Elizabeth Chitika

 

MMD national secretary Elizabeth Chitika has affirmed that the three expelled members of parliament for Muchinga, Serenje and Mkaika were hounded out of the party for contravening the MMD constitution.

Chitika has since asked the Lusaka High Court to consolidate the three petitions by Muchinga Constituency member of Parliament Howard Kunda, his Serenje Central counterpart Maxwell Kabanda, and Mkaika’s Peter Phiri, in which they have cited her as a respondent, seeking a declaration that their expulsion from the party is null and void.

Kunda, Kabanda and Phiri want an order that their purported expulsion by the party dated August 18, 2020 was ultra vires articles 1(3), 2, 11, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of Zambian as amended by Act no. 2 of 2016, therefore void and of no legal effect.

The three want a declaration that any purported suspension relating to them which violates the Bill of Rights be declared null and void ab nitio.

They are seeking a declaration that the purported expulsion from the party was illegal as it was procedurally improper and absolute defiance of the established rules of natural justice.

Kunda, Kabanda and Phiri in their individual petitions said they were all bona fide members of the MMD who joined the party on different dates and that the MMD was guided by a Constitution, which was duly lodged with the Registrar of Societies.

The three explained that some time in 2016, the MMD leadership had announced that the party was going to work with and form an alliance with the PF in elections that were to be held on August 11, 2016 and in the same year the MMD issued them with adoption certificates to contest as member of parliament in various constituencies and they won the elections under the MMD ticket.

They said after the Patriotic Front won the Presidential election, Felix Mutati, who was made MMD president, was nominated member of parliament by President Edgar Lungu and appointed as minister of finance as the two political parties were in an alliance.

The petitioners said they had been representing people in their constituencies but they started having problems with the MMD leadership following the judgment of the High Court under cause no. 2016/Hp/0989 dated November 5, 2019 which declared Nevers Mumba as the MMD president and not Mutati.

The three said they started receiving phone calls from the party that they should make contributions to the party but they said that they would channel their contributions towards party mobilisation in their constituencies adding that there was no provision in the party constitution indicating that contributions were mandatory.

Kunda, Kabanda and Phiri said the party or party leadership has never communicated to them that it was no longer in alliance with the PF and that the same had been terminated.

The trio said in June this year, a meeting was held where accusations against them of failing to comply with the party decisions, resolutions and directives, among others, were discussed.

They said on August 18, 2020, the party wrote to them informing them of their expulsions from the party.

But in an affidavit in support of summons for an order for consolidation of actions, Chitika stated that there were three actions before the High Court arising from the same facts and subject matter as in the matter under cause numbers 2020/HP/0970, 2020 /HP/0969 and 2020/HP/0968.

Chitika stated that the matters were commenced on the same day by the same advocate on September 22, 2020 and by three different petitioners, seeking the same reliefs against the MMD under the Bill of Rights.

“The expulsion of the petitioners was as a result of them contravening the MMD constitution,” Chitika stated.

She stated that a perusal of the reliefs sought by all the petitioners indicate that they were dissatisfied with the manner in which they were expelled from the party and they all seek the same reliefs, which ought to be determined by the same court to avoid conflicts of decisions and multiplicity of actions.

Chitika stated that the different petitions seeking to open parallel proceedings might undermine the orders or judgment.

She urged the court to grant her an order to consolidate the three actions as failure to do so would be prejudicial to the parties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here