LAW ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION SCENARIO
QUESTION - 2025
FACTS (SCENARIO)
The background to the motion is that on 19th June, 2023, the
Petitioner, Chabota Nchimunya, filed a petition against Shawn Edward Banda, the
Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Attorney General, as 1 st, 2nd and 3rd
respondents, respectively.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the 1st respondent's participation as United People’s
Party presidential candidate in the elections that were held on 12th August, 2021 and
his eligibility to participate in future presidential elections on the ground that he has
served two terms of office. Firstly, as President first under the 1991 Constitution of
Zambia and secondly under the Constitution of Zambia as amended by the
Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 (the Constitution ).
The petitioner thus seeks the following declarations:
(i) that the Electoral Commission of Zambia's inclusion of Shawn Edward Banda
on the 2021 ballot was unconstitutional;
(ii) that Shawn Edward Banda’s participation in the August, 2021 election was
unconstitutional;
(iii) that Shawn Edward Banda is not eligible to contest a presidential election
under the current Constitution as read with the repealed 1991 Constitution
as amended;
(iv) that the entire Article 106 of the Constitution as amended by Act
No. 2 of 2016 did not apply to Shawn Edward Banda
presidential term between 25th January, 2015 to 13th September, 2016; and
(v) that Shawn Edward Banda Is not eligible to seek presidential
office for a third term.
(vi) The petitioner further seeks a combined interpretation of sections 2 and 7
of Act No. 1 of 2016 and interpretation as to whether sections 7 and 2 of
Act No. 1 of 2016 had the effect of saving Article 35 of the 1991 Constitution,
as amended, in regard to Shawn Edward Banda 's presidential term between
25th January, 2015 and 13th September, 2016.
The record will show that the 1st respondent has filed in a preliminary objection on
the basis that the issues that are being raised by the petitioner are water under the
bridge as the Constitutional court already had occasion to deal with them hence,
allowing the same will be an abuse of the court process as the same is now barred by
statute.
The record further show that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have not filed in anything
in relation to the objection and have indicated that they won’t be doing so.
The court has noted that the arguments from both parties (Petitioner and 1st
Respondent) are missing on the record and you have been directed to file the
arguments supporting the objection and serve them on the respondent who shall also
submit the same.
The 1st Respondent (Applicant) has come to your chambers so that you help them
with the arguments in support of the objection. Proceed
GUIDANCE ON THE BRIEFS
Please note that you are expected to Moot 2 to 4 times in the pre rounds for purposes
of advancing to the advanced rounds and or semi finals. As a result of the
aforementioned, you are required to prepare arguments for both the Applicant and
the Respondent. You shall Moot as Counsel for the Applicant/s and later on as Counsel
for the Respondent/s.
GENERAL GUIDELINES TO THE GROUP/LEGAL COUNSEL
In addition to the guidelines given to you when registering for Moot Court you should
take into account the following issues:
Counsel for the Applicant and for the Respondent should select a lead counsel to
provide guidance to the group as they present oral arguments before a panel of 3
Judges. You are all expected to work as a group and produce a written arguments
that is detailed and well researched and logically arranged. The oral arguments must
be based on the written arguments but must not be read to the panel of Judges. The
written arguments must be exchanged between the Applicant/s and Respondent/s to
avoid ambushing each other at the hearing but more importantly to enable the
Respondents to respond to issues raised in the appeal.
Parties must ensure that the written arguments are deposited with the court marshal
at least five (5) clear days before the matter is scheduled for hearing. You are
reminded to ensure that written arguments are checked for any typographical and
grammatical errors as this may cause you to have a lower grade. You will be assessed
by the Judges whose average grading will be based on 50% from the written work
and 50% from the oral submission. Each judge will assess you independently for your
oral submissions but you will be graded as a group for written submissions.
For any further clarifications, please don’t hesitate to call:
0977-356129
