwamba SC, Sakwiba Sikota SC., Dickson Jere, Joseph Jalasi, Lubinda Linyama, Major Akokwa Lisita, Newton Mubonda, Chewe Bwalya and Noel Simwanza.

The lawyer from the third respondent, The Electoral Commission of Zambia: Mrs. Ngombo Mulenga (in house lawyer), Abyndi Shonga SC., and Steven Lungu. And the fourth respondent, Attorney General: Likando Kalaluka SC., Abraham Mwansa SC., Martin Lukwasa, and Francis Mwale.

And since this was supposed to be the most highly profiled case in the newly established legal institution (i.e., the Constitutional Court), and from which we had expected mental-cracking arguments from all sides, but unfortunately there is absolutely nothing recorded in the case records to point to as the greatest event in the annals of the legal system in Zambia since the petition just lapsed. And I am of the opinion that the lawyers did not effectively and adequately represent the petitioners as we had expected and anticipated.

I therefore decided to write to a man (like Mr. Colin Cunningham) ‘’who have empires in their heads,’’ Professor Michelo Hansungule, Professor of Human Rights Law, Center for Human Rights, Faculty of Law at University of Pretoria, South Africa and here is what I wrote to him:

‘’……anyway, I just want to find out if the Constitution Court has the right or power to change or alter any part of the Constitution. This arises from the following passage: one party stated: ‘the question of 14 days does not rise or fall on what is right or what is wrong, but rather on the decision of the majority judges at a particular time. From the 14 days decision of both the majority and the minority judges, it is clear that the decision could have gone either way. The 3-2 decision was very close.’
‘’And the other party had this view i.e, they claimed that by treating the constitutional 14 days’ time-frame within which to hear a presidential election as mere technicality which could be dispensed with at the convenience of the judges was both wrong and illegal.’’

And Professor Hansungule wrote back and stated: ‘’Your Highness, the new Constitution creates the Constitutional Court in article 127 which it mandates to hear:

(a) A matter relating to the interpretation of this Constitution.
(b) A matter relating to a violation of or contravention of this Constitution.
(c) A matter relating to the President, Vice-President and councilors and
(d) Whether or not a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

Based on this, therefore, in particular paragraph (a), the Court can interpret the Constitution but only where there is ambiguity. In order to give clarity to an ambiguity, the Court can ‘interpret’ and not ‘rewrite’ the relevant constitutional provisions, just interpret i.e., try to give what Parliamentarians had in mind at the time they enacted the ambiguous clause.

Sir ‘interpretation’ does not mean power to ‘to change’ or ‘enact any part of the Constitution.’ No. this is the reserved domain of the legislature. The idea of going to Court for an interpretation is in order to avoid going to the politicians who enacted the law to understand what they meant because they will give us a ‘political interpretation’ or interpretation according to the ruling party members which may not be in accord with national interests. We go to a professional interpretation of the meaning of a word or clause not easy to understand.

Having said this, Your Royal Highness, the issue of ’14 days’ did not need interpretation by either the majority or the minority in the Constitutional Court. This is not an issue which is ‘ambiguous.’ We all know the meaning of 14 days from the date of filing the petition. All lawyers and judges know that 14 days mean ’14 working days excluding weekends and holidays.’ All cases filed at the High Court are filed with that ordinary meaning in mind. Second, John Sangwa, the UPND lead Counsel raised the issue with Justice Sitali the first day they started sitting for the petition seeking to understand from the Judge how she understood 14 days to mean and she said ‘once we have started sitting for the petition, 14 days will not apply to your prejudice.’

Deducing from the fact that the issue of 14 days had been made more than clear by Judge Sitali to John Sangwa, the UPND lead Counsel on the first day of sitting in the open court, I can therefore safely take it for granted that both teams of lawyers from the petitioners and the respondents were aware what 14 days meant. And according to Professor Hansungule, Judge Sitali had stated without mincing words that

‘‘once we have started sitting for the petition, 14 days will not apply to your prejudice.’’ My Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the noun ‘’prejudice’’ as ‘’an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.’’

It must now be very clear from the above fore-goings that it was the Constitution Judges’ different political interpretations of the 14 days that has greatly contributed to the current constitutional crisis. And from the ’14 days’ decision of both the majority and the minority judges, it is quite surprising that the judges deliberately decided to ignore the ‘’power’’ and ‘’rigidity’’ of the Constitution. I must re-emphasize ‘’deliberately,’’ since ignorance is no defence in law.

And technically the Constitutional Court became illegal and illegitimate as soon as the judges resorted to act outside the Court’s jurisdiction as dictated by the Constitution i.e., they illegally decided to be law-makers instead of being interpreters. Let me quote Professor Hansungule again:

‘’ Sir ‘interpretation’ does not mean power to ‘to change’ or ‘enact any part of the Constitution.’ No. this is the reserved domain of the legislature.’’

And then through the Judges’ joint-political meeting, the unconstitutional 3-2 decision showed that judges Sitali-Mulenga-Mulonda majority might have had a different political leaning from that of the Chibomba-Munalula minority.

Chipasha Chipalo wrote:

‘’The lawyers made the issue of time an issue of argument with the court……….. They should never and cannot blame the court for dismissing the petition after the expiry of the time specified by the Constitution.’’

This indeed makes sad reading because there is no need for crying over spilled milk since this issue of 14 days could have been adequately dealt with by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and lawyers who were on the Constitution Committee and I know of Dr. Roger Chongwe and the fact that the Technical Committee chairperson was the former Chief Justice, Judge Anniel Silungwe. This means our lawyers did not understand the implications relating to the Constitution and therefore could not later interpret our Constitution. What shame!

And let us look at another anomaly because inspite of the fact that Judge Sitali had clarified the issue of 14 days earlier, let us listen to what Perpetual Sichikwekwe reported:

‘’….Meanwhile, hearing of Mr. Hichilema’s application for an order that pending the determination of the petition, ballot papers and all other documentation used in the elections be in custody of the court again failed to take off yesterday. Lawyers from both parties arrived at the court around 0900 hours, but the hearing could not proceed because Mr. Hichilema’s lawyers had not served the documents on Mr. Lungu and Mrs. Wina. Justice Chibomba adjourned the hearing of the preliminary application on the preservation and custody of the ballot papers and other documentation to today at 1400 hours’’  (Zambia Daily Mail 24th August 2016).

And the petitioners’ lawyers had not served the documents on the respondents about the fourth or fifth day into 14 days prescribed period.

And according to Troubleshooter, Chipasha Chipalo:

‘’The lawyers for the petitioners made the mistake of submitting grounds which were more speculative than factual. They also listed too many witnesses for a petition which had such a short time frame provided for the hearing. I can only guess that they did not realize the negative consequences of procrastination on the part of their clients. The originating summons was also too weak leading to applications for amendment of the petition, and yet, they had a full six days in which to prepare a firm case or advise their clients that there were no grounds for proceeding with the petition. The petitioners’ lawyers spent thirteen (13) days out of the Constitution’s prescribed fourteen (14) days filing applications instead of commencing the hearing so that they could prove their case.’’ (Daily Nation 7th September 2016)

And this simply means that there was nothing pertaining to the petition or any evidence recorded in the Constitution Court case records. And therefore the petition lapsed after 14 days. And in fact the petition never took place.

Then on Friday, 2nd September and the 14th day to close the hearing of the petition, the lawyers tactfully abandoned their clients in order for Hakainde Hichilema and Geoffrey Mwamba to plead for the unconstitutional extension of the 14 days within which the petition was to be heard. What is surprising was what made the Judges to agree to the request by the petitioners to hire new lawyers when the period had expired. And this actually means that the Judges did not understand the limits and the powers of the Constitution Court.

Andrew Ntewewe, President of the Young African Leadership Initiative said,

‘’Justice Chibomba had exhibited emotion in her conduct and that it was injudicious for her to have been moved by the political pleadings of Hakainde Hichilema and Geoffrey Mwamba to unconstitutionally allow the extension of the 14 days within which the UPND petition was to be heard.’’ (Daily Nation 9th September 2016).

Chipalo wrote:

‘’I am inclined to think that the decision to dismiss the petition on Monday 5th September was a realization of the earlier mistake and pressure from the public who justifiably complained about the abrogation of the Constitution.’’

What is amazing is that if we combine the experiences of thirteen lawyers who represented the petitioners, it might total to over fifty years of legal experience and yet they decided to deceive their clients to do what was not workable.
And so having totally and absolutely failed to file applications of commencing the hearing within the prescribed 14 days so that they could prove their case, then in desperation to cover up their shame of incompetence and blind the nation on their failure to effectively and adequately represent the petitioners, they resorted to the phrase Mr. Colin Cunningham had coined to describe the desperation of failed lawyers:

‘’Fix it, till you make it.’’

When the petitioners’ lawyers realized that inspite of their numbers (i.e., 13), they had shamefully come to the end of the road they resorted to ‘’fix it till you make it’’ tactics which included unreasonable arrogance from some miscreants. Surely when they walked out of court on the 14th day and last day of the petition, were they (with their 50 + years of legal experience) really convinced that the Judges had power to change the Constitution when they misled their clients to seek to engage new lawyers! Let me once more quote Professor Hansungule again:

Sir ‘interpretation’ does not mean power to ‘to change’ or ‘enact any part of the Constitution.’ No. this is the reserved domain of the legislature.

And here is the editorial comment: ‘’Despite the court’s ruling, Mr. Hichilema and Mr. Mwamba have initiated two new actions on the same matter, same facts but before two separate courts. They have initiated another cause of action in the High Court contending that the Constitutional Court did not afford them reasonable time in which to hear their petition. (Daily Nation 9th September 2016).

Was it the Constitutional Court that did not afford them reasonable time or the contents of the Constitution itself? In fact, I always hear lawyers themselves saying, ‘’ignorance of law is no defence,’’ and how can it be a defence today? There are themselves to blame and the greatest problem in Africa is that we tend to swallow anything from the white man and hence these same lawyers were just nodding their heads to ‘’14 days’’ like tree-frogs (popularly known as blue-heads) or like automated machines.

And in this respect, Reverend Munshya wa Munshya hit the nail on the head: ‘’The law does not change quickly enough to adapt to the political realities of a democracy. No wonder, Zambia is not led by laws using people, but by people using laws.

In philosophy it is said: ‘’Never complain about what you have permitted. You have permitted your present circumstance or they would not exist. What you tolerate, you permit to exist. What you tolerate, you authorize to exist….’’

The lawyers and their mother body the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), in their misguided efforts to be champions of white democracy neglected to watch out for evil motives of the capitalist-exploiter. The greatest problem in this country is that our ears itch for praises from the whites. Of course, no one can overlook the fact that the white man has brought a lot of good civilization to Africa, but it comes with a sly danger, because while celebrating the generous donor aid such as the distributions of free skippers and such privileges as learning and enlightenment, it can easily blind us to who we really are and come to the fatal conclusion that the white man is the measure of all things. This hypnotizing mentality has subverted the African personality like no other ideology.

These people are intellectuals and are supposed to be the conscience of our society, but unfortunately through carelessness, this nation is going through unparalleled conflict and division that could have led to tortuous and volcanic hell.
My interest in this case has just been to try and establish if a team of thirteen lawyers had effectively and adequately represented their clients and from the fore-goings, I have found that they exhibited incompetence and later resorted to deceive their clients by misleading them into unnecessary court actions.

Professor Hansungule concluded his letter to me:

‘’Please Sir, I request you tell HH and GBM not to waste time with the law on a problem like this……….. If they cannot suggest a political strategy, they can as well forget it…’’

Let us look at this issue the other way round: No product can be more powerful than the source from which it came. Thus, the quality of any product is dependent upon the quality of the components used in the product, which is dependent upon the quality of the materials used in the component. The potential of something is always related to the potential of the source from which it came. Nothing can be greater than its source.

In fact the entire issue of this long article is to prove that our Constitution was a brain-child of the capitalist-exploiter i.e., it is an imperialist-driven and definitely not the people-driven Constitution. It is general knowledge that any manufactured product has got the manufacturers’ manual to which the purchaser must refer in order to utilize such a product to the maximum efficiency. But if this useless Constitution was indeed ‘’people-driven,’’ why have we as the manufacturers totally and absolutely failed to de-code and interpret the contents of our own product?

I have always maintained that the capitalist-exploiter leads with truth but never to truth. And this imperialist-driven document was not drawn in our own interest since ‘’the potential of something is always related to the potential of the source from which it came. Nothing can be greater than its source.’’

Let me quote Professor Muna Ndulo, a US-based constitution lawyer:

‘’I think the constitution-making process in any country should be owned by the people of that country. The Constitution is context-driven; you cannot take the American Constitution, the British Constitution and whatever and say it can work in Zambia. It is not like a fridge which you can take from here and say because it operates on electricity it can work in Afghanistan or wherever. No, it has to be context-driven. We are dealing with our specific problems and we have to address those. And I am also very troubled by the fact that often, external actors have this attitude that whatever they think of is good enough for Africa. I believe we deserve the best and we shouldn’t accept that people think they can advocate things which in their own countries they would never accept…. The key to success is always the people themselves to chart their own course; the crucial issue of ownership would never really be underestimated.’’ (The Post 25th August 2015).

And deducing from the blind arguments on the ‘’14 days issue,’’ it simply means our lawyers had not the slightest idea the impact it would later make on the interpretation of the Constitution by the Constitution Judges when it was being inserted in the Constitution. I strongly believe the ‘’14 days issue’’ could have easily been managed if foreign lawyers could have been invited to beef up the local legal team.

The Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap 144 in the 1965 Edition of the Laws of Zambia, permitted outside lawyers to apply to the Chief Justice to be admitted as practitioners in Zambia. But unfortunately the Legal Practitioners Act 1973 which came into force on 23rd March 1973 restricted admission to the Zambia Bar and subsequent practice in Zambian courts of lawyers trained abroad.

However, we are now sadly reaping the consequences of that ban. Attorney-general, Mumba Malila said that the legal profession was in considerable disrepute. ‘’…some learned legal practitioners at ZIALE expecting to enter what is known as the noble profession have deemed it convenient to shamefully cheat their way into the profession by helping themselves to leaked examination papers..’’ (Sunday Post 28th April 2007)

High court transcript of treason case

Let me cite one example of what I am talking about: I was availed the information from the High Court’s transcripts in the treason case of Shamwana and 11 others. The trial was before Judge Chirwa J. (HP/166/1981). My interest was on accused 2, Mr. Valentine Shula Musakanya. At the High Court trial he was found guilty and sentenced to death and he was represented by two Zambian lawyers i.e., Messrs. John Mwanakatwe and Bevin Willombe. He was, however, acquitted on appeal by the Supreme Court, a British lawyer Mr. Robert Gatehouse a Queens Counsel (QC) joined the two Zambian lawyers.

My interest in the trial was that Mr. Gatehouse’s submission was what would normally appear to be an insignificant and trivial issue. It was on the notes a police superintendent took from accused 2, which were admitted by the High Court but where the QC based his arguments.

Justice Chirwa wrote: ‘’Whilst on the question of confessions, I will briefly refer to the interrogation notes taken from Mr. Valentine Musakanya, exhibit ‘P 100.’ I made it clear when delivering any ruling on the notes that they were being admitted in evidence not as a statement by Mr. Valentine Musaakanya, as they do not qualify to constitute a statement, but as notes made by the witness to remind himself of what accused 2 said i.e., to refresh his memory see Lester & howard Vs R (22). These notes were objected to by Mr. John Mwanakatwe.

At the Supreme Court were: Judge Silungwe C.J., Judge Ngulube D.C., Judge Mundo T.S., Judge Bweupe and Judge Sakala.
Here is Mr. Gatehouse’s submission:

‘’…this brings us to accused 2’s situation which is radically different from others in that here, we are faced, not with a confession statement but with interrogation notes, exhibit ‘P 100.’ There was in this case, a wrongful admission of accused 2’s interrogation notes which should never have been before the trial court. It is not in dispute that on November 2-3 1980 PW 110 interrogated accused 2 at Lilayi; whilst police personnel secretly endeavoured to maintain a hand-written record as interrogation. There was no warn and caution administered to accused 2. The notes were not read to him. The notes contained insertions as well as alterations; the notes taken and the information given were not a warn and caution statement. The notes were at that time for the assistance of PW 110….in this circumstances, the lack of caution was not an impropriety.’’

Mr. Balachandram argued on behalf of the State that the interrogation notes were admissible in evidence as they were a contemporaneous record of the information given by accused 2 to PW 110.
The Supreme Court ruling: ‘’…clearly, the interrogation notes were, to all intents and purposes, admitted in evidence and used by the trial court as if they were a substitute for a properly admitted confession. This was misdirection. Interrogation notes may at best be used only as an aide-memoire, but should not, as a matter of principle, be used as a substitute for a confession. If this were not so, the Judge’s Rules would fall away as their own inanition. The significance and purpose of interrogation notes is to aid police investigations, not to be later transformed into evidence. It would be undesirable to promote the status of interrogation notes to the status or quasistatus of a confession, since for obvious reasons, the police subsequent to the interrogation notes which according to PW 110’s evidence, had been made as aid-memoire and not for the purpose of production in court.

‘’And to the State’s submission that the interrogation notes were admissible in evidence as a contemporaneous record information supplied by accused 2 to PW 110, the learned authors of Archbold, discussing about ‘contemporaneous notes’ made by the police and not signed by the accused point out in paragraph 15- 56 (ix) that, ordinarily, such documents are no more than memory refreshing documents used by officers concerned. In our judgment, the admission (including exhibits) of the interrogation notes was in the circumstances of this case, as in R v Fenion & others (66) ‘technically incorrect’.’’

There were eleven accused persons in the original treason trial, but four were acquitted by the High Court Judge and of the remaining seven, it was only Mr. Valentine Shula Musakanya who was acquitted by the Supreme Court. And it is amazing to note how the QC on the seemingly ‘’flimsy’’ submission led to the acquittal i.e., on the police superintendent’s own interrogation notes.

The Author is Chief Chitimukulu, the Paramount Chief of the Bemba Speaking People in Northern Province of Zambia.

97 COMMENTS

    • Everyone who has had dealings with Zambian lawyers knows how corrupt the legal brother and sisterhood is. There are very FEW lawyers and judges with integrity. The late Lucy Sichone turns in her grave to see the avarice among Zambian lawyers today. Most of them do not take on criinal cases unless the client has tons of money. They are all trying to get as rich as soon as yesterday. Now UPND says that the petition must be heard, on what law?

    • And there we have it. I don’t want to hear any UPND fanatic talking about a petition ever again. Just tell your cult leader to demand a refund from his legal team that represented him!

    • Upnd zealots wants to break the law in order for their stupid petition to be heard. Our opposition are too dull. This bemba chief has nailed it for you unlike your tonga bootlikers who wants to blindly support upnd because of tribe.

    • 3 points from this seminal article. Its on point about the provisions on 14 days in Constitution being entrenched & can’t be changed by courts. It’s on point about failure of legal profession. Its a disgrace. The article is however wrong about Constitution. We’ve never had our own Constitution. 1st one was given to us by colonialist & it concentrated all powers in President. This one was written by ourselves with submissions from many Zambians who cared to do so. Its diluted a lot of presidential powers from before. Its better than colonial one

    • @Nostradamus,
      Totally agree with you !!! This guy is not even a lawyer but very smart to utilise other people knowledge to make an informed opinion. With a good government machinery at hand, we can be assured of good government decisions.
      My view is that, this man can be a good alternative to both ECL and HH, come 2021.

    • Mushota, you are dull wo/man who do not articulate and relate the message well. You call your self a Phd holder and when I see what you talk is all nonsense, I have always wonder which field are you in.

      If you are a reasonable wo/man, you could have gone through and heard why you minion police officer who stood in as your State witness could go to an extent of cheating in court so is your PF mind.

    • Oh God Mushota, here we go again. There is no critical analysis in your blogs. Just rumblings!

    • I love you Mushota but I’m afraid you don’t seem to have understood what your Chief has written. He has nailed it when he practically says HH’s lawyers were incompetent. HH should actually demand a refund from them.

    • So how many times must we read this article, same article over and over!!!

  1. If Chitimukulu was a Tonga, with his intelligence we could have suffered the humiliation by the other tribes.

    We Bembas are happy to have Chitimukulu as our Chief. Bembas are intelligent.

    We need now a Bemba president from either kasama or Chinsali.

    Sata was not a Bemba!

    • We do not need a Bemba or Tonga president. We need a good president! A Soli, Lala, Lozi, Tumbuka etc. Why does it have to be a particular tribe?

    • His Royal Highness Chitimukulu has spoken wisdom. What he has said is exactly what some of us have been spoken about which is HH’s legal team with an exception of Vincent Malambo are jokers and are having a field day happy in the hope of a major pay day from the Human Hyena’s ill begotten wealth! But as mentioned fe.ces attracts flies so to has HH attracted these lowlife lawyers that are nothing but fleas feeding off the hair arse.whore of the Human Hyena (HH)!

    • @see you can only a good and honest job if you love what you do. Of course a good reward is what all of expect but when you don’t love what you such as teaching you’ll only sit there to wait for the month end for your regardless of your pupil’s results. Just out of interest could you accept the job of public toilet cleaner if paid k100,000 per month?

    • Ndanje Khaki ,I agree with you people must be professional at all times.

      A job/contract to clean a public toilet at ZMW100k pm is not a bad one .Money is a motivational factor, I would come up with a team and system to ensure the toilet is so clean that you could chew a bubble gum while inside just to maintain this contract. No calling involved.

  2. ….the title sums it all…those who may feel lazy to read the whole article…those without enough time to read thru..just end up with the title..it tells it all….LAWYERS AND JUDGES incompetence laid bare…lawyers have fully opened eyes on the money they will reap on a case and have half opened eyes on the actual case they are representing….in short, lawyers are a breed of transformed CROOKS….

  3. I like it…”You can twist the law but do not attempt to break it “….it summarizes everything.

  4. Lusaka times,why are you posting old articles.we read this from Chitimukulu early 2017.
    Anyway U20 national team has scored in South Korea through Edward Chilufya at 51 minutes.its 1 nil in favour of Zambia!!

  5. As Terrible, for now I want to note one and only one thing from this article.
    When the lawyers abandoned HH he went to Judge President Chibomba to plead at midnight of the 14th and last day of the petition to allow him to engage a new set of lawyers to represent him. Now engaging new lawyers would definitely require that they study the case, essentially start afresh. The BIG QUESTION then is, by allowing this application by HH, was either Judge President Chibomba or indeed HH believe that another fourteen (14) days was

  6. We need you in State House Bo Chief not in Kasama.
    Your talents and gifts surpass Presidential material that we have been exposed to. No wonder King Cobra didn’t want you to ascend to the throne.
    You are too brilliant and versed in all matters of this land and the world at large.
    I really love reading your articles.
    They are excellently researched and impeccably written.
    Bo chief, am I allowed dual tribe?

    • You allowed condition that your parents come from different tribes.Ala mwenelubemba I salute you.What is your profession, a journalist?Could you document the succession policy of Bemba Chiefs,the difference or similarity about Chanda Weyaya and Chanda Mukulu?I am looking forward to your documentary on these issue.Otherwise well for this detailed feature article. It’s true, many people are not getting into progressions like teaching,nursing or medical , police,civil service,even law, to serve but to amass wealth without sweat. I’m

  7. …….The BIG QUESTION then is, by allowing this application by HH, did either Judge President Chibomba or indeed HH believe that between the two of them they had legal authority in the Constitution to add another fourteen (14) days to the petition or indeed start the petition afresh? That is why for me, the sitting of the following Monday by the five Judges was correct in the sense that it was not a hearing but to correct the erring and incompetent Judge President Chibomba. In fact by voting for a restart if the 14 days, the Judge President missed an opportunity to correct herself honourably. As it happened her vote simply confirmed Judge Chibomba’s gross incompetence and ignorance, but also raised questions of her political neutrality and or whether HH used potent tools of influence…

    • SHE WAS JUST PLAINLY ADAMANT. LIKE YOU’VE ELOQUENTLY PUT IT ” She missed an opportunity to correct herself honourably. As it happened her vote simply confirmed Judge Chibomba’s gross incompetence and ignorance, but also raised questions of her political neutrality”.

  8. A chief is supposed to be a role model for his subjects and always endeavour to act impartially not what we see from the chiefs from south. They only comment on matters that involves their tribe’s mates. To them tribe is greater than ideology.

  9. This traditional ruler is very educated and also wise. We really have educated Zambian minds such as Kanyanta Sosala, Professor Muna Ndulo, Professor Michelo Hasungule, Dr Bowman Lusambo, Dr Chishimba Kambwili, Dr. Michael Sata, Dr. Kaunda, Dr Bwezani Banda etc.

    What a lovely country we are.

  10. ……As it happened her vote simply confirmed Judge Chibomba’s gross incompetence and ignorance, but also raised questions of her political neutrality and or whether HH used potent tools of influence such as witchcraft or wealth.

    2. With reference to Prof Hansungule’s advice to the Paramount Chief Chitimukulu to advise HH and GBM that the petition had collapsed and legally it would be time wasting for them to try any further legal means, this has been proven now, the legal challenge is in a quagmire and heading nowhere because there is nowhere to head to. But my questio to the learned Professor is: really Professor? Shouldn’t the Professor himself be tendering such advice to HH since he definitely has more influence on HH than anybody else from outside HH’s clan? Alternatively if…

  11. ….. Alternatively if he feared to face HH the Professor could have written his opinion in a media article as he normally does. Questions arise as to why he has kept quiet and I tender no opinion but leave it to your imagination and judgement.

  12. If you required further evidence that HH is a donkey leading fellow donkeys in UPNDonkey party…..do you really need more than this?

  13. The article above was designed to genuinely put on public display the mischievous approach to very serious matters of law by our lawyers, inevitably lawyers have wallowed themselves in stinky pig dung and even now as we contemplate on this far reaching self discreditation no one of these highly respected professionals have tried even to tinker damage . Yes, no damage control is seen yet. Now the man who seemingly had a noble intention to add credence to presidential election results is abondoned to fight with out a might command of the law and it’s experts. Flaw recorded to time indefinite !

    • What repeat. Am reading it for the first time, what more on a Sunday after watching Zambia whack the Portuguese

  14. “What is surprising was what made the Judges to agree to the request by the petitioners to hire new lawyers when the period had expired. And this actually means that the Judges did not understand the limits and the powers of the Constitution Court.”….”These people are intellectuals and are supposed to be the conscience of our society, but unfortunately through carelessness, this nation is going through unparalleled conflict and division that could have led to tortuous and volcanic hell.”

    Brilliant, well research, factual, to the point piece. I have also always believed the Constitutional Court Judges exhibited gross incompetence and misconduct. They should be removed. Hopefully the Judicial Complaints Commission will recommend to President Lungu removal of these hopeless judges

  15. Let common sense prevail and pf do away with triviality for once by letting the petition to be heard. What I don’t get is why pf cretins and used condoms like terrible are scared to have petition heard and yet they want us to believe that they are a 190 percent confident pf won fairly. Muyopa chinji

  16. We the elders respect this wise Bemba King. This stup1t Ka Mushota should learn to respect our king. Corrupt PF leaders and their cadres can not understand what the king has written.

  17. The Zambian Law was breeched with impunity from the beginning of the petition
    1. ECL did not hand over power to the speaker
    2. the constitutional Judges lamentably failed the people of Zambia on this one, how do you begin a hearing when the law is not followed
    3. the subsequent process was bound to fail as we all saw what happened
    4. Therefore do not think it fair to blame HH lawyers who followed the Law

  18. Well said Chief. I am a layman but I have understood the foolishness of hakabwamba hakabola and gorilla bull violet and the lawyers who represented them. I have seen the nonsense hh and his lawyers are bringing to this lovely country.

  19. nice article mr chief ,my question for is ,why did the petitioner applied for the same thing over the weekend and the same matter was heard on one of the weekend if 14 day means 14 working days.

  20. The Article is a Repeat and has been taken over by events. The Defense Lawyers did very well and are being vindicated. Lungu planned to rig the Election a long time ago that’s why he appointed friendly Commissioners at ECZ and friendly Judges at Concourt. When the Head of State is in charge of ECZ, Concourt,ZPS, the Army etc what can Brilliant Lawyers do in a country where there’s no Rule of Law,Poor Governance is the order of the Day, Gross Violations of human rights by Lungu and abrogation of the Zambian Constitution? How can one win a case where the Judge is PF and the Complainant,Arresting Officer and Witness is the same Person. Lawyers are only useful in a Constitutional Democracy which respects the Rule of Law.Failed Police State and Dictatorship is lawlessness.

  21. LT how can an old article become latest NEWS? who are you trying to fool, or are you trying to confirm whether its true that Zambians don’t read or have a short memory? Times have changed now, in the past it was just a lack of means to store the information for future reference, now there is technology like computers available everywhere for storage. The article’s original title was ” THE COLLAPSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ZAMBIA – CHITIMUKULU” and was published on LT on 6 March 2017. One wonders why the title has now CHANGED.
    Give us proper latest News like the One you have “Zambia humbles Portugal” and not the out dated News.

  22. One correction Your Royal Highness. The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is provided for in Article 128 and not 127. According to Article 128, besides the issues related to the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Court has original and final jurisdiction to hear—
    (a) a matter relating to the interpretation of the Constitution;
    (b) a matter relating to a violation or contravention of the Constitution;
    (c) a matter relating to the President, Vice-President or an election of a President;
    (d) appeals relating to election of Members of Parliament and Councillors; and
    (e)whether or not a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

  23. “Professor Hansungule concluded his letter to me:

    ‘’Please Sir, I request you tell HH and GBM not to waste time with the law on a problem like this……….. If they cannot suggest a political strategy, they can as well forget it…’’

    I thought so, too. The election petition is done and dusted. The Constitutional Court becomes ‘functus officio’ once it pronounces itself or rather makes its decision, regardless the decision is right or wrong. Further, there is no constitutional provision which gives the Constitutional Court, or any court for that matter to reverse the Chief Justice decision to swear-in the President-Elect. So, once the President-Elect is sworn-in, no reversal.Only option is political strategy for the next election, in this case 2021. Period. His Lawyers need to inform HH…

    • HH’s lawyers wont advise him factually, they are repeating in his treason case….they are busy with preliminary issues again and hence keeping their client (HH) longer in detention for the benefit of their pockets.

  24. Sir, even by your reasoning in a 14 day period there must be 4 days of weekends thus extending the period in question.
    Further with your undoubted knowledge of the zambian constitution could you please advise which section of the action dictates who shall swear in the president. As i do not have access to the constitution could you please state what it says, if the president is not sworn in accordance with the constitution is he in fact the president.
    No doubt you will consider your answer and respond in due course.
    I look forward to your informative answer

    • @Masalamuso: Article 105 of the Constitution provides for Assumption of Office, Tenure of Office and Vacancy
      On swearing-in, Article 105(1) provides that “The President-elect shall assume office after being sworn in by the Chief Justice or, in the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice.”

    • The Constitution provides 14 days in which to hear a presidential petition, and no more. The 14 days includes Saturdays and Sundays, also known as “excluded days”. No law (Constitution 2016, Constitutional Act 2016, or Constitutional Court Rules 2016) bars or stops the Constitutional Court to sit on excluded days i.e. “Saturdays or Sundays”. No law bars the Court to sit at night, as they did on 2nd September, 2016. As High Royal Highness has rightly pointed out, HH was let down by the lawyers and judges. Nothing stopped them from sitting on Saturdays, Sundays, or even at night, if the so wished. Extending beyond 14 days is unconstitutional and therefore illegal

    • Computation of time includes weekends and public holidays for cases that are allowed to be heard over a period of more than six days- read Article 269 (d);
      “(d) where an act or a proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken within a time not exceeding six days, an excluded day shall not be counted in the computation of the time.”

  25. Thank you for this educational article the Paramount Chief and thank you LT for adhering to our advice of publishing they expansive chief’s articles on Sunday at least I can read them from the comfort of my Study Office at home.

  26. Thank you for this educational article the Paramount Chief and thank you LT for adhering to our advice of publishing they expansive chief’s articles on Sunday at least I can read them from the comfort of my Study Office at home.

    • If HEARING does not include DETERMINATION in the context of the 14-day period provided for in the Constitution, the whole purpose of having TIME LIMITS on the petition would be RENDERED USELESS, wouldn’t it? But since the Constitution is SILENT on that, we have to assume the INTENT of the Law (Constitution) here was to have EVERYTHING concluded within 14 days—DETERMINATION and all, included!

      Anything done outside of the 14 days provided for in the Constitution would be illegal. And there is nothing Courts can do about that. Like the advise Prof Hansungule gave to his Royal Highness Chitimukulu correctly puts it: “Sir ‘interpretation’ does not mean power to ‘to change’ or ‘enact any part of the Constitution.’ No. this is the reserved domain of the legislature.’’

  27. Kanyanta Manga Sosala, sosa, sosa ichalo chilekumfwa. Mwabombeni bakanabesa pakwafwilisha ukwisula amenso and matwi ya mwina Sambia. Ushumfwa patunono na pafingi kubwelapofye!!!

  28. Thank you for this educational article Paramount Chief and thank you LT for adhering to our advice of publishing the Chief’s expansive articles on Sunday at least I can read them from the comfort of my study office at home.

  29. The problem is that the Zambian constitution was copied from the Kenyan one, where even there, the opposition could not petition within the 14 days. Maybe PF rushed the constitution knowing it is not workable to petition. So rather than blaming the lawyers it is better to analyse the root cause of the failure of the petition. The defective constitution, the failure by concourt, the Lusaka votes, the lack of a level playing field are more important than the arguments in the article. If indeed one wins genuinely, why should he or she fear to have the victory analysed openly and publicly?

    • @James, please don’t have SELECTIVE AMNESIA here. Are you sure PF rushed the enactment of this Constitution? Are you conveniently forgetting the H3LL the Opposition, including UPND, raised when Kabimba, then as Justice Minister, refused to release the Draft for further refinement and eventual enactment? It is in fact the UPND who made the “failure” by PF to enact the Constitution a BIG ELECTION CAMPAIGN ISSUE in the 2015 Presidential by-elections. They (UPND and its cohorts) demanded that the 2016 elections should, by all means, be held under the New Constitution. Remember that!?

      I remember Kabimba warning about the DEFICIENCIES in the New Constitution and he was showered with insults, especially by UPND through their mouth piece ZWD. So for you to then turn around today and accuse…

    • continue:

      … the PF of having RUSHED the Constitution through is really the HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!

      You BADLY wanted this Constitution and Edgar Lungu gave it to you. So STOP complaining and accusing people who simply gave you what you all wanted—A NEW CONSTITUTION! If there some problems with it, FIX THEM! But stop the Blame game which has no basis in facts or truth.

  30. The idea of equating time to working days will just bring in confusion in the country. What prevents anybody from claiming that the time was based on working days. Can’t the president claim that he should stay longer than five years in office by including week ends?

  31. The best Mr Hichilema and GBM should have done is to demand a refund from their lawyers or come up with a political strategy for 2021. 14 Days is days with rains or not, the fact is the petioner’s lawyer failed to do their task professionally. Honestly, when you ask someone how old is she / he. Can it be normal for one to say am 20 years old without holidays and other public holiday on our national calender, as if one was not growing. Lawyers failed HH completely they can not even defend themselve by saying 14 day of working when the constitution clearly states 14 days. And they was nothing for them to come and start thinking if sundays and saturdays or holidays are days or kilogrammes or metres or kilometres. In case of a court contempt one can’t give an excuse of sunday nd saturday to…

    • Zeckman Legendry,
      I totally agree with you. Hichilema and GBM must demand for a refund from the lawyers he hired. Mwine Lubemba was correct to point out who misled HH. Honestly counting 14 days did not need a rocket scientist but it was a deliberate strategy the lawyers used to chew more money. But because he does not learn, the have continued to milk him up to the last ngwee. I think GBM realised it hence the reason for him to go holidaying in the name of fixing the knee. He must have realised that he has no money to waste.
      We thank MWINE LUBEMBA because his wisdom far much surpasses the legal brains. We cannot get that from law association of Zambia apart from supporting those refusing to pay tax, what a shame to the legal fraternity.

    • Lawyers are suckers and they know it….HH has more money than sense simply look at the lawyers’ firms depending him in court; they are bleeding like fleas….no matter how rich you are you will feel their pinch.

    • Lawyers are s.uckers and they know it….HH has more money than sense simply look at the lawyers’ firms depending him in court; they are bleeding like fleas….no matter how rich you are you will feel their pinch.

  32. WHEN I SIT FOR AN EXAM. AND THE EXAMINATIONCOUNCIL OF ZAMBIA PUBLISHES MY RESULTS. IF YOU ASK ME TO OROVE WHETHER I SAT FOR THE EXAM, I WILL JUST PRODUCE THE RESULTS AS PUBLISHED BY THE EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THEM THEN DO NOT BOTHER ME. TAKE IT UP WITH THE EXAM COUNCIL

  33. I quote the chief “I made it clear when delivering any ruling on the notes that they were being admitted in evidence not as a statement by Mr. Valentine Musaakanya, as they do not qualify to constitute a statement, but as notes made by the witness to remind himself of what accused 2 said i.e., to refresh his memory see Lester & howard Vs R (22). These notes were objected to by Mr. John Mwanakatwe.” Why are the people then in America asking the notes he made while in office from the former FBI chief, James Comey, if they are irrelevant?

  34. Comment:I have stated on social media advising the opposition to differeciat between political scores and legal scores the courts will never amend,enact or indeed break the rigity and the completeness of the constitution the duty of the courts is to help in interpreting the clauses in the law unlike what the upnd wants to force the court to change,enact and violate the supreme law of the land by those preliminaries being raised by its lawyers

  35. The Zambian Law was breeched with impunity from the beginning of the petition
    1. ECL did not hand over power to the speaker
    2. the constitutional Judges lamentably failed the people of Zambia on this one, how do you begin a hearing when the law is not followed
    3. the subsequent process was bound to fail as we all saw what happened
    4. Therefore I do not think it is fair to blame HH lawyers who followed the Law

  36. NICE ARTICLE FROM THE CHITI MUKULU.
    FROM THE VERY BEGINNING,THERE WAS NOTHING TO PETITION THE RESULTS FOR.UPND HAD NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.
    REMEMBER,THE VERY FIRST DAY OF ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS,LAWYER MADAM MUSHIPE CLAIMED THAT SOMEBODY VOTED SIX TIMES AND SHE WENT WITH FAKE PAPERS AT MULUNGUSHI CONF.ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN MULUNGUSHI REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT SOMEBODY CAN VOTE SIX TIMES CONSIDERING OUR VOTING SYSTEM.THEY WERE JUST LOOKING FOR EXCUSES.THEIR LAWYERS ARE FAKE BECAUSE EVEN ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY,THEY WERE RAISING PRELIMINARY ISSUES INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE MAIN CASE.
    ALL THIS WAS BECAUSE THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE TO BRING ON THE TABLE.

  37. And there you go. Petition is dead and buried. UPND should move on and start preparing for 2021. Ba PF should also move on and concentrate on bringing development to this country.

  38. What his royal highness deliberately feared to mention was that the PF in cohorts with the concourt sought to delay, adjourn so that the 14-days lapse. The paramount chief should have listed all the applications made by the petitioners and state whether the denial or rejection was justifiable or not. Do you give summons in advance to those who join themselves to the case? Why hasnt the P.Chief duelt on the competence of the concourt. I have watched South African concourt procedings and seen hiw the judges drive the cases with respect to time allocated to petitioners and respondents even though not constitutionally time-bound.

    • Have to agree with you @ Joseph Ngosa, I have made a similar observation below how the writer deliberately omitted the ‘evils’ played by Lungu and his minions (e.g. failure to hand over power to the Chief Justice and the delays by Lungu’s lawyers. Blaming the petitioners lawyers is being simplistic as they frustrated by a clearly planned scheme by Lungu and partners in ‘crime’.

    • PF was not representing HH/GBM and PF was not submitting preliminary issues. It was HH/GBM lawyers, the reason why the Chief is saying that HH/GBM lawyers failed their clients.

  39. The article is full of contradictions I’m afraid. It’s trying to cover so much ground, covering so many things and in the end it loses its core message it is trying to convey.

    It’s starts of by blaming the colonialists and KK, and tries in vain to justify why BA’64 was abrogated and left out of the constitution by KK. I have no idea why BA’64 is alluded to here.

    Then it goes on to heap blame on the Constitutional Court judges and their failures to interpret the constitution well. The article actually acknowledges that14 days is 14 working days only. At one point it is telling us 14 days only applies to the beginning of the petition and the hearing has started, it is limitless and the 14 days doesn’t apply anymore.

    Then the article shifts its gears and dedicates the…

  40. continue reading…
    Then the article shifts its gears and dedicates the next large portion of the blame on HH lawyers. How can both the judges and petitioners lawyers be blamed at the same time for the collapse of the petition? It’s either one party or the other. Prof Hansungule who is heavily quoted actually doesn’t seem to support the author’s line of arguments… Prof Hansungule seems to think it the judges’ fault.

    Then out of nowhere the author, without warning, blames everything (including democracy and the constitution) on the ‘white man’… Oh dear! I’m sorry but it’s very incoherent I have to say.

    But surprisingly enough, throughout the petition arguments, Lungu and his minions are squeaky clean, they are the innocent victims. How ironic!

  41. Can you imagine Ba UPND still want the petition to be heard ,how dull can a people be??? And they want to rule this country how??? With such low thinking capacity? ? No wonder they keep losing

  42. @20 Zambia in the sun, you have missed the point. As a Paramount Chief, the Chitimukulu is being diplomatic by referring to the judges in plural to let HH hire new lawyers and extend the 14. What the Chitimukulu is referring is one judge the Judge President. When that night the lawyers HH went to plead to allow him to hire new lawyers, he appealed to Judge President Chibomba personally not to all the constitutional judges. When the other judges saw the faeces in Chibomba’s chair, that is when they demanded a sitting on Monday to clean the tufi which they did by voting.
    For me that Judge Chibomba is the cause of all this nonsense about a dead petition still being somewhere in court. She is the one who is supposed to face the judicial complaints commission for breaching the law by trying…

  43. …….for me that Judge Chibomba is the cause of all this nonsense about a dead petition still being somewhere in court. She is the one who is supposed to face the judicial complaints commission for breaching the law by trying to extend the petition by another 14 days. In terms of failing HH yes it is the incompetent lawyers including state counsels and Martha Mushipe….yes Martha Mushipe ati “lawyer”!!!

  44. HH had more lawyers than witnesses.
    ………kikikikiki what a donkey! The lawyers cleaned out HH money without HH realising it up to.now they are still creaming out the poor guy. I wonder whether they have given him the bill or they are still calculating and fattening it. Sooner or later azalila HH just wait.

  45. @21 NEZ, there is no petition naimwe ba Donkey! Whether the petition was heard or not what the Chitimukulu and Professor Hansungule are telling you is that in our Constitution the petition had a time limit of 14 days before it expired. Why do you think that HH lawyers anmbandoned him at tye 14th day? And why do you think HH went to plead with Judge President Chibomba to allow him hire new lawyers? HH knew that his 14 days was up. Are you disputing what Chitimukulu and Professor Hansungule are saying or not?
    Readers, any doubt that NEZ is a donkey?

    In real life NEZ’s head, hair (or fur), mouth, teeth and ears are those of a donkey, the head sitting on a human body so that he can drive a car.

  46. @35 James, in France it is seven (7) days. The whole thing is based on the petitioner having ready and tangible evidence. If he has the evidence but cannot arrange and present it in 14 days, tok bad. It is so because no country in the world wants a lacuna in the office of President. Everywhere in the world the Office of President is the most important in the country. That is why the royal majesty high commissioner called HH’s action in Mongu uncivil and reckless, it is simply not done what HH did. He has no understanding what the office he is aspiring for entails, so he better remain opposition until.he understands these simple but very very important ingredients of government.

  47. Well articulated your highness. The main problem is that we want to read and understand the constitution when we are faced with a crisis which gives us little time to understand and interpret. From the beginning of the petition even me who is not a lawyer was wondering when are the learned ones going to start tabling the real case instead it was one prim nary after the other, the amendment of the petition and so fourth. Instead of bringing the case forward on the last day they started arguing about the 14 days and the last day was wasted just like that. The lawyers robbed HH.

  48. @44.1 Maverick, now you are revealing secrets that we never dteamt of. So the plan of the HH and his UPNDonkeys was to create a lacuna in the office of President and then stage a coup detat? Obviously during those 14 days the poor Speaker would have been ordered to vacate the office of President with a spear held to his head. No wonder GBM had a drilling academy.
    Uuhhmm, so this treason business started a long time ago ka? Thank God it didnt work!

  49. The article is very good for analysis and academic purposes. It is well research too. I however have one concern your royal highness. Yours is to council the people and the nation at large by speaking out whenever you ve to, with the view of preserving and maintaining a good society. You never allow things to degenerate to break-point levels. You ve bn too quiet as though scared of reprisals. I know the memory of your running away of the palace is not pleasant at all but you are our ultimate mouth piece just like the catholic church spoke, your colleagues from south also unanimously spoke for us including the senior citizens/freedom fighters! We never hear you speak for the people other than praising govt when official pay you a visit. I d rather my chief speaks at the right time not as…

  50. Gr8 piece of writing frm th man no one could imagine. I take full counsel of this discourse. I wish we cn hav all leaders this wise.

  51. The p chief is biased. Anyway it is just recently when he said he supports the pf government. Is there any other support than this?
    Hence his choice to lean against the upnd. He did not cite any court rejection of having sittings on weekends. He has tried craftily navigated over the circumstances under which the petition business was done. Can I ask this thief, – was it in order for Lungu to remain as president when there was a petition against his election?
    – what did the concourt say when asked to include weekends for sittings?
    – did he not publicly announce support for the pf?
    – is he not aware that the petition issue is still in the courts? is he not doing this to influence the outcome of the petition issue in the courts?
    – what does he seek to achieve other than pleasing Lungu…

Comments are closed.

- Advertisement -
Loading...
- Advertisement -

Latest News

Prison Leopards Go Top of FAZ Super Division Log

Prison Leopards on Friday took a 24 hour lead in Week One of the FAZ Super Division following a...

Kazungula Bridge to enhance trade between Zambia and Bostwana

The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Cross Border Traders Association has praised governments of Zambia and Botswana for the progress made towards the completion...

France to attract more investors to Zambia

French Ambassador to Zambia Sylvain Berger has pledged to assist Zambia in intensifying its marketing to attract more French investors to Zambia. Mr. Berger observed...

I am not ashamed of Zambia’s indebtedness-President Lungu

President Edgar Lungu says he is not ashamed of Zambia’s indebtedness because the money has been used to finance the massive Infrastructure development taking...

Kitwe Pastor expresses disappointment with Bill 10 collapse

The Kitwe Pastors Fellowship has expressed disappointment with the collapse of the Constitution Amendment Bill number 10 in Parliament yesterday. Speaking in an interview ...

More Articles In This Category