By NATION REPORTER
OPPOSITION leader Sean Tembo says if the Constitutional Court will not allow him to discontinue his petition against President Edgar aMswati of eSwatini, then the National Dialogue and Reconciliation process will fail.
He however, said he was willing to withdraw his application to discontinue the matter if the State was unable to discern the importance of giving the on-going national dialogue and reconciliation process a fair chance to succeed.
Mr Tembo was responding to the State’s request to the court that it should reject his application to discontinue the petition. In this matter Mr Tembo petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking an interpretation on whether it was legal for President Edgar Lungu as a public officer to have received land as a gift for his private use from King Mswati.
And earlier, he applied to have the case withdrawn in what he called the spirit of political reconciliation but Chief State Advocate Joe Simachela objected to the withdrawal of the matter saying Mr Tembo could re-ignite the case in an event that the reconciliation process failed to yield positive results.
Mr Tembo in his reply to the State’s affidavit in opposition to discontinue the matter said he had a number of grievances against President Lungu and one of them was on the issue of the gift of land from eSwatini.
He said it would not be reasonable for him to seat on the dialogue table to resolve the issue of the gift of land when the same also was still before court.
“It would be counter-productive for me to go and sit on the dialogue and reconciliation table to try and resolve grievances with the President, which include accountability of public resources by the President as regards the receipt of a land from King Mswati, when the same matter of accountability and receipt of undeclared gift is before this court,” Mr Tembo said.
Mr Tembo said if the court decided not to allow him to discontinue the matter, then the parties would be sitting on the reconciliation table with hardened hearts, knowing that they were still fighting over the same matters in court.