LESSONS FROM ECL ELIGIBILITY SUIT, CONDUCT OF SUPPORTERS

Dear Editor, AS the eligibility debate is brought to rest through the case of Legal Resource Foundation and another v Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Attorney General, it is important to appreciate the exemplary manner and maturity that President Lungu and the Patriotic Front members conducted themselves throughout the proceedings. From the outset, President Lungu and …

LESSONS FROM ECL ELIGIBILITY SUIT, CONDUCT OF SUPPORTERS
Dear Editor, AS the eligibility debate is brought to rest through the case of Legal Resource Foundation and another v Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Attorney General, it is important to appreciate the exemplary manner and maturity that President Lungu and the Patriotic Front members conducted themselves throughout the proceedings. From the outset, President Lungu and the PF supporters always believed there were two plethora of court precedents that declared ECL eligible namely; the Dan Pule and the Bampi Kapalasa cases.  However, the President and the PF respected the rights of Legal Resource Foundation (LRF) and Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa to bring any grievance before the court of competent jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court as opposed to putting the law in their hands. This is what the rule of law demands. The PF supporters instead spent their precious time to go on the ground to conduct campaigns and mobilise for President Lungu. President Lungu as an avid believer and respecter of the rule of law allowed the wheels of justice to take its course and he walked the talk. The PF membership equally allowed the petitioners to enjoy their legal prerogatives of pursuing their grievances using established procedures within the ambit specified by the law. From the PF supporter’s point of view, we should admit that questioning the eligibility of President Lungu was an emotional issue but for the respect we have for state institutions, we allowed the law to take its course. Not even a day did President Lungu or his officials made any personal attendance at the court premises let alone his legal representatives. Collectively, we appreciated that despite having interest in the case, PF supporters had no business to be at court and we left it to the lawyers to fight legal battles from the corridors of the court room. We pause here and reflect on how President Lungu’s rival, the five-time losing Presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema has conducted himself whenever he has been cited either in the courts of law or any law enforcement agency. What comes into our mind is the contingent of cadres that he mobilises to flock court premises or law enforcement agencies in his quest to undermine the legitimate legal processes. We do recall that when he was invited for questioning last time at police headquarters, two lives were lost in the process. We made reference to this because UPND supporters have argued that their leader commands influence and thus any attempt to summon him could attract attention. We ask ourselves as to why didn’t the eligibility petition attract the attention of his supporters bearing in mind that President Lungu was elected by over 1.8 million voters? The answer is simple; President Lungu’s maturity and level headedness kept his supporters away from the Supreme Court grounds and let the due process of the law take its course independent of any undue interference. MARVIN CHANDA MBERI, Lusaka.