 Akulana, hindi na neneza b cuteja, narega ni sekohera sekuretisha wiki gudwa nnezako wiki kuu. Ya, hindi na heneza, narega ni sekohera sekuretisha wiki kuu. Hata ni bida nezako wiki kiyama kuwa kuhu ni mezi. Yes, I think we have heard several sentiments by state council John Sangwa, who has been misleading the public about issues of the presidential eligibility and matters of the constitution. We are fully aware ourselves as PF and as a legal profession that Mr. John Sangwa state council is one of those lawyers that was representing Hakka in the HLMA in the 2016 petition and we are also aware that is one of the lawyers that misled the church on the number of the 14 days and is the lawyer that lost the election petition when it was thrown out by the court because it was presented to court. But they failed to finish it on time. So state council John Sangwa was also the lawyer in the Dhanipole case. He was representing the law association of Zambia and the court has clearly defined its decisions on both matters. So we are wondering why state council John Sangwa would today come and say in matters that are water under the bridge. Who in this country or in this world can say Dr. Edgar Chagwarungu is not president of Zambia? Who can listen to John Sangwa when he says that? First of all, on the issue of the petition that was dismissed, when a petition is dismissed, do you expect the court to make a decision or a judgment on a matter that they have thrown out? So for him to say the court did not decide that they did not declare president Lungu eligible, there is no law that authorizes the court to pass a decision on a matter that they have thrown out. So John Sangwa is misleading the public and is actually being treacherous. Having lost the corncote case in 2016, September, when the court threw it out, he should have actually found another way of coming back to this issue. Today as we speak, state council John Sangwa is ranting on almost each and every case. He is actually picking up on a topic and going to the public and saying this is what the constitution says. John Sangwa lost almost 7 cases from the time the 2016 constitution came in place and me I know him as my former lecture and as my former boss. I know that he has never won a case. So this is the man who will go around telling people he is a constitution expert but why doesn't he win constitution law cases? Just recently we had the Bizwa-Ukwunika case where the court was deciding on the 12th certificate. I handled that matter myself and the case presented arguments before the court went in our favor. And now it's clear as to what constitutes a 12th certificate. So can we again go back to the same court and say the court has not ruled on the 12th certificate? I've heard him telling people that as far as he's concerned the court should have nullified the seat for the Rundazi Central. But look, the law is very clear. If John Sangwa has a couple of the constitution he will be able to see that the constitution has a 90 day period within which a election petition can be presented. The Bizwa-Ukwunika case was presented to court after two years. The elections were in August 2016. The matter went to court in 2018, almost 2019, early 2019. So how can the court nullify a seat when the constitution says the court has no power to hear an election petition outside the 90 day period? I've also heard him saying no the president has violated the constitution several times. First of all he was not sworn in by the chief justice. All those arguments John Sangwa is presenting below the standard of the Bizwa argument. Because if you look at the manner in which John Sangwa has been trying to mislead the public, it's very clear that he has always wanted to come up with an argument that people would actually persuade with. For instance, when John Sangwa woke up and started saying he's going to petition the president's nomination, we want to find out from him. When the court has ruled, because the court has ruled on the presidential eligibility and there's a judgment which is binding. It's that judgment is perpetual, it's binding, it's futuristic and no one will change it unless the court itself. Now, when John Sangwa says that when the president presents his petition, his nomination, our petition saying that it's not eligible, the question is simple. What was the decision in the Dandipoli case? Where John Sangwa presented all those arguments including the fact that the president was not eligible. John Sangwa presented those arguments and lost before the court. So when he goes to court and says the president is not eligible, the question that would be put to him is did the president save three years between 2015 and 2016? The answer is no. What constitutes a presidential term? They've already defined all those things. So we are waiting for him. The moment he presents a petition to court, we will also present a judgment and say this case was closed. This matter of saying whether the president is eligible or not was already closed by the court. His other argument, which is also a very shallow argument and the basic argument, the premature argument is that the judgment did not mention President Lume. How was he expecting the judgment to mention President Lume when the judgment, when the constitution does not mention President Lume? When the 2016 constitution was signed, you can read it either way back to front, to front, to back. The constitution does not contain Ed Galun or President Ed Galun. Why? Because the constitution was not made for the president. It was made for the people of Zambia. And that is why it uses words like the person elected. It could be tomorrow President Lungu not being set house. Do we need to change the constitution? Where does John Sangwa see a constitution carrying people's names? So we want to rabbi show his claims and just help the people to ignore him because we feel time has come for us to put him where he belongs. For instance, he's been telling people that the president would have committed treason if he presented denomination to the ECZ. Does John Sangwa understand the offence of treason? If you read section 43 of the Pino Code, treason is known. It's an offence where somebody wants to take over power using unconstitutional means. Now, what is the role of the Electoral Commission of Zambia? The role of the Electoral Commission of Zambia is conduct elections. So the nomination process is the beginning of elections because then only those validly nominated will be allowed to stand. So when John Sangwa says if the president presents a nomination, I will say he has committed treason. All those arguments are not supported by any legal provisions. They are not supported by any law and I also know that 90% of the time John Sangwa fails to point to the supporting law. He just makes blanket statements. He will never point at the law that is actually supporting his argument. So we want to aid the people of Zambia, forget about John Sangwa. He is nobody. John Sangwa is nobody. He is not the only Zambian lawyer. He is not the only person who knows the law. All the arguments John Sangwa has presented before the courts were thrown out. You remember that when John Sangwa, when he misread the church on the 14 day period and they said that the matter had actually come to an end because they could not finish it on time. John Sangwa went to the High Court. Usaka High Court presented the petition and said that he wanted the High Court to instruct the corn court to hear the petition. The High Court threw out that case because electro matters. We all know the power to handle electoral cases lies in the constitutional court. So they told him the High Court has no power to hear you John Sangwa and will not waste our time. So all the cases he lost in court he has now started coming back to the public presenting totally different views. So we want to advise the public to seriously ignore him because as far as we are concerned, John Sangwa is a nobody. This country does not belong to him. He is just one of us. He cannot stand up and say this one must be president, this one must not be president. It's the people that decide who goes to the state house and the hatred and the levels of hatred that John Sangwa is exhibiting towards the head of state actually shows that everything he is trying to say is saying it out of vengeance, having failed to win Hakainde's case and he is also conflicted because he has been representing the UPND and the church. So why don't we get a neutral person to tell us about the presidential eligibility because John Sangwa is not neutral. He is not neutral and he will never tell the truth on this matter. And for all we care, once the courts have decided the matter and closed it, it's dead and buried. No one can reopen it and no one can overturn the judgments of the court. And that's why John Sangwa is busy committing kuntim to court day in, day out. Of the five cases he presented to court against the president, he has never won any of those cases. So how does he come up today and say that some cases he lost in court, he is busy telling people wrong things, he must learn to respect court decisions. And this is the same John Sangwa that was telling the judges of the court that they don't know the law. We are incompetent and unqualified. He presented these cases with different courts but he has simply lost. So the problem is not to the courts, it's with John Sangwa. So we want to advise John Sangwa, please take your seat and do not mistit the public because the people of Zambia are aware. Come 2021, August, we are going for elections, the president will win again. John Sangwa again will petition and he will lose again because he is the only one who lives in a world that nobody understands. So we are grateful for this opportunity to just respond to some of the arguments that he presented and also we are grateful to the people that are following this argument. And maybe as we wind up, let me also address the issue of the Great Warf Certificate. I have heard him mentioning the issue of the Great Warf Certificate, a case which I handled personally. And he was telling people the court was wrong, they should have notified the seat, they should have done this and that, they should have gone this and this that way. I think it's very clear if you look at the judgment itself and the arguments that were before the court, the examination counts of Zambia regulations on this Great Warf Certificate came into effect in 2018. By that time, by 2018, there was no such regulation to control the type of Great Warf Certificates. The Zambia Qualifications Authority, level descriptors, which are used now in Zambia to see what is your level of qualification if you come from outside the country. Those regulations only came into effect in July 2017, after the candidates had already done their nomination. So by law, John Sangwa cannot talk about the court going below or before the law, because the law was there but there were no regulations. So the issue of the Great Warf Certificate has been debated by the members of the public, must be understood that the issue of the Great Warf Certificate has always been there, it's not a new law. People have always been getting Great Warf Certificates and Sku Certificates. What is there now is just complying with what the 2016 constitution said. And the 2016 constitution requires that a person should have a Great Warf Certificate. So what the Konkot did in the Bisoyongonika case, we presented our arguments in that case and the court said, for purposes of elections, a Great Warf Certificate should be a Sku Certificate or a GCE that is equivalent to a Sku Certificate. And the court threw out all the other arguments put up by the other lawyers where they were saying, look, all this tertiary education and so on do not qualify. So the court has helped us in that matter by defining what an equivalent is. So according to the Bisoyongonika case, the Lundazi Central seat, the court is saying for it to be equivalent it should not be more than a Great Swolf. Meaning diplomas, degrees are not equivalents of a Great Warf Certificate. All these certificates and other other qualifications which don't meet the Great Warf Certificate do not also qualify. Meaning, even if you have a PhD master, when you are going to stand in an election, what they will be looking for are your qualifications at Gr. 12. If you are going to invest of Zambia, they may look at other qualifications, but if you are going to stand as an MP, they must first look at what qualifications you have at Gr. 12. And that is why we are saying, John Sangwa was not in court in this matter. He doesn't know the arguments that were presented, but he's busy misleading the public. How was the court going to qualify the seat when there was no such petition? The petition before the court was that the Muhonalbo Member of Parliament reached the constitution because it did not have the requisite Gr. 12 certificate. But in John Sangwa's own thinking, he says the court should have notified the seat. How can the court notify a seat when the argument is different? When you ask for an apple and you are given a different fruit, how can you say I am making an apple when you are being given something else? So I just thought I could add one line on the issue of the Gr. 12 certificate and say that this is not a new law. The examination counts of Zambia has been in existence for a very long time. The 2016 constitution has been in existence for five years now, more than five years. I have been coming to effect on the fifth day of January 2016. So as we speak, all we are expecting, all people who want to stand as members of parliament is to present their Gr. 12 certificate as in school certificate or to present before the examination counts of Zambia or electrocommission of Zambia qualifications that will meet the five all-level subjects and not as John Sangwa has understood it. So I just thought I could add one line to that issue and also wish to thank the people of Zambia for supporting the law because I think we all know that parliament must have people capable of debating national issues. And that was the basis. The recommendation on the Gr. 12 certificate came from the people who were doing the constitutional view commission and they said they wanted to raise the level to jump from ordinary citizens to at this school reverse. In other countries, to become a member of parliament, we must have a master's or a PhD. In Zambia we are okay, we are talking about basic Gr. 12 certificate because we got secondary schools in every constituents of this country so we cannot fail to have Gr. 12 school reverse. The only issue we want to add the ECZ is to ensure that the way they apply this law must be uniform. They must apply it in uniform manner without dealing or allowing their people to accept wrong qualifications. Once they come up with a uniform standard, the people of Zambia will be very good.