Mulongoti sues MMD
Mulongoti sues MMDBy George Chellah
Thu 24 Mar. 2011, 04:01 CAT
MIKE Mulongoti has sued the MMD accusing President Rupiah Banda of employing ways and means of ensuring that only members that have his approval contest National Executive Committee (NEC) positions.
This is contained in an affidavit in support of ex-parte summons for interim injunction filed in the Lusaka High Court yesterday where Mulongoti is the plaintiff and MMD acting national secretary Chembe Nyangu is the defendant.
According to the affidavit, Mulongoti stated that on February 21, 2011, the defendant wrote informing him that he had been suspended from the MMD for a period of three months effective from the date of the letter.
“That I was suspended from MMD in contravention of Section 9 of the MMD disciplinary code of 1993 stipulated in Appendix B of the MMD constitution. Section 9 aforementioned provides that I should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any disciplinary action can be taken against me by any disciplinary organ of the MMD.
The NEC acting as a disciplinary body acted in bad faith and meted out my suspension as punishment for my having expressed an intention to contest the position of party vice-president,” Mulongoti stated.
“That the disciplinary procedure provided under Section 9 (1) to (4) referred to in paragraph 3 above clearly stipulates as follows; ““The following procedure shall be adhered to step by step by all the disciplinary organs in the Party. (1) A disciplinary organ initiating disciplinary action against the accused member shall serve to the member a written statement setting out particulars of the charge made against him and the ground upon which the disciplinary action is based. (2) Request the accused member to submit to the disciplinary organ an exculpatory element in writing in defence or lack of it within the period of ten days. (3) An accused person may attend the hearing of his case in person and shall have the right to cross-examine any witness but shall not be represented by a lawyer at that state except on appeal. (4) After the expiry of ten days given to the accused, the disciplinary organ shall consider the exculpatory statement if any and may decide. (a) Not to proceed with a case against the member. Impose any punishment in accordance with the constitution and these regulations as it considers reasonable....”
“That the acting party president and his lieutenants are employing ways and means of ensuring that only those MMD members that have their approval contest the national party offices and that those members of whom they disapprove are barred from attending the MMD national convention altogether and following my purported suspension from the party I have reasonable cause to believe that the mentioned party president and lieutenants do not approve of my contesting the office of MMD vice-president.”
Mulongoti stated that he challenged his suspension by letter dated March 1, 2011 and the defendant has failed or otherwise neglected to respond to the said letter.
“That meting out a suspension against me without prior charge nor opportunity to be heard will in the present circumstances have the effect of interfering with my rights as a member of the MMD to elect or be elected or appointed into the leadership of any of the party organs and positions of authority as enshrined in article 9 (d) of the MMD constitution. That this is a proper case for the court to grant an order of injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with my rights as a member of the MMD until the correctness or otherwise of the decision to suspend me is determined with finality,”
Mulongoti stated. “That further to the aforestated in the Daily Mail of 16 March 2011 the defendant informed all members of the MMD that those that were interested in contesting positions for the national party offices in the MMD were required to fill in and lodge their nominations on 25th March 2011 approximately 12 days before the MMD national convention and that all the MMD members that were on suspension were not eligible to file nominations.
“That this move on the part of the defendants contravenes Article 54 of the MMD constitution which reads as follows; “(1) Subject to article 36, members of the National Executive Committee shall be elected in the following manner: (a) Nomination papers will be filled and lodged with the returning officer twenty four (24) hours before voting takes place. An aspiring candidate should have been a member of the Party for a continuous period of three years prior to nomination. (b) Voting shall be by secret ballot. (2) An aspiring candidate may if, he so wishes contest not more than two positions by filling in two separate nomination papers, provided that where he succeeds, in being elected his first choice, his second nomination shall automatically become null and void....'”
He stated that the letter and spirit of the MMD constitution is better appreciated when its articles are not construed in isolation but in conjunction with the other articles.
“In the present case when article 54 referred to above is read with article 42 it becomes apparent that the MMD constitution aims at affording all members of the MMD the opportunity to contest the seat of presidency such that should they be unsuccessful in their quest for party presidency, the members should be at liberty to contest other national party offices,” he stated.
Mulongoti stated that he believed that the defendants invitation to members to file nomination papers 12 days prior to the national convention was aimed at disclosing in advance persons who intend to stand for certain offices and intimidating others from contesting certain positions and that the effect thereof would be to subvert intra-party democracy.
“That threats of physical violence have been made against myself and several other party members currently suspected of having intentions to contest certain national party offices and such an action is not only ultra-vires the MMD constitution but does not promote intra-party democracy. That it is common cause that I have intentions of contesting the position of MMD vice-president at the MMD national convention and I verily believe that my suspension from the MMD and the invitation of nominations approximately 12 days before the MMD national Convention is held, is calculated to bar me and others from exercising our rights under the party constitution to stand for office,” Mulongoti stated. “That I crave the indulgence of the court to restrain the defendant from interfering with my rights as a member of MMD until the court determines the correctness or otherwise of my suspension from the MMD. I further crave the indulgence of the court to restrain the defendant from inviting and accepting invitations for nominations on 25 March 2011 in contravention of the MMD constitution. That this is a proper case for the court to make an order of injunction to restrain the defendant in the manner sought in paragraphs 16 and 17 above as the action commenced in this matter will be rendered nugatory and the plaintiff will suffer loss and damage that will not be adequately atoned for in damages.”
» More from Home News » Homepage
Labels: COURTS, MIKE MULONGOTI, MMD
posted by MrK @ 7:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home