One online commentator – Michael Chishala – has taken a lot of flak in the past few weeks after publishing a comment in which he told the opposition UPND party to move on after last year’s election. Irrespective of one’s stand on this issue, he highlights an interesting matter in his online reply:
How solid is the UPND’s evidence that last year’s elections were rigged:
“I find it curious that the UPND to this day have never posted (or leaked) onto the Internet any piece of damning evidence of election rigging. What do they have to lose? This is not to say that there isn’t any evidence, but I am deeply sceptical about its strength to produce a successful electoral petition. If there was so much ‘overwhelming’ evidence of election rigging, why did HH file an electoral petition with dozens of grounds and so many preliminary issues? Wouldn’t a laser-sharp focus on the best two or three grounds suffice to nullify an election result? Attempting to cover all your bases with too many things in a petition demonstrates either a lack of confidence in the strength of your case or high levels of ineptitude (or both). (…) Why did the mayoral/council chair, parliamentary and local government election results closely mirror the presidential? According to UPND, PF must have a really powerful machinery to have pulled off such a massive rigging scheme involving 106 mayors/council chairmen, 156 MPs and more than 1,600 councillors. (…) If UPND really had a proper robust Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) system in 2016, why haven’t they published on their website the “true” results of the 2016 election in a spreadsheet?”
The UPND is waiting for the High Court to rule on a case, in which it has argued that its right to a fair hearing was breached in September 2016, when the Constitutional Court dismissed its election petition, without trial, for want of time.