9.5 C
Alba Iulia
Wednesday, August 12, 2020

What Monster Hides in Article 52 of the Zambian Constitution which Bill 10 Wants Repealed?

Columns What Monster Hides in Article 52 of the Zambian Constitution which Bill...

By Isaac Mwanza & Musterd Phiri

Introduction

Zambians have been told that, among other nefarious schemes, the Patriotic Front (PF) is promoting Bill 10 in order to amend or altogether repeal Article 52 of the Constitution so that the eligibility of President Lungu to contest the 2021 presidential election cannot or should not be challenged in court. It is assumed, for reasons known only to the champions of this view, that for some reason, President Lungu is filled with trepidation that such a court challenge may result in his disqualification from standing. It is an interesting supposition which we find to be founded on nothing but loose sand, lacking any basis at law.

That being the case, it is logical to ask, in two parts; (1) what is the true intention behind the recommendation to repeal Article 52 from the Constitution, and (2) does repealing Article 52 prevent any person or party from challenging the eligibility of any presidential candidate before our courts? We shall take time to step by step, explain what is in Article 52 and the monster that hides in it which Bill 10 wants repealed. This commentary can be lengthy and not fit for those with a bad reading culture.

Understanding what is in Article 52

Article 52 of the Constitution of Zambia which is earmarked for repeal is not about the eligibility (qualifications and disqualifications) of any particular candidate whatsoever. This Article lays out the procedure for nomination of candidates who want to contest any elections, whether general or by-elections, presidential or parliamentary or local government elections.

Article 52 has 6 separate clauses: Clauses 1 to 4 is about the powers given to the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) to set the nomination dates for candidates for these elections, the process of how one can be nominated, how the nomination of any candidate, may be challenged, and the hearing of the petition challenging the nomination of any candidate.

For the 2021 General Elections 2021, ECZ has set 17th to 21st May, 2021 as the dates for filing nominations for Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections.

Article 52 clause 5 is about the timeframe, specifically related to a general election, namely, as to when the process of nominations and challenging the nomination of a candidate must be completed. The Article sets out the time frame, that is, thirty days before a general election. Under our Constitution, a general election is held on the second Thursday of August every five years after the last general election. In 2021, such an election will be held on 12th August, 2021.

ECZ has further approximated nomination petitions against candidates in Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections, to take place between May 25, 2021 and June 26, 2021. In addition to challenging the eligibility of a Presidential candidate before elections, Article 101(4)(b) of the Constitution provide a window for any person to petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of a presidential candidate who took part in the initial ballot on the ground that a provision of this Constitution or other law relating to presidential elections was not complied with.

For candidates under Parliamentary and Local Government Elections, Section 97(1) of the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 states that an election of a candidate as a Member of Parliament, mayor, council chairperson or councillor shall not be questioned except by an election petition. So in addition to the nomination petition filed before the election, the Act provides that a person can challenge the eligibility of an MP, Mayor, Council Chairperson or Councillor under Section 97(2)(c) on the ground that “the candidate was at the time of the election a person not qualified or a person disqualified for election.”

So it is a blatant lie that Article 52 is being repelled to stop anyone from challenging the nomination of any candidate. As the law stands, any person who has any reason to believe that any candidate who files in his or her nomination papers, is not eligible to participate, can file a petition to challenge the validity of any candidate’s nomination under the provision of Article 101 of the Constitution, for Presidential candidates, or under the Electoral Process Act with regard to candidates for MP, Mayor, Council Chairperson or Councillor.

There is an argument that it is better to petition the eligibility of a candidate, especially an incumbent, before elections because they may refuse to vacate the seat if it is done after the election. That argument is nonsensical as shown by recent concrete examples in the sister Republics of Kenya and Malawi, where both incumbent presidents complied with the decisions of their courts and submitted to fresh elections. In the United States of America in 2000, candidate George W. Bush sued sitting Vice President Albert R. Gore Jr. over the presidential election results in the state of Florida where the winner, between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore Jr., would go on to win the electoral college and the Presidency of the United States of America. There was no attempt by the incumbent to resist the decision of the Supreme Court even though Vice President Gore openly disagreed with the court.

It is important in framing our laws, including our constitution, that our decisions should be guided by facts and not by emotions. The facts show that, to date, none of our politicians has ever resisted a decision of the court with regards to election results but have dutifully followed due process.

Article 52 clause 6 specifically gives the power to ECZ to cancel an election and require the filing of fresh nominations by eligible candidates and for an ensuing election after cancelation, to be held within 30 days of the filing of the fresh nominations. This is a mandatory provision when any of the 4 scenarios take place after the close of nominations and before the election date: (1) Where a candidate dies, (2) Where a candidate resigns, (3) Where a candidate becomes disqualified in accordance with Article 70, 100 or 153, or (4) where a court disqualifies a candidate for corruption or malpractice.

What Article 52 clause 6 means therefore for 2021 is that if you have, let us say, James Lukuku (RPP), Chilufya Tayali (EPP), Dan Pule, Wright Musoma (ZRP), Peter Chanda (NCP), Hakainde Hichilema (UPND), Edgar Lungu (PF), and Chishimba Kambwili (NDC), successfully file their nominations but one of them voluntarily withdraws from the election for any reason whatsoever, after the close of nominations on May 12, 2021 but before August 12, 2021 (scenario 2), the provisions of Article 52(6) means that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) must cancel the election which was set to take place on August 12, 2021.

ECZ would then set a new date and call for filing fresh nominations for the presidential election. The new date for the presidential election must be 30 days after filing of fresh nominations. The dates for filing fresh nominations, as well as the date for the election itself, which should be 30 days after nominations, shall be set by ECZ as it is empowered to unilaterally determine.

Article 52 is not about Eligibility of President Lungu

The proposal to repeal Article 52 of the Constitution is not about the eligibility of President Lungu as has been claimed by certain people on various forums. It should recognised that in terms of the law, the question of President Lungu’s eligibility was settled by the Constitutional Court in its judgement delivered on ( ), which left no doubt about this issue. The Court, on page 83 of its comprehensive judgment, said the following:

“It therefore, follows that in the current case, the term served that ran from 25th January, 2015 to 13th September, 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes, cannot be considered as a full term.

And as regards the meaning of once or twice “holding office,” the Court said on page 82 of the same Eligibility Judgment.

“The provision regarding the full term must be applied to defining what is meant by twice held office under Article 106 (3) in interpreting the provisions of that Article.”

For many lawyers, this passage does not need any further explanation. The simple explanation is that the Court said, if you occupy office for 3 years up out of 5 years, it means you have “once held office” of the President. If you occupy office again for another 3 to 5 years, you would have twice held office. The opposite is also true. If you were elected to the office of the President, but occupy office for a period which is less than 3 years, you have not held office as President, and you are therefore eligible to run for election to that office.

The Court further stated, in unequivocal language, as follows:

“It therefore, follows that in the current case, the term served which sits astride the pre- and post-2016 constitutional amendments and having looked at the intention of the Legislature as we have done, and the holistic approach we have taken in interpreting Article 106 in its entirety, our answer to the question which we have rephrased is that the presidential term which ran from 23rd January 2015 to 13th September 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes cannot be considered as a full term”.

The reference by the Court, to the “the term that ran from 23rd January 2015 to 13th September 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes”, leaves absolutely no doubt as to which potential candidate the court was referring to, as no one other than President Lungu, fits the circumstances specified by the court in its judgment.

There is therefore no need whatsoever, for President Lungu to spearhead a clandestine campaign to repeal Article 52 of the Constitution for his own purposes. If he chooses to stand in 2021, President Lungu’s eligibility is not in doubt as the path was cleared by the Constitutional Court.

So, what is the problem with Article 52?

First, it must be acknowledged that Article 52 does not override the constitutional provision that the general election must be held on the second Thursday of August every five years after the last general election, provided that any situation or scenario described in Article 52(6) does not arise or occur. However, once any of the 4 scenarios takes place, article 52(6) is triggered. ECZ has constitutional powers to cancel an election (presidential, parliamentary or local government), call for fresh nominations and a new date for the cancelled election, either presidential, parliamentary of local government, comes into place.

Although such new poll date must fall within 30 days of the date of filing fresh nominations, the for filing such new nominations, will be set by ECZ unilaterally, thereby nullifying the constitutionally mandated Second Thursday of August every 5 years. The subsequent election, therefore, will have to take place 5 years after the last one, thereby moving the election date from the constitutional 2nd Thursday of August.

So let’s assume that between May 25, 2021 to June 26, 2021 when the nomination petition is being heard against any candidate, a Presidential candidate dies or resigns, there would be fresh nominations called by ECZ. It could be argued that a petition challenging a nomination which was filed after the first nominations, but was not determined at the time of the fresh nominations for the election, has become moot (it is turned into a petition in which controversy no longer exists but only presents an abstract question that does not arise from existing facts or rights).

Our Constitutional Court has guided in its past decisions that it does not determine matters which are academic in nature, and such a petition would then become null and void, denying the petitioner justice.

What is more puzzling in this scenario is that eligible candidates would file the fresh nominations and the election would take place within 30 days. Therefore, assuming that the resignation of a presidential candidate took place on June 1, 2021 and ECZ set the date for filing fresh nominations for June 5, 2021, the law in article 52(6) mandatorily requires the election to be held within 30 days from June 5, 2021, the 30 days to be inclusive of weekends and holidays.

How does one petition the nomination of a candidate whose election would be held within 30 days after filing of fresh nominations? There is no provision in the Constitution for challenging the nomination of such a presidential candidate but we can only infer that the process would have to adopt the provisions of Article 52 clause 1 to 5.

Secondly, Article 52 can become a source of serious conflict in an election. We don’t know whether any of the candidates mentioned in our example above would freely concede that Article 52 expressly empowers ECZ to cancel a presidential election and to unilaterally set a new nomination date which becomes the basis for fresh elections to be held within 30 days of filing of nominations. Suppose a presidential candidate resigned or died on August 10, which is two days before August 12, 2021 elections? Your guess is as good as mine. How many times can an election be cancelled by virtue of Article 52(6)? The answer is, obviously, as often as the circumstances arise in accordance with the provisions of Article 52(6)!

There is nothing to stop a political party from nominating a candidate whom they fully intend to withdraw from the contest in order to give them more time to organise and mobilise, by withdrawing such a candidate in order to trigger the provisions of Article 52(6) which would give that political party an extra period of at least 30 to mobilise while ECZ receives fresh nominations and sets a new date for that election.

ECZ would then have to print fresh ballot papers and start the whole logistical process afresh, incurring more expense and inviting disruption to the election by the onset of the rainy season, disrupting the school calendar as well as the farming season, not to mention the issues of roads and transportation of election materials.

Thirdly, Article 52 petition that comes a result of Article 52 are not different in nature from one that comes as a result of Articles 73, 101, and 159 as well as Section 97(2)(c) of the Electoral Process Act. The deal with similar questions. As authors, we of the view that the filing of petitions before an election, is quite unnecessary as a remedy for any petitioner, after the election, by way of election petition, whereby an election can be reversed by the court nullifying the result of such an election if the petitioner proves that the winner would have been disqualified from standing for reasons set out in the relevant electoral law.

The remedy of election petition has always been available and has demonstrably served its purpose, avoiding unnecessary loss of time or waste of resources in the event that the election petition is unsuccessful. An election petition after the election, ensures that the electorate are not unnecessarily deprived of representation by cancellation and subsequent delay of the election, and the country is not placed unnecessarily in limbo and time lost, should a presidential election petition prove unsuccessful.

Finally, our view is that in light of provisions of Article 56 and, especially, clause 6, it is best not to allow petitions challenging eligibility of any candidate before an election, in order to avoid frivolous and vexatious petitions intended to disrupt an election or to allow late comers the opportunity to file their nomination at the second opportunity triggered by the provisions of Article 52(6). It would be wrong to dismiss the potential of mischief by candidates under this article, which could be used for purely selfish motives which would prove extremely costly.

It should be noted that there is no provision for sanctions or any form of deterrent against abuse of this article or its provisions. It should also be noted that ECZ is under a duty to cancel an election and set new dates if the circumstances described in this Article, arise. It presents a real potential to delay any election, depending on the outcome against any candidate.

Conclusion

We would conclude by borrowing from a senior citizen who commented thus: “we should not write a constitution which reflects the mistrust of a few. The constitution should not be a tool to intimidate or obstruct; it should assume the best and provide remedies for potential pitfalls, not tie up the courts in litigation instigated by fearful or jealous political rivals. Instead, the constitution should assume that all candidates come to the electorate in good faith and with clean hands, on an equal footing while holding the promise of justice for any and all aggrieved parties as part of the process, by way of election petition, which remedy has proved its value over time.

It [the Constitution] should be like insurance; we don’t file a claim because we think we may have an accident; we put our faith in the policy, that it will mitigate the loss if indeed we do suffer a loss via accident. Insurance is not intended to eliminate accidents, either by the insurer or the insured, but gives assurance that both parties will act in good faith and respect their agreement. So too should electoral law; it should not assume good men and bad men, but that all are equal.”

Article 52, if left in its current form, will give rise to serious challenges especially with the clause that empowers ECZ to cancel an election and the holding of an election within a new time frame. It is possible that some political parties, sensing danger that their party or candidate is likely to lose, will simply resign from the race in order to bring about a delay during which they will take the opportunity to mobilise and organise by delaying the election. There is no guarantee that the other side would not do the same as regards elections conducted after fresh nominations, thereby inducing further delay for their own purposes. Many will have different interpretations on the effects of Article 52, especially clause 6 but it is important that we do not lose sight of what the real effects can be.

(DISCLAIMER: The views in this commentary represent the collective views of the authors who are law scholars and do not reflect the views of any organisation or institution they may be associated with or affiliated to)

46 COMMENTS

  1. Article 52(6) is indeed very destructive. The Tayalis and Peter Chandas and James Lukuku will be game changerd with article 52(6).

    • Now am thinking the Constitution has lacuna. The election of MPs is challenged through High Court, and Councillors through Tribunal, if am right. So one can challenge nomination of MP through ConCourt bad after elections also claim the MP was not eligible through High Court. This is confused law.

  2. Thanks. Now I understand why it wants to be amended. It has nothing to do with Lungu. 52(6) is bad law

    4
    3
  3. Yeah. It’s like we got told so many lies about Article 52. So it has nothing to do with Lungu afterall. But why should ECZ be allowed to cancel an election when a candidate like Dan Pule resign? Please let’s amend this law before 2021. It will promote anarchy

    3
    2
  4. My view is article 52 should not be removed entirely. Let’s just deal with the monster in Article 52(6) and stop petitions against candidates which happen afterwards on same grounds as first ones.

    5
    2
  5. Article 52 is about Lungu, who ever wrote this long article wants you to believe otherwise. Lungu’s candidature can be challenged as others have planned to and his candidacy is going to hang in a balance. The courts will have to decide his fate which can ultimately eliminate him from the ballot, the courts never ruled that he is eligible for a third term, plus there are questions about his true identity which he himself never answered or reveled to the nation.

    8
    5
  6. My God! So ECZ can postpone 2021 presidential elections if any one candidate withdraws from the race? Why didnt the UPND and Ngos tell us about this?

    5
    3
  7. “….There is an argument that it is better to petition the eligibility of a candidate, especially an incumbent, before elections because they may refuse to vacate the seat if it is done after the election…..”

    This is lungu we are dealing with , not G bush or Al gore or leaders in Malawi or Rwanda,

    Didn’t lungu refuse to hand over power during the last dispute as required by the constitution ???

    Lungu is a crook , don’t trust him and compare other countries…..none of those countries you are mentioning has a president who was Once convicted of fraud…..

    14
    3
  8. The writers are trying to dupe us at how supreme our laws and constitution is ………. lies

    We have seen how lungu and the PF twist any gray areas of the law to their advantage or just downright ignore courts…….

    Look what happened when courts ordered ministers to pay back monies earned while campaigning for lungu ??? Only now because of trying to push bill 10 are they trying to cover up with fake repayments , otherwise the court judgments were brushed aside…….

    9
    3
  9. This is quite comprehensive. So now am getting it.

    People lied that Bill 10 is about eligibility of Lungu; it is not since the court was clear.

    People lied Bill 10 was meant to abolish FIC but now we been told there is nothing like that.

    People lied Bill 10 was meant to enable PF print monies instead of BOZ, it was exposed.

    So what kind of NGOs do we have? Laura Miti and Chipenzi are liars!

    4
    9
  10. This is quite comprehensive. So now am getting it.

    People lied that Bill 10 is about eligibility of Lungu; it is not since the court was clear.

    People lied Bill 10 was meant to abolish FIC but now we been told there is nothing like that.

    People lied Bill 10 was meant to enable PF print monies instead of BOZ, it was exposed.

    So what kind of NGOs do we have? Laura Miti and Chipenzi are liars! Lying in broad day light!

    4
    9
  11. We told you. Learn to read and analyse things rather than base it on hearsay like dull hh and upnd. Even some diasporan are so dull and yet claim they went to university abroad. I have a humble education background and yet have more wisdom and common sense than you diasporan and upnd cretins including ka hh. His excellency is standing it was ruled and final by courts

    6
    11
  12. Word up, brother KZ. There are some upnd donkeys who believe the ConCourt didn’t issue a judgement and that it was a mere academic excercise; They believe they will petition the ConCourt next year just before nominations and ECL is not eligible-Sangwa and team have promised to “sort” that one out.
    Whatever is in Bill 10 can be sorted out by our mps, not walking out!!

    2
    10
  13. This Article 52 (4) was there in 2011, 2015, 2016 and in previous Elections. Why is this Article being repealed now and b4 the 2021 Elections? Why was this Article not a problem in previous Elections? There is no doubt in my mind that Article 52(4) is being Repealed to give ECL a Third Term no matter what the Authors of this Article say. The Authors are being dishonest in their analysis. Its a fact that ECL has been elected and sworn in twice and cannot be elected and sworn in for the Third Time. Article 52 (4) will enable Zambians to challenge his Eligibility.Why are they being denied this Right now? Leave Article 52 (4) alone. Period.

  14. I sense the PF will sponsor some of these charlatan Presidents with goal to make them resign so Presidential election will be cancelled. Lets repeal article 52!

    3
    4
  15. I sense the PF will sponsor some of these charlatan Presidents with goal to make them resign so Presidential election will be cancelled. Lets repeal article 52! Let’s take nomination fees to K500,000 for Presidential Candidates

    3
    5
  16. Sangwa likes to gamble. He was told before he filed the 101 paged LAZ Petition that similar matters were decided in 1972, and 1996/2000 but he went ahead and abandoned his petition halfway coz he sensed danger. Thats what will happen with the nomination petition against Lungu. But I also see ConCourt having hundred of such nomination petitions for councillors, MPs and presidential candidate in 2021 that the 21 days to hear them won’t be enough. Watch the space

    2
    3
  17. Why are pipo wasting their time bill 10 is dead so article 52 stays in the constitution so lets have a taste of it if it is brot into play those against article 52 have nothing against 52(6) they r scared of 52(4) the constitution court will still have to explain article 106 (2) and 106(3) 106 (2)says A President shall hold office from the date the President elect is sworn into office and ending on the date the next President
    elect is sworn into office. in 2015 when ECL won the election wasnt he sworn in, he was sworn in so the act of holding office began there is no time frame the key word is sworn in ending when the next President elect is sworn in which happened again in 2016 which was once and since he won the election he was sworn in again ending when the next President…

    1
    2
  18. Something must ring in your mind Mwanza, why isn’t Lungu giving u the job when u doing the works of Justice Minister, Information Minister, etc. Asking you to reflect. Help CK and u may just be thankful in future

  19. Good write-up, indeed! Let’s not forget, however, that the act aims to amend not only article 52 and it’s clauses but a host of other articles too. For example, changes to article 81 detailing the duration of stay for MPs till Election Day is already an issue raising dust. If we are honest with ourselves and read and analyze each change, we will have a different perception of the bill.

  20. Reading this, I think the issue of Lungu standing is a non issue if what had been quoted is from th judgement. My worry now is the power given to ECZ to cancel elections and set new dates. This is a constitutional crisis we can’t all ignore. I feel the Constitution will give problems in 2016 is Section 52(6) is left as it is but I don’t think Bill 10 is the final answer. We can remove Section 52 without Bill 10

  21. The paid PF trols are out in force today

    ……… trying to push bill 10 by duping the general population…..

    Notice how they never challenge other lawyers like SC John sangwa or even C mweetwa……when they raise objections…

    These PF people pry on people’s ignorance.

    Let’s see you challenge other lawyers point by point instead of hoping for your dancing masses to vote for something they don’t understand…..

    4
    1
  22. I blame Government for not explaining these things clearly. We fed to so many half truths by those against or supporting Bill 10. I didn’t even know our Constitution gives powers to ECZ to cancel elections and call for new ones. I didn’t know the Court said something clear about term of office or holding office twice. Government must invest in helping us to get the truth. Thanks for nice write up. I see now Constitution is very toxic itself.

    2
    2
  23. Bwana Isaac, you have failed to unmasked the monster hiding behind Article 52. Your story on Article 52(6) does not add up at all. While the Constitution provides for a general election to held on the second Thursday of August every five years after the last general election, however, this is not cast in concrete. For example, Article 81(2) empowers the National Assembly to extend the election date for not more than twelve months if the Republic is at war. Article 81(7) also empowers the President to vary the date, if he/she dissolves Parliament if the Executive cannot effectively govern the Republic due to the failure of the National Assembly to objectively and reasonably carry out its legislative function. In similar fashion, the ECZ may vary the date, if one, more or all presidential…

    6
    1
  24. In similar fashion, the ECZ may vary the date, if one, more or all presidential candidates you have listed are unable to participate in an election for one reason or the other. This includes death of one or all of the candidates before the election date. Put simply, there is more to Article 52 in Bill 10 than what you have enumerated. Let’s leave it as it is.

    3
    1
  25. ……..In similar fashion, the ECZ may vary the date, if one, more or all presidential candidates you have listed are unable to participate in an election for one reason or the other. This includes death of one or all of the candidates before the election date. Put simply, there is more to Article 52 in Bill 10 than what you have enumerated. Let’s leave it as it is.

    4
    1
  26. …….In any case, a general election is one thing, and a presidential election is another all together. If for example, a presidential election can not take place on a second Thursday of August that particular five years after the last general election, there is nothing in the Constitution that stops all other elections (parliamentary, mayoral, council chairperson, councillors) to be held. The other elections can be held but for the presidential one which is encumbered by a petition. Similarly, if the presidential election is petitioned and the election of a candidate quashed, that does not in anyway invalidate all other elections held in a particular general election because the other elections are mutually exclusive.

    7
    1
  27. Really funny to see PF cadres supporting themselves. probably sunday chanda behind the keyboards and liking his own comments. Anyway abash bill 10.

  28. In any case, while the Constitution provides for a general election to held on the second Thursday of August every five years after the last general election, this does not mean that all other elections can not be held on that date if the presidential election is encumbered by article 52(6). A presidential election is not a general election. It is simply one of the elections held during the general election, others being parliamentary, mayoral etc. Any one of these elections can be held on any other date besides the general election date. For this reason, a re-run for the presidential or indeed bye-elections for any other can be held on any other date besides the general election date. We know the motive behind the proposed amendment in Bill 10.

    4
    3
  29. EDGAR’S ISSUE IS SETTLED. SANGWA IS PLAYING WITH OUR EMOTIONS VIA JARGON. LET’S MOVE ON COLLEAGUES

  30. I have seen what is wrong with article 52. I have not been shown how bill 10 corrects the wronlg.Bill 10 is not only about article 52 because other articles are on the line for amendment.
    Picking a small part of the bill and insinuate that people can make conclusions on the whole thing can be deceiving.

  31. “… it is better to petition the eligibility of a candidate, especially an incumbent, before elections because they may refuse to vacate the seat if it is done after the election….” This is your assumption and is no grounds to use against those refusing the repeal of article 52.
    These are my questions, and I do hope you’re reading because I’d love for you (Isaac Mwanza & Musterd Phiri) to respond.
    Let’s assume article 52(4) is repealed;

    1. Firstly the repeal of Article 52 will mean a returning officer and/or ECZ will not have the power given to them in Article 52 (2) clause 1 to duly reject a nomination paper of a candidate who doesn’t meet the qualifications or procedural requirements specified for election to that office (article 70, 100, 153). With it’s repeal it’d…

  32. cont’d
    With it’s repeal it’d mean for instance a parliamentary candidate who meets any of the disqualification requirements specified in Article 70 (2) would successfully file nomination papers.
    2. How/Why would I challenge the nomination of a candidate who’s lost an election, what would be the point of challenging the nomination of a candidate who’s lost an election?

    3. What sort of action would the court/tribunal and ECZ be expected to take if they ruled that the candidate who lost the election was not qualified to be nominated?

    4. Lastly, Is repealing the entire Article 52 the only way we can fix lacunas in our constitution, why can’t we just amend the article were possible for example, Article 52 (5) by deletion of the words ‘a general’ and substituting it with…

  33. Immediately I saw the name of the author, I switched off. It’s a waste of time listening to people who speak from their stomachs! You are not a lawyer and you want to school Lawyers?
    Isaac, put amatako panshi!

  34. I am told that in the federal days, the whites would to say, “If you what to hide something from a black person(African), put it in writing.”
    The preamble to the article has just alluded to this.
    How about summarizing it?

  35. The English People will tell u “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it”. Article 52 of our Constitution is not new. It has been part of our Constitution since time immemorial so why repeal now when Lungu’s eligibility is being questioned? In any Case Bill 10 is dead as it lapsed on June 4, 2020. The Standing Orders Committee hasn’t go the Power to resurrect a dead Bill. As Hon Jack Mwiimbu said “Bill 10 died on June 4,2020 and was cremated on July 21,2020 when Parliament adjourned sine die”. Therefore the Amendment of Article 52 of the Constitution of Zambia is irrelevant.

  36. This bill 10 it is openly favoring one party which is the rulling party so Zambians becareful with the coming o bill 10 because we will lote in our house next caming election, as for me I say” I hereby say no to bill 10″.

  37. 52. (1) A candidate shall file that candidate’s nomination paper
    to a returning officer, supported by an affidavit stating that the
    candidate is qualified for nomination as President, Member of
    Parliament or councillor, in the manner, on the day, and at the time
    and place set by the Electoral Commission by regulation.
    (2) A returning officer shall, immediately on the filing of a
    nomination paper, in accordance with clause (1), duly reject the
    nomination paper if the candidate does not meet the qualifications
    or procedural requirements specified for election to that office.
    (3) The information contained in a nomination paper and
    affidavit shall be published by the Electoral Commission, as
    prescribed.
    (4) A person may challenge, before a court or tribunal, as
    prescribed, the…

  38. They conveniently leave out the fact that it is the same article which specifically states that once a person has been elected TWICE then he is no longer eligible. It does not say whether you served one month or three years that was just put in the judgment by your friends at the concourt. So you just want to remove it altogether so no one in future can say this man stood illegally.

  39. Analysis taken by Isacc mwanza kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk these are proponents of the evil bill 10 with his friend ntewewe so their analysis cant even be objective we know how to read the constitution and we have done just that with our own understanding so isaac mwanza dont deceive us when we even know wat u agenda is in this whole this of bill 10 coz for u its not about the interest of the nation but yourself and a few of your self centered people. Zambia is greater than anyone of u who are pushing for this evil bill 10 and at the end of it all the majority Zambians will win and u remain in shame. God is watching.

  40. I have enjoyed reading this article from top to end. Now I understand what’s upsetting UPND supporters. Lungu will stand and that will be difficult race for HH

  41. I don’t know how we came up with such an article in the Constitution. So u telling me when Tayali files his nomination in 2021 and withdraws, then ECZ will cancel election and call for fresh ones within a shorter time? Where does that leave the campaign period? What no sense is that? Please let our MPs deal with this article. The drafters of that article were very unrealistic!

  42. This article is giving UPND sleepless nites. Wow! Now we know that you guys have been lying. We can’t have such article in Constitution but waiting for day Tayali will withdraw from race. We shall see Opposition crying foul

  43. They intentionally misinterpreted what we all know to be a fact.
    Article 106 Part 3 is clear:
    “A person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President.”

    EL has twice held office. If he runs again and wins and is sworn in, it means he would have held office 3 times.
    Last time I checked, 3 is greater than 2.
    The moment you swear EL for a third time, you would be in violation of the Constitution (106 Part 3).
    They can ignore this and run him, but he can’t be sworn in.

    The end!

Comments are closed.

- Advertisement -
Loading...
- Advertisement -

Latest News

ZRA Intercepts 4 more Trucks Smuggling goods into Zambia

The Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) has intercepted 4 more trucks carrying assorted lotions worth over 1.7 million Kwacha. The consignments...

PF had restricted Invitations to the opening of the flyover bridge in Makeni-Antonio Mwanza

Patriotic Front Deputy Media Director Antonio Mwanza says the PF cannot take advantage or use the COVID-19 pandemic to campaign when numerous achievements are...

Some MPs have Deliberately Misled the Public on the contents of Bill 10

Bill 10 advocate Prince Sindoyi has expressed disappointment that some Member of Parliament have deliberately misled members of the Public on the contents of...

Mordon Malitoli Salutes Nkana League Victory

Nkana legend Mordon Malitoli has declared that his old club will continue dominating the FAZ Super Division for many years to come. Kalampa...

In M’membe Zambia will have a patriot, honest, resolute and most educated President – Musumali

> By Socialist Party reporter THE Socialist Party says without overstating facts, its president and 2021 presidential candidate Fred M’membe is one of the few living...

More Articles In This Category