AG Kaphale asked if Saulos Chilima petitioner 1 is aware of any monitors who were not there during the counting of votes. Chilima says he is aware of “one or two”. AG Kaphale then asks if Chilima can confirm that “one or two” cannot affect the whole election, Chilima responds affirmatively.
AG Kaphale: Would you confirm that at all stages of the voting process, the monitors would come from all parties?
Saulos Chilima: I confirm.
AG Kaphale: Would you confirm that the monitors were supposed to check on each other.
Saulos Chilima: That was the task and expectation.
AG Kaphale: Independent monitors were also playing the same role, to ensure that the voting was free and fair?
Saulos Chilima: I confirm that.
AG Kaphale: In essence, the voters’ wishes are being questioned…”
Saulos Chilima: No!
AG Kaphale: If you say that what the Electoral Commission said someone won and you say they didn’t win, that’s the essence right?
Saulos Chilima: There is a reason.
Kaphale says the voters voted in secrecy and asks Chilima to agree.
Kaphale says that the voters are voiceless as they did not take part in the voting and counting but the monitors can speak to every result sheet, and even produce contrary evidence if need be. Kaphale asks Chilima to confirm.
AG Kaphale: Where MCP and UTM monitors, both signed a tally sheet signifying that the vote tallying was okay, ought to be taken seriously. Isn’t so?
Saulos Chilima: Duly signed ones, we should take it seriously.
AG Kaphale: In reality sir, it’s the voters that choose the candidate and not the Electoral Commission.
Saulos Chilima: That’s the expectation.
AG Kaphale: In reality sir, it’s the voters that choose the candidate and not the Electoral Commission.
Saulos Chilima: That’s the expectation.
AG Kaphale: Your petition lack a monitor challenging results at any polling station confirms that you have no issue on the polling other than other issues.
Counsel Bright Theu rises to object to the question.
Kaphale repeating the question after the court asked the AG to do so.
AG Kaphale: A successful challenge of the national results, would ride upon the successful challenge of several streams.
Saulos Chilima: That’s correct.
AG Kaphale: You are focussing on other formal irregularities that are in your petition and affidavits in support of it. Even with that, would you agree with me that any cited irregularity should have affected the results of the Elections at that stream?
Saulos Chilima: That’s true.
AG Kaphale: I will walk with you in a light manner on the irregularities you have cited. This doesn’t mean I agree to the word you have used.
AG Kaphale: no altered or Tippex form has been challenged for the vote count but for use of Tippex.
Saulos Chilima: not entirely.
AG Kaphale says the questioning was just a lighter war but will at some point move to a heavier war.
AG Kaphale: are you aware none of the monitors have not challenged the forms?
Saulos Chilima: There should be a reason for that.
AG Kaphale has asked for an early adjournment. Both Chakwera and Chilima lawyers have agreed to the proposition. Court adjourned
