 Hello viewers, it's K.E. Felix here and I welcome you to my YouTube channel K.E. Felix Inspire. I'd like to say a very big thank you to all of you for the support and the contribution you are giving to this channel. If you are new to this channel, please do not forget to subscribe and hit the bell icon so that you get notified whenever I post new videos. Stay tuned for more details in this report. As they say, you win some, you lose some and you live to fight another day. Today the majority judgment obviously was not in our favor but before I proceed I want to say well done to the two petitioners. They put in a very spirited argument. There is no question about that and that is the reason why they managed to convince one of the three judges and this is the reason why we have a dissenting judgment. The majority judgment obviously was being read in a manner that not everybody could hear and there must be reasons why the judge was so silent. And yet the one who read the minority judgment was very clear. You could hear every word that she mentioned. Now we are fortified by the fact that the court itself in both judgments has not said that the election can proceed. Both the majority and minority judgments have taken cognizance of the fact that there are stays on this matter. And this is the reason why we say that we shall live to fight another day. On the 20th of this month the court of appeal will also be pronouncing itself on a matter of similar nature that was presented to them by the attorney general. We just want to ask a question to all those people who read the two judgments as to the kind of absurdity the majority judgment would create in the handling of elections in Zambia. Where as they said that because there was a stay and because of article 57 read together with article 52 that the electro commission of Zambia was not obliged to cancel elections. What would have happened that there been a stay? Are the two judges suggesting to us that the elections would have proceeded with the names of two people who had resigned, who had withdrawn their candidature? Would they have gone ahead with ballot papers carrying names of people who already indicated that they were withdrawing from participating in the elections? Obvious that would create a strange arrangement to create an absurdity. We are fortified by the holding of the minority judgment. It is clear that the matter that was presented to the court was meritorious. It was best on fact and best on law. So we are not as happy as we should have been had the majority ruled in the manner that the minority ruled. However this has been an exercise which has been very important for the development of jurisprudence. I'm sure that members of parliament will reflect upon the provisions of those articles in the constitution so that there is no similar absurdity in the future. And I'm hoping that soon this decision will be revisited because if it's not it's going to create a very bad precedent that the ECZ can decide and will to ignore the fact that people have withdrawn from participating in an election. Article 52.6 is very clear that when a person resigns the ECZ has no choice as the minority judgment said they are mandated by law. They are compelled by law to cancel elections and call for fresh nominations. That is the position that we stand. But of course the majority judgment is what shall oblige all of us but we still believe that the minority judgment was the correct judgment. Thank you. We invite the petitioners Isaac and President Sincama to speak as well. Well we see the people of Zambia have issues with the court. Not because it's a court which is not very very important in this country. In fact it's one of the most important courts because it's handling the supreme law of the land. But you see why there is this content is because the court is failing to deal with matters in a more authoritative manner. You know if you look at this matter it was coming up on mandate for judgment last week. And the issue of resignation and rescission in fact the rescission came afterwards. It was supposed to deliver the judgment. But because there were some underhand methods which were used to try and cohese the outcome we have this decision which is not even very clear from the majority. They have not indicated whether those candidates who had resigned will be eligible to contest in the election if it was to run again. They have indicated that. Secondly they have made another serious omission in our view on the interpretation of Atko 57 and Atko 56 on the 30 days. When does the 30 days start running? The 30 days which they are talking about started running on the 12th of September and 13th of September. So if there was supposed to have been election as a result of the 30 days which they are talking about that election would have been held on the 12th and 13th of October this month. So to tell us that the vacancy is going to be created because of the resignation the question is when is that vacancy going to be created if it's not created upon submission of the resignation letters. So already now we are in a suspense we don't know at what point a resignation letter is valid and when is this resignation letter taking effect. So what has happened now is to create more confusion on the letters of resignation because for us we were very much fought that it is upon receipt of that letter that's when it takes effect. But what they are telling us now is that it's not known when resignation takes effect and it becomes very very unfortunate if we are going to proceed in this manner because resignations will be always there in future and we may have problems. Secondly we have a situation where a time frame for election is stipulated in the constitution. For example the general election is going to for the next one it will be on the 13th of August 2026. So suppose there is a stay from a high court on a particular man or there is a stay in the constitution of court because some candidate has issues will that date be moved. What this court is telling us now is that that date can be moved depending on the stay that someone can stay in a general election is supposed to be held because someone has an issue therefore the election cannot take place. And this is where we have a problem ourselves where we start now giving excuses on the time frames that are in this constitution. Those should never be moved. We have an issue in South Africa for example where because of Covid the various parties that wanted the election to be shifted by six months or so. The constitution of court confused they rejected they said the time frame which is in this constitution can never be changed. So whether there is Covid there is what you have to proceed with the election indeed they went ahead with the election and that's how we need to handle this matter. The moment you are going to start getting around and with no proper reasons we shall just create chaos in the electoral system and we don't need that and we agree with the dissenting judgement. Well she is talking about creating chaos if we are not very careful how we manage the electoral system through the judgement and that definitely will create problems because we are going now we are going into Kavusha and Quarta let's see what happens.