Had the Courts heard UPND evidence it would have been a closed case. It is no wonder that PF machinery made sure the case never took off pleading 14 day window period.
By dismissing the petition without hearing it, an affront to justice has been committed because the cause of justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of the questionable interpretation of the 14 day window period in which the petition ought to have been heard. Clearly the court misdirected itself.
The refusal by one Judge Anne Sitali to hear the motion on Clause 103 of the constitution relating to the incumbent surrendering presidential executive functions to the speaker was a violation of the constitution that she swore to uphold. She has obviously been compromised and should have declared interest and recused herself.
The calamitous and inconsistent conduct of the ConCourt judges did not serve the cause of justice. The Judges reversed their earlier decision for hearing the case over the period of four days, then Judge Sitali reversed herself ruling to have the case tried and concluded in one day, being midnight Friday 2nd. During the session that said Friday, the bench of the ConCourt issued an order that the case be adjourned to Monday 5th September 2016 and would be heard up to Thursday the 8th of September 2016. However Sitali with the two said judges abruptly issued another order reversing the earlier decision and thereby declining to hear the petition on the basis of the lapse of the 14 day window period. This in our view is not in tandem with the spirit of the constitutionalism; which is to promote fair hearing and justice which the petitioners are constitutionally entitled to.
The three judges in question also abrogated Article 18 (9) of the Bill of Rights which stipulates that there be fair hearing within a reasonable time frame. This article supersedes any constitutional provision that may be at odds with it. Simply put this article overrides the 14 day window period interpretation. It is hard to imagine that these judges were not aware of this article.This further strengths the view that judges appointed to the Concourt do not have the skills and experience in constitutional law to sit on such a Court. Failing to rule on the matter based on a technicality makes their ruling a nullity.
Among dozens of evidence pieces in the arsenal of UPND would have been a questioning of Judge Chulu who as a judge understands the gravity of a Court Order. On the day ECZ announced Lungu as winner UPND had gotten a court order to compel ECZ to recount the ballot papers for Lusaka. Chulu refused and ignored the Court Order. I wonder what answer as judge this charlatan would have given.