PF chief disowns petitioner

PATRIOTIC Front (PF) secretary general Bridget Atanga has asked the Lusaka High Court to dismiss an application by Mr Mulenga Fube seeking an injunction to stop the party from convening a general conference because he is not a PF member.

Mrs Atanga wondered Mr Fube’s interest in PF since he was no longer a party member after he resigned in 2006 to contest a parliamentary seat in Chilubi as an independent candidate.

In her affidavit in opposition of summons for an order of interim injunction, Mrs Atanga said Mr Fube has never re-applied to be admitted to PF as prescribed by the party constitution and that he lacks the necessary interest to take suit against the party.

“This matter involves member of the Patriotic Front and that it is my belief that a non-members cannot have sufficient interest or locus standi in this matter and that as far as the records of the Patriotic Front are concerned, the plaintiff herein ceased to be a member of the Patriotic Front in 2006 when he resigned following his non-adoption to stand as an independent candidate,” she said.

She said there was no truth in Mr Fube’s claims that there was no consultation with the Central Committee but that there was a in fact a Central Committee meeting held and that press statements were issued by Acting President Guy Scott and herself.

She said contrary to Mr Fube’s claims, there was no where in PF constitution where a national council was required prior to setting a date or convening of general conference, adding that the Central Committee has played its role within the confines of party constitution to determine the next leader. Mrs Atanga said it was not true that the Central Committee has powers to choose a presidential candidate but merely considers applications and forwards them to national council for further action prescribed under the party provisions.

“Contrary to what the plaintiff asserts therein, the central committee has no such powers of approving candidature of the presidential candidate,” she said. She said there was no basis upon which Mr Fube was seeking an injunction and that such a discretionary remedy could not be sought or granted on mere speculation or future apprehension.

Mrs Atanga said Mr Fube’s bid for of an injunction was a waste of the court’s time.

“It is in my belief that the applicant is merely apprehensive of things that have not even taken place yet and that is mere speculation,” she said.