BY JACK BANDA
New term Psepherogy!!!
The judges challenged and changed the supreme court’s interpretation of majority on the basis that, the supreme court’s interpretation did not have academic backing.
Quite rude and demeaning, if you ask me.
Now, to the hi5 judges, because a dictionary that they found told them that 50% + 1 = majority, therefore majority in our constitution means 50% + 1. 38% is not majority.
Not so academic and professional, is it?
A simple look at psepherogy shows that the Supreme court was more academic and professional in the way they came up with what majority in our constitution should mean. Perhaps the right word is not definition. The word should be delineate. The supreme court delineated “majority” as it appears in our constitution using constitutional principles and values.
That aside: what is a constitution?
I’m questioning the impartiality of these guys. they failed to demonstrate to us how the irregularities rigged the vote. their sympathysers have started discouraging the losing mps and councellors to ignore the very same basis the concourt nullifies our votes. no rigging evidence was provided and human error and reasourcefulness has costed our right of choosing leaders of our choice because chakwera wants to establish himself as the next dictator. if this ruling stands then a new tripartite elections has to be called and a new date for vote cast. achimwendo chakwera akukuputsisani and if you are not careful your party is on a sucide mission.
Everything that conCourt judges ruled should be respected cause it just shows the concrete maturity in democracy.