Chilufya Tayali
Zambian Voice executive director Chilufya Tayali has accused the Constitutional Court of breaching the Constitution to accommodate the minority at the expense of the majority, following its decision to extend beyond the prescribed 14 days the hearing of the case in which Hakainde Hichilema of the UPND is challenging the validity of the reelection of incumbent Edgar Lungu.
And Tayali has threatened to report Constitutional Court judges to the Judicial Complaints Authority for misconduct if they proceed to hear the case on Monday.
The full bench of the Constitutional Court had originally ruled that the 14-day period within which the case was to the be heard and disposed off would expire on Friday, September 2. But following an impassioned plea by Hichilema to be given time to hire new lawyers after his legal team abandoned the case in protest, the Court backtracked and extended the hearing, further giving bothe the petitioners and respondents two days each in which argue their cases.
But Tayali contends that the Constitutional Court gave the petitioners reasonable time, which is prescribed in the Constitution ( Article 101 (5) and Article 103 (2)), in which to prove their case but they could not present their evidence on time (within the 14 days).
Addressing the press in Lusaka this morning, Tayali said Hichilema and his Vice had the opportunity to prove that President-elect did not win the last election by quickly presenting evidence, in the Constitutional Court, of fraud or rigging within the specified time, but the petitioners decided to spend their time on unsubstantive applications which could not change the facts as declared by the Returning Officer.
“We are of the view that, the Constitutional Court was independent and impartial by allowing the Petitioners to file in their petition and other applications without any hindrance, unfortunately, the petitioners ignored the constitutional time limit of attached to their right,” Tayali said.
“An impression has been created by the petitioners, that, they were not given reasonable time to prove their case, because trial was supposed to be conducted in one day (2nd September, 2016), but this is misleading and unfortunately the Constitutional Court seems to have fallen into it, otherwise, we doubt they would have gone to the extent of breaching the Constitution by extending time.
“The problem is also not on the Constitutional Court, in as much as the petitioners are cognizant and claiming their rights to be heard in a reasonable time, they ought to do the same to other Constitutional provisions including that of time limits.”
Tayali observed that a number of applications, including on the bill of rights and 14 days, were thrown out because the Constitutional court wanted to conclude the case according to the constitutional provision of 14 days.
“It is, therefore, appalling for the Constitutional Court to go out of their way to commit an illegality (Article 1 (2)) to rule that the Constitutional Court will sit beyond 14 days to hear evidence which they should have received immediately the petition was filed in.
“The Constitutional Court should not be drawn into illegality due to the poor approach to the case by the petitioners, or inefficiency, or lack of evidence, on time, so that that petitioners can look harder to find something, or any other negligence.
“From our point of view, it is not the issue of reasonable time but failure to produce evidence before Court and that should not be a liability that the respondents or the citizens should bear.”
He complained that many things were currently on hold due to the limited Executive powers that the incumbent has, noting that the incumbent cannot perform certain functions and it is somehow affecting the Country in various ways.
“We are in the month of September and in October a budget has to be presented and yet, we have no Parliament because all the elected Members of Parliament cannot be sworn-in.
“A number of bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements cannot be entered in because the policy makers are not in office to negotiate.
“The business community cannot make and execute their business plans because the risk is still high out of the electoral disputes and uncertainties.
“The citizens are more insecure (insecurity) due to the same electoral petitions and uncertainties.
“In our view, it is due to such power vacuum, insecurity and anxieties in the nation that the crafters of the Constitution put a specified time (14 days) for a Presidential petition to be disposed of and it not only a breach of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, but a national risk to extend the hearing of this matter beyond the specified period of 14 days.”
He has since asked the Judiciary, collectively, as headed by the Chief Justice to step in and set a precedence for future generations.