Maxwell Mwale, Hastings Sililo and Dora Siliya fight on

0
Dora Siliya_Lusakavoice.com
Dora Siliya_Lusakavoice.com
Dora Siliya_Lusakavoice.com

DORA Siliya, the former MMD Petauke legislator, whose election was nullified due to evidence of ‘massive corruption’, has continued to press the Lusaka High Court to allow her and two others to file nominations to re-contest the lost seats.
Siliya, Malambo former legislator Maxwell Mwale and Mulobezi’s Hastings Sililo want the Lusaka High Court to quash the collective decisions of the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and the Judiciary not to allow them to file nomination papers for by-elections—that have been postponed—despite the corruption evidence the Supreme Court used to strip them off the seats.
Mwale, Sililo and Siliya in their arguments in response to Attorney-General Mumba Malila’s preliminary issues filed recently are seeking a judicial review of the ECZ decision to bar them from re-contesting the seats.
“To allow the ECZ to be dictated to on a matter concerning conduct of an election is unreasonable and irrational. We therefore pray that the collective decisions of the public relations officer of the judiciary Terry Musonda, the decision of the acting Registrar of the High Court and the decisions of the Director of Elections be quashed as they are irrational and therefore unreasonable,” their submissions read in part.
They submitted that the statements issued by Mr Musonda and the acting registrar of the High Court are “unreasonable, in that they were made without the court having been moved by any court process.”
They say the court can only make such pronouncements after it has been moved by the court process.
“If the Attorney General and ECZ has properly directed their minds to the historical and correct interpretation of Section 104 (6) (b) of the Electoral Act no 12 of 2006, they would not have come to the irrational and unreasonable conclusion that the purported report by the acting registrar of the High Court by any stretch of imagination was a proper report envisaged by the provisions of section 104 (6) (b).”
The trio argued that the Attorney General and ECZ having been aware of the provisions of section 104 (6) (b) of the Electoral Act no. 12 of 2006, should have known that their decision to issue a report which is not in accordance with the law and for the ECZ to accept that the purported report from the acting registrar was a report is unreasonable.
“We submit that it was unreasonable and irrational for the Director of Elections, having been privy to past practices on how a report is rendered, which we submit was premised on the correct interpretation of Section 104 (6) (b) of the Electoral Act no. 12 of 2006, to rely on a purported report which failed to meet the barest minimum requirements…,” the trio submitted.
They argued that had Mr Musonda, the acting registrar of the High Court and Director of Elections properly directed themselves to provisions of Section 104 (6) (b) of the Electoral Act no.12 of 2006 and acted reasonably, they could not have reached the decision that the applicants were ineligible to file their nominations on August 13, 2013.
“The ECZ and the Attorney-General acted in excess of the powers that exist in Section 104 (6) and (7) of the Electoral Act no. 12 of 2006 and they were, without question, ultra vires, the said provisions of law.”
But Home Affairs Minister Edgar Lungu has, in the past, insisted that the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ is evidence of corruption in their election (Sililo, Mwale and Siliya) the rest is but a pedantic argument…the court found corruption evidence and annulled the polls that’s the fact.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY