Lusaka ~ Tue, 11 May 2021

By Brightwell Chabusha

Attorney General Likando Kalaluka has told the Constitutional Court that John Sangwa delayed to challenge the constitutionality of Statutory Instrument No. 63 of 2016 and that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the State Counsel’s petition.

Mr Kalaluka has raised two preliminary issues in the matter.

In this case, Mr Sangwa petitioned the court, seeking an order that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) amends the Presidential Candidate/Running Mate affidavit to include words: “I have not twice held office as President”.

But Mr Kalaluka argued that Mr Sangwa’s petition seeks to grant the court jurisdiction to draft legislation, which jurisdiction directly flies in the teeth of Article 62, 128 and 177 of the Constitution.

He stated that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

“It is not a mandatory requirement to include the provisions of Article 106(3) of the Constitution of Zambia in the affidavit for Presidential Candidate/Running Mate Form No, Gen 4 as the said Article 106 (3) relates to the tenure of Office of President which is not provided for under Article 100 of the Constitution,” he stated.

And Mr Kalaluka also argued that the affidavit has a paragraph which reads that: “I qualify for nomination as a Presidential Candidate and the disqualifications in Article 100 (2) do not apply to me” which he submitted that it confirms that all the Constitutional requirements relating to the nomination of a Presidential Candidate have been met.

“There is no need for any amendment thereof,” he said.

Mr Kalaluka added that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of Mr Sangwa in challenging the constitutionality of Statutory Instrument No 63 which was published on August 12, 2016.

“The said challenge can only be entertained by this court if instituted within 14 days of the publication of the Statutory Instrument in the Gazette in accordance with Article 67 (3) of the Constitution,” Mr Kalaluka argued.


  1. Razor

    Concourt judges cannot rule against the sitting President so obviously this case will go nowhere.

Comments are closed.