President Edgar Lungu delivers his speech during the State of the Nation address at Parliament Buildings
President Edgar Lungu delivers his speech during the State of the Nation address at Parliament Buildings

By Isaac Mwanza

Introduction

Following the filing of the motion on 22nd March, 2018 in an attempt to impeach the President of the Republic of Zambia by the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND), through the Mazabuka Member of Parliament, Hon Garry Nkombo, this author wrote to the Clerk of the National Assembly regarding grounds 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1.5 which are active matters before the courts of law. Further, I have heard the National Democratic Party Consultant, and Roan Member of Parliament, Hon. Chishimba Kambwili, stating that the vote on the impeachment motion is by secret ballot. That is not correct, correct, as I discussed in Series 5.

In this series, we discuss the role of the courts in Zambia regarding Parliamentary business, such as the impeachment motion.

The question is, if the National Assembly had responded that it would still go ahead and entertain the motion irrespective of the fact that some matters contained in the impeachment motion, are in court, what recourse do I have? What recourse would the movers of the motion have if the Speaker denied them the right to have a secret ballot in the first round?

The Question of the law

The relevant provisions of the law are Article 1(5), 76(1), 77(1) of the Constitution of Zambia, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia as well Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia. One may however not forget to look for judicial precedent on how the courts have dealt with questions regarding decisions by the Speaker of the National Assembly.

“Article 1. (5) of CAP 1
A matter relating to this Constitution shall be heard by the Constitutional Court.

Article 76. (1)
A Member of Parliament has freedom of speech and debate in the National Assembly and that freedom shall not be ousted or questioned in a court or tribunal.

Article 77. (1)
Subject to this Article and Article 78, the National Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and make Standing Orders for the conduct of its business.

Section 34 of CAP 12
Neither the Assembly, the Speaker nor any officer shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in the Assembly, the Speaker or such officer by or under the Constitution, the Standing Orders and this Act.”

At this stage, I must categorically state that Zambia’s constitutional democracy comes with it the doctrine of separation of powers where the legislative authority exercised by our National Assembly is the power to make, amend and repeal laws, while the Judicial authority exercised by our courts, such as the Constitutional Court, grants them the exclusive power, if there is a dispute, to determine what the law is and how it should be applied in the disputes.

The UPND have taken the question regarding whether President Lungu should have ceased to perform the executive functions and if the Speaker should instead have assumed the performance of the executive functions, during the period when the 2016 Presidential election petition was before the Constitutional Court, which matter is active before that court and has never been decided in any case.

At the same time, the main opposition party would like Parliament, through the impeachment motion, to authorise an inferior Tribunal to investigate the same matter. As per Article 1(5), the power to interpret the provisions for power hand over lies in the Constitutional Court and no other.

On the Question of dragging the Speaker to Court

On the question as to what I would do if the National Assembly responded in the negative and proceeded to table the motion on the floor of the House. The answer may lie in seeking judicial review but the chances of success of such an action, being an action to use the courts to compel the Speaker to strike out any matter from parliamentary business, would be extremely slim.

The same applies if Hon. Kambwili and those who moved the motion sought to take the route they had been planning of seeking the intervention of the Court to compel the Speaker to conduct a secret ballot would draw a blank, as the Court would in all probability, rule that the power to do so, is by our constitution, vested in the office of the Speaker of the National Assembly.

As seen from Articles 76 (1) and 77 (1) of the Constitution and Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, the National Assembly enjoys autonomy to make decisions regarding regulation of its own procedure, the freedom of lawmakers to debate cannot be ousted or questioned in a court or tribunal.

In addition, the Speaker of the National Assembly of Zambia is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court in the exercise of any power conferred on the Assembly and the Speaker under the Constitution, the Standing Orders and National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. If the National Assembly decided to table the impeachment motion or if the Speaker decided not to take a secret ballot in the first round where no secret ballot is provided, an action in judicial review will do little to overturn such decision.

However, the position of the law that the Speaker is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on him under the Constitution, the Standing Orders and the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, does not mean that the Speaker’s decision is not amenable to judicial review by the Courts. It is.

In the case of the Attorney-General v. The Speaker of the National Assembly and Dr. Ludwig Sondashi, MP (SCZ Judgement No. 6 of 2003), the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Zambia has Constitutional Jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review in matters involving parliament. Earlier the learned trial judge observed that in the United Kingdom, the High Court would most likely have held that it lacked jurisdiction in an application for judicial review of a decision of Parliament.

Indeed, many have exercised that right to challenge the decisions made by the Speaker. It must be noted that when judicial review is commenced before a decision has been made by the decision-maker, the action becomes prematurely before the court as there would be nothing for the court to review. In the current case, it is the submission of this author that the decision whether to table or not to table the motion has not been made by Parliament,

In the case of Fredrick Jacob Titus Chiluba v Attorney-General (Appeal Number 125 of 2002), former President Chiluba (deceased), appealed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his application for Judicial Review of the decision of the National Assembly to remove his immunity, the Supreme Court held that the remedy of Judicial Review is concerned with reviewing, not the merits of the decision in respect of which the application for Judicial Review is made, but the decision-making process itself.

The Court was very clear that the purpose of Judicial Review is to ensure an individual is given fair treatment by the authority to which he has been subjected. Indeed, it is not – I repeat – it is not the purpose of the judicial review to substitute the opinion of the Speaker of the National to decide the question of the impeachment motion or not to have a secret ballot with that of the judiciary or individual judges.

The big question we must seek to address at this juncture is whether any court action, in form of a judicial review, is capable of stopping the motion of impeachment. The Courts have frowned upon litigants (people) who run to court to use the mechanism of judicial review as a way of impeaching the National Assembly from going ahead with the debates on proposed legislation or other parliamentary business.

In the case of Zambia Democratic Congress v. Attorney-General (SCZ Judgment No. 37 of 1999), the Supreme Court categorically stated:

“In Zambia, legislative process…cannot be arrested by commencing proceedings for judicial review. On ground of procedure alone, the application was misconceived and ought to have failed ab initio.”

In March, 2013, the member of Parliament for Monze Central, Hon. Jack Mwiimbu, rose on a point of order to stop Speaker Matibini from proceeding with the motion to lift former president Rupiah’s Banda’s immunity as he had successfully obtained an injunction from the High Court which sought to stop parliament from proceeding with the motion until the case had been disposed of in the courts of law.

In his ruling. Speaker Matibini stated that he could not follow the injunction because it was irregularly issued. Among reasons given by Speaker Matibini is that “parliament enjoys protection of its internal processes, and these processes cannot be subjected to judicial interference.”

This decision by Speaker Matibini was criticised by many. NAREP President, Elias Chipimo stated that the action by the Speaker was both surprising and concerning because as a former Judge, the Speaker did not accord due respect to the notion of separation of powers, because the effect of rushing the decision on the motion of lifting the immunity created the impression that the impartiality of parliament may be open to question.

The criticism was not of the Speaker exercising his powers within the provisions of the law and in view of the doctrine of separation of powers; rather, the problem was that many saw the action of the Speaker as having passed judgment on an order of a proper court when neither the Speaker nor parliament itself, can exercise judicial power for the simple reason that they do not have the power of a court.

Parliament does not, indeed, have the power of a court nor does the Speaker have the power of a judge. In the case in issue, namely the Speaker’s disregard of a court order on lifting the immunity of former President Rupiah Banda, some have argued that the Speaker fell into grave error by purporting to exercise the power of a court in dismissing the restraining order against him. It has persuasively been argued that since, in a constitutional democracy like ours, courts exist to check on the exercise powers of the legislature, the correct course of action by the Speaker ought to have been for Parliament to obey the court order and wait for its determination by the court itself.

On the contrary, it can also be argued that the Speaker’s decision in handling of the restraining order in the Rupiah Bwezani Banda challenge was in line with what the Court held in the ZADECO case that legislative process cannot be arrested by commencing proceedings for judicial review. The question is how does the Speaker decide which court cases to respect and which ones to ignore in performance of legislative process?

There is no doubt that by the decisions in the cited ZADECO and FTJ Chiluba cases, the courts themselves had held that the business of parliament cannot be arrested by way of orders of the courts. Therefore, in the matter where former President Rupiah Banda had successfully obtained a court order to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the motion to remove his immunity, the court would have ruled that Parliament should proceed with the motion to remove former president Rupiah Banda’s immunity, and would have vacated its own restraining order or injunction.

In another instance, assuming the movers of the impeachment motion were informed that the Speaker would table the motion but that there would be no secret ballot when voting in the first round, and they went ahead to get an injunction to prevent the motion from being debated, would the injunction stop the legislative process of tabling and debating the motion? Suppose this author who petitioned the Clerk of the National Assembly obtained an injunction to stop the Speaker from debating matters that are before the court, could the Speaker be bound by such a decision?

The answer lies in the very concept of separation of powers. The Speaker would, in that instance, ask himself whether debating matters which are pending determination by the courts would turn Parliament into a “court” that may altogether produce a judgment different from what the court would do.

There is a significant difference between the Speaker taking notice of matters which are already before a competent court so as to preclude Parliament or him exercising jurisdiction to have the legislature debating and determine them, and avoiding attempts by litigants to arrest Parliamentary business using the tool of judicial reviews and restraining orders.

Similarly, the Speaker will also weigh whether a judicial review to determine the issue of secret ballot in the first ground would interfere with the internal processes, especially that the courts have ruled that the process of judicial review does not seek to replace the decision of the decision – maker (in this case the Speaker’s decision) with that of the court or Judges.

Conclusion

In summary, the rule that judicial review cannot be used to stop the legislative process is well-grounded in law as shown above. The Speaker has unfettered power to make decisions on parliamentary business provided such decisions are not ultra vires his power. The Speaker may refuse to table the motion, not because of any process of judicial review, but based on the fact that while it met the constitutional requirement of one-third of members endorsing it, the motion fails the test of admissibility. He would have done so within his powers and provisions of the law.

In the event that the Speaker allows such a motion, he may also direct the striking out of matters which are before the courts, or matters which have already been decided by the House, or matters which seek to debate persons who cannot defend themselves. At the very least, the entire motion can be tabled and a demand for a secret ballot in the first round, rejected because the law expressly states that voting in the first round, shall not be by secret ballot. The Speaker’s decision is, in those instances, “not subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of such power conferred on him under the Constitution, the Standing Orders and National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

AUTHOR’s NOTE: In the last and final Series 8, the focus will be made on the dialogue process in view of the effect this impeachment motion and a focus will be made on the way forward for the dialogue

[Read 23 times, 1 reads today]
Loading...

51 COMMENTS

  1. Look at the supposed popular leader lungu with numbers now not wanting a secreate ballot as a last resort to intimidate his MPs if the impeachment goes ahead…..the man and his rats are even afraid of their own shadows….

    We told you, lungu can never win any election without cheating and violence…if this were not a vote in parliament , the brutality those voting MPs would have be subjected up would have been the humble leaders trade mark , he also has a bible in his back pocket incase he needs to call for prayers pronto….

    7

    9
    • Where does the Constitution say its secret ballot if thy motion is 1st tabled? isukulu isuma guys. Mwalepelela pa nshila? Read. This guy has givn real headache to MPs & speaker will agre with hm

      10

      0
    • CHANSA

      Nearly every vote is secreate…..iwe …..why do you want to know how I vote ? That is my privallege …..that is why voting boths are provided ,

      The PF rats trying hard not to have a secreate vote

      3

      6
    • Hahahaha Lungu is threatening HIS MPs and SPEAKERS.
      We ALREADY know this INFO baba…. but you are a DECEIVER WITH YOUR LUNGU. I like somebody who lies more than a DECEIVER like you & Lungu, a deceiver puts 99%TRUTH and 1% lies thus diluting the WHOLE TRUTH into ERROR.

      We know you have blocked the IMPEACHMENT motion ba kawalala imwe.

      1

      5
    • Bwana Mwanza Isaac, you have tried to argue the matter as though you are the DEFENSE Advocate; this whole Impeachment Motion rests on two cardinal points
      1. “…ARRESTING PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS….” and
      2. “…TEST OF ADMISSIBILITY….”
      I wish to agree in part and compound your argument insofar as item 2 above is – THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HEREIN WILL NEED TO PERFORM THE ROLE OF A GATEKEEPER IN ORDER TO TACTICALLY EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE AND OR CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES AS RELATES TO BREACHES UNDER 1.1, 1.2 & 2.1.5, SAVE FOR HON CK’S INTENDED COURT ORDER FOR SECRET BALLOT IN 1ST ROUND.

      0

      1
  2. This is what LAZ should ve been doing. Educating us people instead of just wanting to represent us and get out money. Have learnt a lot and I must say this guy is well informed. The objectivity in this article is just extremely great. Please keep column running with other issues

    9

    1
    • Do you pay a subscription to LAZ? When they comment on matters you accuse them of being partisan and that they should form a party…

      3

      1
  3. Mr Mwanza, why bother when you know that your brethren has never believed in the rule of law? It’s sad to read what amounts to trash, when you could simply have discussed how we could avoid having our country taken to a ride next time.

    5

    8
  4. PEOPLE SEEM NOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO SECRET BALLOT IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR IT BUT IT PROVIDES FOR SECRET BALLOT IN SECND ROUND OF VOTING. THE SOONER THESE DUNDERHEADS REALISE THE BETTER.

    SECONDLY, AM HAPI U HAVE TALKED ABOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN FACT, FROM THIS WRITE UP, ITS CLEAR THE CASE WHICH IS IN HIGH COURT WILL BE TOSSED OUT. THE COURT CASE IS ALSO B.I.D AS THE IMPEACHMENT MOTION ITSELF

    7

    0
    • @Jay Jay,

      But the Constitution tells us when the VOTE SHOULDN’T BE KNOWN (SECRET BALLOT) during impeachment proceedings….it is in the second round of voting. This is after the tribunal formed in the FIRST ROUND OF VOTING finds that indeed there is a case/s worth impeaching the sitting President over.

      I thought Isaac Mwanza has done such a good job explaining these issues in his seven (7) series. Go back and read his previous articles, please. If you still can’t get it then you are simply allowing yourself to be a “useful !diot”….to borrow someone’s description of people of your sort.

      1

      0
  5. best articulated piece!!! Leaves me thinkin if our MPs understand laws they make. Also true that courts cannot stop impeachment motion thru judicial review. Very informative. Y don’t lawyers advise pipo who run to cot to stop Parliament from debating motion that teh cots can’t do it. Well said MR MWANZA. U a genius of our tym!

    5

    0
  6. HH need to have his brains examined! His power hungry has been exposed by this series!!!! Guy capitalises on some dull MPs we call lawmakers. Pf shud also in have wasted time running to court and o stop impeachment

    7

    5
  7. So since we hear you part of PF legal team, why didn’t u advise them of not going to court to stop impeachment motion when the law is clear?

    6

    1
  8. Scholarly and well cited op ed Mr. Mwanza. Well written and presented too. You are so convincing in your articulation of the matters at hand. The naysayers will undoubtedly dismiss your views without argument or citation.

    7

    0
  9. We ALREADY know this INFO baba…. but you are a DECEIVER WITH YOUR LUNGU. I like somebody who lies more than a DECEIVER like you & Lungu, a deceiver puts 99%TRUTH and 1% lies thus diluting the WHOLE TRUTH into ERROR.

    We know you have blocked the IMPEACHMENT motion ba kawalala imwe.

    3

    6
  10. Wonderful stuff from Mr mwanza! I know its a bitter pill to swallow by the movers of the motion.

    5

    1
  11. You certainly a great mind this country needs more than ever b4. Well written and hope those who took the matter to Court to stop hearing of impeachment motion can read this. Its timely because High Court, if I read those cases u referred to, will throw that application with contempt. I don’t care how my fellow cadres respond to this. To me, its not about who I support but u brought out candid pointers

    6

    1
  12. I celebrate your life life Mr. Mwanza. Learnt a lot from these articles. I dont care whether u PF or not. Am happy we have Zambians who can freely discuss these legal matters at time when LAZ does npt want us public to learn from em. Hope our ATTORNEY GENERAL will not allow this court battle to stop motion to go throu

    3

    0
  13. In short, what Mwanza is saying the matter to stop the Speaker from tabling impeachment motion is futile process if the court was to read this. Its premature! Wow!!!!

    2

    1
    • That is what PF are realising ….that trying to stop the motion is creating more problems but now their only hope is to have a not secreate vote so their MPs are intimidated …..they will now push so the vote is not secreate that is now the chess being played here….

      1

      1
  14. I rarely comment on matters I read but this one is damn good! Sound arguments and extremely convincing. what I wonder is why didn’t he advise the PF if he’s part of the legal team of an imminent failure of current process? also NDC Consultant need to sober up and run away from this UPND sponsored motion. NDC must concentrate on providing real checks and balances and watch the UPND futile gymnastic to impeach the President. it doesn’t gain votes from ordinary Zambians. Kambwili must realise now than later

    6

    1
  15. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow the speaker of the house to circumvent the will of electorate by sitting on important issues such the impeachment motion.

    2

    3
    • “PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – PROTECTING:THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRACIES”
      BY JUSTICE DR PATRICK MATIBINI, SC, MCIArb, MP.
      SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF ZAMBIA.
      A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE 23RD CONFERENCE OF SPEAKERS AND PRESIDING OFFICERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, (CSPOC), KOTA KINABALU, SABAH, MALAYSIA, 9TH TO 14TH JANUARY, 2016.” Please read and reflect on this paper also!!!!!!!

      0

      0
  16. Trying to dribble the masses….we have seen through you…..you now realise that stopping the motion is causing you more problems so now the only hope is to avoid any mention of a secreate vote so PF MPs are intimidated…….

    0

    1
  17. very rare of me to comment but am impressed. question is what was rush for people to run to court?

    2

    0
  18. Hh that’s being dull how do stick to a disallowed goal it shows you can’t score again.you know its either you push ecl out of the game or continue with nonsense. Its time to put a Lunda to stand. We have worked for tongs let’s try our best.

    2

    1
  19. This guy is sharp. UPND lack such pipo who can interrogate matters like this. enough respect for him. an also surprised how PF missed this one by running to court to stop the motion. Zambian political parties are full of drama

    3

    0
  20. I don’t like this guy because he is supporter of Edgar Lungu but I can’t tak anything away from his piece. Its eexcellent. Hope 1 day will support HH because HH needs pipo like him

    1

    0
  21. SO WHY DID CHIPENZI AND BISHOP MAMBO LIE TO US THE ISSUE OF LUNGU HANDING OVER POWER WAS DETERMINED BY THE COURT, THAT HE WAS IN BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION? FEEL A LITTLE EMBARASSED TO KNW I CAN BE LIED TO? BIT DIDNT OUR MPS NOT KNOW THE ISSUES TJEY PUT ARW IN COURT? I BLAME CHIPENZI AND MAMBO.

    1

    0
  22. We long to see a day when people of all tribes, race and colour will debate matters without or bitterness. When soneone surname will not be used to judge their ability to run this country. We are not enemies with Lungu and his administration but we an opposition party that seek to give checks and balances. We acknowledge some issues are in court, we acknowledge the Constitution does not provide a secret ballot in first round and that is why we asked Speaker Matibini to allow secret ballot although the Constitution does not say its secret. We hope Mr. Mwanza will respect the right of Speaker to decide than influence him way he has done. It is his right to comment on these matters but his commenting should not be aimed at doing damage to our motion.

    Again, we know Mr. Mwanza has been…

    1

    0
    • SINCE WHEN DID THE SPEAKER BECOME A DARLING TO UPND? THIS IS THE MAN YOU HAVE CALLED ALL SORTS OF NAMES. WHY ARE YOU THEN TRYING TO FIND A SOFT SPOT FOR HIM. YOU UPND HAVE CALLED HIM A PF CADRE, THUG ETC AND EVEN INSULTED HIM, DEMEANED HIS GUIDANCE ETC. PEOPLE READ AND KNOW WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THIS SPEAKER. DONT PRETEND TO LIKE HIM NOW. IN BEMBE THEY SAY “UKANYELA MUNSAKA UMO UKALALA”

      2

      0
    • Comment: WHY IS UPND A PARTY OF CRY BABIES. YOU DONT LIKE TRIBALISM BUT EVERYONE FROM HH, MUCHELEKA AND THE REST NOW TALK TRIBAL. THIS MOTION AT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS COZ OF YOUR TRIBAL VIEW OF LUNGU. YOUR LABELLING OTHA PEOPLE SUPPPORTERS IS BASED ON SURNAME. GROW UP HH, LEAVE BITTERNESS BEHIND AND THEN U CAN COME EDUCATE US ABOUT NATIONAL INTERESTS. FOR HH, ANYTHING IS ABOUT HIM. IT STARTS WITH HIM AND ENDS WITH HIM. LUNGU ISNT PERFECT, HE NEEDS TO BEGIN ADDRESSING HIS FAILURES BUT HE CERTAINLY IS BETTER EVIL BETWEEN HIM AND HH.

      5

      0
  23. the term “vexatious liitigation” though in a different context, comes to mind…thanks Mr Mwanza for YOUR analysis. Clearly none on this blog has challenged with alternative facts. Looking forward to the next one

    4

    0
  24. Any one calling for impeachment has nothing in their head. No love for Zambia and it’s leadership.
    if one looks critically what the government has done under the leadership of ECL, for sure they have slot of positives.
    UPND especially with it’s leader HH, should learn that any leadership need respect and support.
    UPND learn to make peace.

    2

    0
  25. @13 NAMONDE….if you have followed series 1 to 6, Mr Mwanza has also clearly said the Impeachment Motion is technically a BID (brought in dead)! My guess is movers of the motion already knew this was a long short.

    1

    0
  26. The impeachment motion is a waste of time just as going to court to stop the motion is a waste of time. Zambia has more problems that need the opposition to come in and help solve than focusing on Edgar Lungu. Zambia is bigger than Edgar Lungu and HH put together. Removing President Lungu before 2021 won’t solve our problems. Those who need to remove him must face him in 2021 in election.

    2

    0
    • Mwangala, apparently its not as you can see the impact and response it is getting from those affected. You have no evidence that removing Lungu won’t solve our problems, mind you our problems, debts are increasing under Lungu we owe it to ourselves to save the country from declining and this is not just for you but your children’s children. AT the rate PF are stealing we might not have a country in 2021, China is busy colonizing us and they are taking advantage of dull ECL.

      0

      1
  27. Useless article, the author does not highlight ECL and the speaker’s total disregard of the same constitution the abuse for themselves. The issues are being taken to court as a result of their abuses of something written down in black and white. We can read the constitution on our own and don’t need an article which is trying so hard to justify a wrongs and inconsistencies when it comes to application of the law. The speaker should not even make a ruling on a motion that implicates him, the vice can do that. A secret ballot was requested and should be honored as it is a right just like we have Lungu sending cadres to our courts to stop important issues . All those being sent to court by ECL donot represent the people but their masters. We are in a banana republic where any cadre can go…

    0

    3
  28. Problem this country has is that we have dreamers like HH. The main and his team failed to read what 14 days were, they put the blame on PF. They failed to read the Constitution that they couldn’t petition an election under Article 103 and they blame it on Lungu. For UPND, even when he sun does not come out, they will still blame it on Lungu. The time UPND will change its tainted tribal ways is time Zambia may entruste them with power. HH is afraid to face Lungu again in 2021so he wants weaker PF leader. So the man will do anything to remove Lungu from office even if it means going to a Sangoma. He is desperate and he knows that 2021 will be the end for him otherwise his own supporters will lose confidence in him, hence the impeachment motion. CK is just being used for the benefit of HH.

    0

    0
  29. The root to all this nonsense is the lapse in the constitution. In real sense you can’t hand over power to a speaker when you have been declared a winner.Unless there is a statement in election results. Upnd has capitalised on the weakness of the constitution to move a tribal impeachment.This is sad.Now upnd should also agree that there is no secret vote in the first round in Parliament. This hatred motion will come to nothing.

    2

    0
  30. It’s very apparent both the court case and impeachment motion ain’t going anywhere. This guy has explained things better than any explanation I have so far heard. Only hope for HH is the eligibility case to block Lungu standing otherwise Lungu is biggest threat to HH ever ruling

    1

    0
  31. UPND will follow through this matter and bring these articles to the attention of the Speaker since they are meant to damage our motion

    0

    0
  32. Kambwili was on some small radio station in Mansa telling the pf that it was himself pushing for the impeachment motion but why always point your fingers at upnd.What type of hatred is this? It won’t take us any where. Anyway I like beef more than rat or baboon stew.

    0

    0

Comments are closed.