Lusaka resident, Kalusa, withdraws legal challenge against Lungu, Wina over 2016 election petition

A legal challenge questioning the legitimacy of former President Edgar Lungu and his Vice President, Inonge Wina’s continued stay in office during the 2016 presidential election petition has been withdrawn from the Constitutional Court.

The petitioner, Nkulukusa Kalusa, a Lusaka resident, opted to discontinue the case through a consent order reached with the Attorney General.

In a ruling delivered by Judges Margaret Munalaula, Arnold Shilimi, and Judy Mulongoti, the court formalized the withdrawal. The consent order stated:

“By consent of the parties acting through their respective advocates, it is hereby adjudged as follows: That the matter herein be and is hereby discontinued. That each party shall bear their own costs.”

Read more: Company challenges DPP’s move to have over 2000 logs of timber, other assets forfeited to govt

Kalusa had argued that Lungu and Wina unlawfully held onto executive powers during the 2016 election petition, asserting that the Speaker of the National Assembly should have assumed those functions.

He contended that, according to the law, the Speaker should take over presidential duties when an election petition is filed against an incumbent president-elect.

The Attorney General, represented by Kabesha Mulilo, defended Lungu and Wina, maintaining that they acted within the law.

Mulilo argued that an incumbent president who is also the president-elect is not required to relinquish executive powers to the Speaker during an election petition.

He clarified that this handover applies only if the initial election results were nullified, necessitating a re-run as outlined in Article 104(3) of the Zambian Constitution.

Mulilo further stated that Lungu and Wina were lawfully sworn into office by the late Chief Justice Irene Mambilima, with the Chief Registrar only facilitating the oath-taking process.

The Attorney General dismissed Kalusa’s claims, arguing they lacked merit and failed to demonstrate any violation of Articles 105(1) and 105(2) of the Constitution.

The matter has now been officially closed, with each party bearing its own legal costs.

WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.