Persistent questioning from Attorney Mbeta representing APM in the Election court case has revealed that first Petitioner Saulos Chilima cannot justify his calls for Jane Ansah to resign.
Mbeta: The MEC chairperson in her interview with Zodiak Broadcasting Station said she responded to your letter. Did you receive the letter from her?
Saulos Chilima: Yes, I did.
Mbeta: But you didnt make it public like you did with your letter.
Saulos Chilima: No.
Mbeta: Any Specific reasons?
Saulos Chilima: It was just out of choice.
Mbeta: At certain point you were requested by certain quarters to resign but you did not.
Saulos Chilima: That’s correct.
Mbeta: Would you agree that being required to resign is not a proof of misconduct?
Saulos Chilima: I can’t agree.
Mbeta: In other words, requirement to resign is a proof of misconduct!
Saulos Chilima: I can’t say on behalf of the people requiring a resignation.
Mbeta: The question is to you Sir.
Saulos Chilima: I wouldn’t say that.
Mbeta: To be clear you would say requirement to a resign is a proof of misconduct, yes or no?
Saulos Chilima: For that question the answer is yes.
That is good cross examination and good answers. If someone mess up the job resigning is best but if someone misunderstood the top leader it does not constitute offence for resignations.
Comments are closed.