So MCP has no problem with the TIPEX that elected its 55 MPs but it has serious issues with the same TIPEX that elected Mutharika leaving Chakwera behind?-JOSHUA CHISA MBELE ASKS

BY JOSHUA CHISA MBELE

MCP MPs

MCP SG Mkaka speaks during the orientation ceremony

Having contested in the marathon race to Parliament, I fully understand why MCP MPs including those in MCP National Executive Committee yesterday were sworn in.

The race to Parliament is financially draining. Tiresome. Boring. Irritating. Humiliating. Humbling. It’s everything. Nobody can come and say, hey please don’t go to Parliament because I have lost. That’s the dillema in which MCP has found itself.

Now the court challenge is real and interesting.

MCP will have to show the Constitutional Court HOW Parliamentary Elections were free and fair while Presidential race was contaminated.

That’s splitting hair in the same transaction which was facilitated and ordained by same people who are accused, same places and at the same time.

Hypocrisy: MCP’s newly elected MPs captured during parliamentary orientation yesterday at BICC

Let’s put it this way.

MCP has no problem with the TIPEX that elected its 55 MPs but it has serious issues with the same TIPEX that elected Mutharika leaving Chakwera behind.

~ What’s good for the Goose must be good for the Ganda ~

That’s common sense. MCP is actually vindicating the culprit, MEC Chair Judge Ansah.

If Chakwera does understand this expression, he must drop the legal wrangling. He has no case. He must accept the small Cake, eat and go home.

I’m worried. UTM case on the same issue has Chakwera as a collaborative party. The High Court put us in the same bundle and referred us to the Constitutional Court.

Chakwera wants to EAT the cake and HAVE it at the same time. He should have chosen one thing.

I, nevertheless, have a peace of mind. UTM will successfully prove it’s case. The Elections will be nullified. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Chakwera and his 55 MPs will once again be out in the street campaigning.

Whichever way it takes, Chakwera’s days in MCP are numbered. I foresee civil war breaking out in MCP ranks.

Inu Mukuti Bwanji?

One Response to "So MCP has no problem with the TIPEX that elected its 55 MPs but it has serious issues with the same TIPEX that elected Mutharika leaving Chakwera behind?-JOSHUA CHISA MBELE ASKS"

  1. Carex   June 11, 2019 at 8:03 pm

    Now, this is some solid affidavit. Let’s see how it goes. For a constituency in Mangochi (By the way, lawyers, why do you write King James Version English?):

    REPUBLIC OF MALAWI
    ZOMBA DISTRICT REGISTRY
    ELECTION PETITION NO. OF 2019
    [Before Justice Dr. Kapindu]

    IN THE MATTER OF THE SECTION 100(1) OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT

    And
    IN THE MATTER OF AN ELECTION PETITION BY MR GERALD KAZEMBE
    BETWEEN:
    GERALD KAZEMBE PETITIONER

    -and-

    THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENT

    PETITION

    The Petition of GERALD KAZEMBE of Post Office Box 372, Mangochi in Republic SHOWETH:-

    1. THAT Your Petitioner is a citizen of this Republic who contested for a parliamentary seat in the just ended 21st May, 2019 tripartite elections in Mangochi Monkebay constituency.

    2. THAT your Petitioner contested on Malawi Congress Party (MCP) ticket. Apart from him there were the following other contestants;

    i. Mr. Ralph Pacharo Jooma who contested on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ticket.

    ii. Mr. Chinkwita Efford Bulirani who contested on United Democratic Front (UDF) ticket.

    iii. Ms Lydia Chamveka who contested as an independent Member of Parliament.

    iv. Mr. Harrison Chisomo Chitsonga who contested on Peoples Party (PP) ticket.

    v. Ms. Enesia Mary Kanyamula who contested as an independent Member of Parliament.

    vi. Mr. Moses Moze Kazimu who contested on United Transformation Movement (UTM) ticket.

    vii. Mr. Hophmally Makande who contested as an independent Member of Parliament.

    3. THAT according to the Respondent the above contestants obtained the following votes as can be seen from the constituency results sheet exhibited hereto and marked “GK 1.”

    i. Mr. Chinkwita Efford Bulirani 1, 083 votes;
    ii. Ms Lydia Chamveka 94 votes;
    iii. Mr. Harrison Chisomo Chitsonga 178 votes;
    iv. Mr. Ralph Pacharo Jooma 9, 341 votes;
    v. Ms. Enesia Mary Kanyamula 460 votes;
    vi. Mr. Gerald Kazembe 9, 052 votes;
    vii. Mr. Moses Moze Kazimu 2, 244 votes;
    viii. Mr. Hophmally Makande 3,323 votes.

    4. THAT accordingly the Respondent declared Mr. Ralph Pacharo Jooma as winner for the parliamentary seat in Mangochi Monkebay constituency on 25th May, 2019.

    5. THAT now your Petitioner the said GERALD KAZEMBE challenges the declaration of the said Mr. Ralph Pacharo Jooma as winner for the parliamentary seat in Mangochi Monkebay constituency on the basis that he was not duly elected as Member of Parliament in view of the irregularities that marred the voting and the votes tallying processes.

    VOTE TALLYING IRREGULARITIES

    6. THAT during vote tallying there were a number of irregularities which affected the results. The following are the irregularities;

    i. At Ulande polling centre the number of ballot papers indicated on original form as received differs from the one indicated on the carbonated form. The carbonated form indicates that the total number of ballot papers received was 1800 whereas the original shows 2200. The original is produced and marked “GK 2(a)” whereas the carbonated copy is marked “GK 2(b).” This clears shows 400 ballot papers were added dubiously.

    ii. At MonkeBay CDSS centre, the total number of votes casted indicated on the defendant entry form differs from the one on the carbonated form. On the carbonated form the total number of casts ballot papers (Total number of null and void votes plus the total of valid votes casted) appears as 1040. On the contrary on the defendant’s entry form the total number of casts ballot papers (Total number of null and void votes plus the total of valid votes casted) appears as 1, 345, making an addition of 205 votes. See the above exhibits.

    iii. At Nakundu School polling centre the entries on the carbonated form differ from the entries on the original form and the defendant entry sheet. The entries on the defendant’s entry sheet and those on the original form match. What differs is the one on the carbonated form. For example,

    a. Number of ballot papers received for stream 1 and 2 appear as 900 and 600 on the carbonated for. On the contrary they appear as 800 and 700 on the original form and the defendant’s entry sheet.

    b. Number of unused ballot papers on streams 1 and 2 respectively appear as 386 and 90 on the carbonated form. On the contrary they appear as 284 and 194 on the original and the defendant’s entry sheet.

    c. Number of null and void votes for streams 1 and 2 respectively appears as 8 and 7 on the carbonated copy whereas on the original form and the defendant’s form they appear as 13 and 10.

    d. Number of cast ballot papers for streams 1 and 2 appears as 512 and 512 on the carbonated form whereas on the original and the defendant’s entry form it appears as 515 and 514.

    The carbonated form, the original form and the defendant’s entry form are all produced and marked “GK 3(a)”, “GK 3(b)” and “GK 3(c)”.

    iv. At Ching’ombe School polling centre total number of valid votes casts appear as 427 on the carbonated for. On the contrary this appears as 431 on the original and the defendant’s entry for. What is also intriguing is that the original has “twenty seven” cancelled. Therefore not only are the figures on the forms different but the cancelled part is not reflected on the carbonated copy. This reveals there was vote tampering. The carbonated form, the original form and the defendant’s entry form are all produced and marked “GK 4(a)”, “GK 4(b)” and “GK 4(c)”.

    v. The use of tippex to alter entries. The defendant conceded that its officers were not provided with tippex for altering of entries. This notwithstanding, some forms were being altered by way of tippexing. A good example is Sangadzi polling centre and Cape Maclear where the original form was highly tippexed. The original form is produced and marked “GK 5(a)” and “GK 5(b).”

    vi. At Sangadzi polling centre the original form was altered on several entries. Votes obtained by Mr Ralph Jooma of the Democratic Progressive Party also appear altered. Also the figure in words appears different from the number in figures. See exhibit “GK 5(a).” This speaks into what Zodiak Online reported on 22nd May, 2019 on the duplication of results by the Respondent’s agents. A caption of the said media report is exhibited hereto and marked “GK 6.”

    vii. Fake original forms were also being used. The example above showing variations between the original and the carbonated forms demonstrates that the original forms used in computing results were fake.

    7. THAT the above, demonstrates that votes were tampered with. One will expect that for Nakundu School centre, entries on the carbonated form should reflect the entries on the original form. This was however not the case meaning votes were tampered with more so when one considers that the defendant only considered the original form when computing results but not the carbonated form.

    8. THAT it is also clear from the above that there was an addition of some votes. Much as it cannot be seen from the exhibits herein where these added votes finally landed, what can be seen is that the wishes of the people were misrepresented. This in it itself puts the validity of the declared results in question.

    VOTING PROCESS IRREGULARITIES

    9. THAT the voting process was also marred by irregularities. The following are the known ones;

    i. Presiding Officers failing to sign forms. A case in point is that of Ntakataka School and Mtonda School polling centres. Forms from these centres are produced and marked “GK 7(a)” and “GK 7(b)” respectively.

    ii. Monitors were denied carbonated forms from other centres namely;

    a. Cape Maclear;
    b. Nankwali;
    c. Mponya;
    d. Mkope;
    e. Nkhudzi;
    f. Sangazi;
    g. Zambo;
    h. Mselema;
    i. Mkombe;
    j. Msaka;
    k. Monkebay Primary School;
    l. Mamazizi;
    m. Tukululu.

    10. THAT it was alleged that there were mistakes made by some presiding officers in that in some were bringing unbalanced. This was confirmed by the Returning officer for Mangochi MonkeBay according to a report by Zodiak Online. A caption of the said media report is produced and marked “GK 8.”

    12. THAT your Petitioner considers the irregularities above serious enough to invalidate the results of the constituency herein.

    13. WHEREFORE your Petitioner prays for:

    i. An order that Mr. Ralph Pacharo Jooma was unduly declared as winner for the parliamentary seat in Mangochi MonkeBay constituency in the 21st May, 2019 tripartite elections;

    ii. An order that parliamentary votes for the in Mangochi MonkeBay constituency in the 21st May, 2019 tripartite elections were not counted according to the law and procedure;

    iii. An order that the voting and tallying of votes in the in Mangochi MonkeBay constituency in the 21st May, 2019 tripartite elections was marred by irregularities which affected the credibility of the results;

    iv. An order that ballots in the in Mangochi MonkeBay constituency in the 21st May, 2019 tripartite elections be recounted and physical audited in the presence of all interested parties and that a candidate with more votes from the recount and the physical audit be declared a winner and duly elected.

    v. SUCH further or other order as the nature of the case may require.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.