(Embattled PDP leader of opposition questions the legality of the tribunal that is questioning his usurping of power)
Court clerk: All silence! The court of his Lordship Judge Mbadwa is now in session.
Judge Mbadwa: This court will hear from Sangalalani Ndakhumudwa of the People’s Demagogic Party (PDP). Ndakhumudwa is questioning the legality of the tribunal that has been set to hear his case on charges that he defied the authority of Mapuya and that, among others, he misled the party president and that he has been courting people with connections to the government side.
Mr Ndakhumudwa why do you think the committee that has been instituted to hear your case is illegal?
Ndakhumudwa: My Lord, I want to categorically state that the whole charge sheet was wrongly conceived. The offences the charge sheet claim I committed should have been laid on somebody else. I want also to state that the disciplinary committee was illegally constituted.
My Lord, the first charge of undermining the authority of president Mapuya on the appointment of Leader of Opposition is a laughable charge to me. My Lord, I have not undermined any president of the party on the issue mentioned in the charge sheet.
Firstly, My Lord, there is a proper way of communicating sensitive information on party appointments and it has neither been through WhatsApp nor SMS. The party’s secretary general never raised a memo indicating that I am going to be the party’s Chief Whip in Parliament. My Lord, I am one of the party’s vice-presidents and I don’t remember the party’s politburo meeting to appoint a Leader of Opposition. Mapuya has no legal mandate to make unilateral decisions like the one he claims he made through a phone message because it was unconstitutional.
My Lord, the charge sheet claims I bade the president bye when I was asked about communication to the Speaker on the new leadership developments , but how would I know I was not talking to an impostor on such an important issue? I repeat, why didn’t the party through SG make an official announcement in the media?
The second charge of misleading the president fails on the count of the charge number one which I have already addressed.
My Lord, meeting a person with a different political affiliation is not a criminal offence and by the way, what position does the official hostess hold in Lazaro’s cockerel party? This charge was conceived out of jealousy of my outgoing lifestyle which Mapuya has failed to copy.
My Lord, why should the question of my academic credentials arise now that PDP is in opposition? I was elected vice-president of the party at a convention not on the basis of my academic qualifications but by popular vote. The questions should not arise now because I have never questioned whether Mapuya was a law professional of note in America as he claims considering the legal gaffes we saw during his reign.
My Lord, the disciplinary committee was wrongly constituted and it is my submission that it is a kangaroo court. The complainant in the matter is somebody who was not privy to the so-called communication from Mapuya to me. Why wouldn’t such claims constitute hearsay? My Lord, I will not go down alone in this matter. Mapuya, too, has dragged the party down! I rest my case.
Mbadwa: This court is not going to stop the due disciplinary process that has been started. We would advise that the complainant, by way of appeal, can ask this court to nullify the decision of that tribunal, should it reach that far, on the basis of law and evidence submitted. But no decision has yet been made to the contrary; hence we would not engage in an academic exercise. However, we agree that a charge sheet should always contain a clear and accurate representation of the facts not based on whims. I dismiss the case.
Court Clerk: All rise!
