ConCourt failed to guide parties in election petition

Mweenge Chimfwembe

The Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) says the Constitutional Court failed to timely and ably guide and direct the parties to the dismissed petition as to how the matter would proceed.

FODEP Executive Director Chimfwembe Mweenge in a statement the Court should have given guidance on the importance of adherence to the time limit and the need for parties to avoid unnecessary interlocutory applications.

Mr Chimfwembe says the Court’s general direction and guidance should have been given at a scheduling conference, immediately after the filing of the petition and answer as provided for under Order 14 Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016.

He says the Court should have given guidance on the importance of adherence to the time limit, and the need for parties to avoid unnecessary interlocutory applications.

Mr Mweenge has emphasised the Constitutional right of citizens to be heard in judicial proceedings before judgement is given by a court, adding that every citizen is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial court in the determination of their rights.

Mr Mweenge says given the limited time-frame given by the Constitution, the Constitutional Court should have accorded the parties ample time to present their case and even sit during the weekend, if necessary, to ensure that the fundamental right to be heard was ably accorded to the parties.

He states that the courts are there to dispense justice and conclude any matters before them within the time permitted by law.

Mr Mweenge says the presidential petition should have been dealt with conclusively after hearing the merits of the case and not end on a technicality of lapse of time, which invariably resulted in an injustice to the petitioners, and a bad precedent for future presidential petitions.

He says FODEP also observed that the presidential petition was dented with multiple inconsistent rulings of the Constitutional Court which made the procedure to be followed unpredictable and this in turn has potential to erode public confidence in the ability of the Court to deliver a fair and measured ruling on the matters before it.