Government has revealed that President Edgar Lungu is consulting with his lawyers following the Constitutional Court’s decision to adjourn the Presidential election petition to Monday September 5, 2016.

This is according to a press statement issued by Special Assistant to the President for Press and Public Relations Amos Chanda.

Mr. Chanda added that a government statement will be issued on Monday September 5, 2016.

And Mr. Chanda revealed that President Lungu has reiterated his call for Zambians to remain calm and respect law and order.

The Young African Leaders initiative says the Constitutional Court has set dangerous precedent with regards to both the rule of law, and to the law with specific reference to hearing and determination of election petitions for Members of Parliament and other elective offices.

In a statement YALI Governance Advisor Isaac Mwanza said his organization is shocked at the casual attitude with which the Constitutional Court has dealt with what is nothing more than emotive appeals in the Presidential election petition and with which the court has been seized these past 3 weeks.

Below is a full statement as issued by YALI.

The decision by the Constitutional Court to extend the time limit allowed by the Constitution for trying a presidential petition has set a most dangerous precedent with regards to both the rule of law, and to the law with specific reference to hearing and determination of election petitions for Members of Parliament and other elective offices.

We are shocked by the casual attitude with which the Constitutional Court has dealt with what is nothing more than emotive appeals in the Presidential election petition and with which the esteemed court has been seized these past 3 weeks.

On Thursday 1st September, 2016 Her Ladyship Justice Sitali handed down a ruling to the effect that the said presidential petition would have to be concluded on Friday 2nd September 2016 which would mark the end of the 14 days within which the Constitution stipulates that such a matter should be heard.

Following spirited representations by counsel for the petitioners, the matter was, quite strangely, referred to the full bench of the court. Strange in that Her Ladyship Madam Justice Sitali had handed down a substantive ruling on the matter. We are not aware of any provision in any law, which permits the court to refer a substantive ruling from a Judge of the Court, to the full bench. In effect, this was an appeal lying from a single judge, to the full bench, a most strange procedure whose foundation at law, we are at a loss to discover.

On Friday 2nd September, 2016 the President of the Constitutional Court, Her Ladyship Madam Justice Chibomba, delivered the substantive ruling of the court: the 14 days stipulated in the Constitution itself, for the hearing of a presidential election petition, would expire at 23:59 on 2nd September 2016.

The court therefore gave the two sides, up to 23:45 to conclude their submissions.

At midnight on 2nd September 2016, to our utter shock and dismay, Her Ladyship Madam Justice Chibomba informed the court that, following emotive pleas by the petitioners themselves in person, having been abandoned by their lawyers under the structures imposed by the time bar as stipulated in the ruling by the Constitutional Court itself, the court had decided that the matter would continue on Monday 5th September 2016 .

In other words, the Constitutional Court would proceed in blatant violation of not only the court’s own ruling, its governing statute and rules and in utter disregard of the Constitution itself.

YALI wishes to place it on record that the principles inherent in Section 106 Subsection 2 of the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 are instructive: Both the High Court and Tribunals established under the Act, are instructed to dismiss election petitions which have not been tried and determined within the period specified in the law due to a failure by the petitioner to actively prosecute the petition.

The Constitutional Court which constantly acknowledged itself as lacking jurisdiction under Order XV Rule 7 of the Constitutional Court Rules, to extend the time limited by the Constitution when trying a petition, decided without jurisdiction and in violation of the said Rule, to set an entirely unlawful precedent for the lower courts, where if the petitioner fails to prosecute the matter within the specified time as provided by law, the petitioner can now rely on the precedent now set by the Constitutional Court, to proceed with hearing under this unfortunate precedent which now stops any lower Court or tribunal from dismissing such a petition under Section 106 Subsection 2 of the Electoral Process Act for want of prosecution.

With regards to the hearing of the presidential election petition, it had become quite noticeable that the Constitutional Court had first given the litigants different directions, variously to the effect that the main petition was to be heard from Friday 2nd September 2016 extending into time outside the 14 days as stipulated by law. The subsequent change of its earlier position created uncertainty among both petitioners and respondents, which further delayed the hearing of the petition within the required time frame which, according to the Constitution itself, ended on September 2, 2016.

The Constitutional Court ought to have taken responsibility for the confusion caused to both parties to this petition, resulting in counsel for the petitioners walking out of Court.

YALI is therefore deeply concerned that while the Constitutional Court failed to take charge of the proceedings from the start, the precedent set by the Court will have serious implications in the manner the High Court and Tribunals will have to deal with similar situations that may arise before them during trial of parliamentary and local government elections petitions.

For instance, if the High Court dismissed a petition under Section 106 subsection 2 because the petitioner failed to prosecute it within the time line provided in the law, and if the petitioner lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court, how would the Court protect the rule of law and ensure enforcement of Section 106 Subsection 2 if the petitioner made reference to the precedent set by the Constitutional Court itself as described in the presidential election petition currently before it?

The Constitutional Court ought to be alive to the fact that the precedent it has set, will be cited by either petitioners or respondents who are ruled to have failed to prosecute a matter within the time frame set by the Constitution, and wish to prolong petitions in Court, a mischief which we have sought to cure by amending the Constitution thus.

Zambians do not need to be taken back to the old ways of doing things where, if government wanted to punish an uncooperative member of parliament, they would resort to underhand methods such as those employed in the Dora Siliya petition, in which the ruling party simply elected not to prosecute the matter knowing that the could could not compel the parties to conclude the matter, thereby denying the people of Petauke Central constituency of representation in their parliament.

It is YALI’s position that the decision by the Constitutional Court to extend the presidential election petition is patently illegal and unlawful. To allow the Petitioners’ plaintive cries for a hearing, amounts to allowing them to appeal against the Court’s own ruling as handed down by the President of the Court on 2nd September, 2016. It is also a violation of Article 128 of the Constitution itself which stipulates that the decisions of this court are final and cannot be appealed against. Finally this decision to extend the hearing is illegal in that the Rules of the Constitutional Court do not permit the court to extend the time limited by the Constitution and to review its own decisions.The ruling handed down by the President of the Court, that the hearing of the presidential election petition was to conclude at 23:45 on Friday 2nd September 2016 was final and irreversible, and could not be appealed against.

We urge the court to strictly observe provisions of the Constitution which are binding on the Court and bring the presidential election petition to an immediate end as it became time-barred as from midnight of 2nd September, 2016.

A 30 YEAR OLD woman of Rescourse area in Kitwe has been arrested by police for allegedly stabbing her husband to death with a knife after she caught him having sex with her young sister.

Copperbelt province commissioner of police Charity Katanga has told Mwebantu in an interview. She said the incident occurred on Tuesday around 19.00 following a heated argument between the couple.

Mrs Katanga identified the woman as Gertrude Chinyama while her husband has been identified as Muvunga Chinyama.

“The reports we got are that the woman allegedly found her husband in a sexual act with her young sister and this incensed her. So she got a knife and stabbed her husband who died instantly,” Mrs Katanga said.

She said the suspect was apprehended by the neighbours who rushed to the couple’s house upon hearing some noise.

Mrs Katanga said Mr Chinyama’s body is lying in the Kitwe Central hospital mortuary awaiting postmortem.

Former Energy Minister Dora Siliya took to social media shortly after the Constitutional court ruled that the presidential hearing be extended to Monday next week and condemned the court’s decision.

Ms Siliya who is also Petauke Central PF MP said on her Facebook page that the constitutional court is now taking the PF and Zambians for granted.

She accused the court of breaking its own rules by having extended the hearing beyond the 14-day period.

“We will all wake up tomorrow wondering what happened. Even the Constitutional Court is breaking the very law it was meant to uphold,” Ms Siliya wrote.

“This very Court ruled that 14 days was just that. It’s like filling in for nominations. If you are not ready whether you have funeral or illness law says that particular day. So in what way did court decide to postpone to Monday. Not even Saturday morning in the least.”

She accused the petitioners led by Hakainde Hichilema of having used the oldest trick by pretending that he had no lawyers.

“The point is that his big team of lawyers failed to prepare a good case knowing fully well that case was time bound,” she said.

“My view is that the PF is being taken for granted. But most of all the People of Zambia. We heard EL call to be peaceful but our patience is running out. Courts can’t make Presidents. It’s the People no wonder the saying Vox Populi Vox Dei. This ruling is very strange and sets a dangerous precedent.”

UPND President Hakainde Hichilema and his running mate Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba made an impassionate appeal to the full bench of the constitutional court forcing the court to adjourn the hearing to Monday.

This was after a day full drama and suspense that saw Mr Hichilema and Mr Mwamba’s lawyers’s abandon them midway through the proceedings.
Mr Hichilema and Mr Mwamba later took the stand and addressed the court separately arguing that their rights have been abrogated after the courts refused to allow an extension of the 14-day time limit.

The two pleaded to the courts to allow them to hire new lawyers to represent them.

Constitutional Court President Hildah Chibomba ruled just before midnight that since the petition had not been heard due to the events of the day, the petitioners will need to find lawyers and commence trial on Monday.

The Court further ordered that each party will have two days to be heard.

Earlier, the Constitutional court had thrown out all preliminary applications by the petitioners including the application by the Law Association of Zambia for a joinder as a friend of the court.

The Court has also thrown out an application by lawyers for Hakainde Hichilema intended to amend their skeleton main application.

The lawyers led by John Sangwa of Simeza Sangwa & Associates sought permission to leave the Court as he claimed there was no time to present the election petition.
Mr Sangwa was followed up by Jack Mwiimbu, Lillian Mukosha, Muleza, Nellie Mutti and Martha Mushipe who also stormed out of court leaving Mr Hichilema and Mr Mwamba in court.

Patriotic Front Lawyer Bonaventure Mutale S.C had argued that it is impossible to extend time as per request made by Mr Hichilema beyond 24 Hours to engage other lawyers and the act will be against the Constitution.

But in his moving submission, Mr Hichilema almost caused laughter when he said the UPND does not need sympathy but a fair hearing from the Concourt.

“The court has denied us justice on the basis of a decision made yesterday by one single judge Anne Sitali which we believe was ill intended to deny us justice. We cannot represent ourselves in two hours for such a matter of great magnitude. Legal representation is our constitutional right,” Mr Hichilema said.

He added, “It is not in question that we need…a fair hearing. We cannot be an exception to the rules of natural justice. To be given a fair hearing. It’s not a matter of whether one needs justice or not…it’s a matter of obligation.”

“The delay to hear one of our petitions, to have the President vacate office in accordance with article 104 (3) cannot be over looked. We also wish to submit that this court lives to our expectations in delivering justice,” Mr Hichilema told the court.

And Mr Mwamba stated that the bench has no powers to declare Edgar Lungu winner of the disputed elections.

“It’s very important that the court is mindful of what the 15million Zambians are expecting. We came here expecting that we shall be heard and not in two Hours. It’s our constitutional right for this Honourable court to hear our petition. But if the court decides not to hear one side of the party, it will be unfair to many Zambians who to hear both sides,” he said.

“I have been in this court from morning to hear this matter. It’s clear that a single Judge who handled this matter misled the court because of backtracking on her initial position.”

He added, “We don’t believe that we have to be given enough time for us to prepare witnesses in a shortest possible time so that our witnesses can be given a fair hearing. Am obliged my Lord.”
And there was jubilation among UPND supporters outside the Supreme Court after the court proceedings adjourned just after midnight with some saying what transpired in inside court is a sign that God was on their side.

This was after they were given only two Hours to present their petition and present all witnesses so that the proceedings could be concluded at midnight in line with the constitution.

Around 20:00 Hrs, John Sangwa was the first to ask the court to leave saying he will not be able to defend the constitution due to the way proceedings have been conducted.

Musa Mwenye also applying to leave court saying he is unable to discharge his duties as counsel for the petitioner.

Jack Mwiimbu and Nelly Mutti followed suit and they were shorty followed by Mrs Lilian Mushota.
Martha Mushipe also the court room and hurled disparaging remarks against the Judges.

Ms. Mushipe and some judges exchanged words with one Judge threatening her that she will be cited for contempt.

And Mr Hichilema who was present throughout the proceedings asked to address the court and complained that he feels his rights have been abrogated.

Mr Hichilema has blamed the constitutional court over the manner in which the proceedings have gone accusing the court of having kept changing directions.

Mr Hichilema and his running mate Geoffrey Mwamba have asked the court to adjourn the session so that they can go and consult.

The court resumes seating at 21:30 Hours this evening.