UTM witness Ndasauka ignites  legal battle: ConCourt rejects revised sworn statement 

A legal feud ensued in the Constitutional Court in Lilongwe when hearing of the landmark presidential poll result challenge case resumed as Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) I can lawyers challenged a revised sworn statement which implicates President Peter Mutharika as winner of the electoral fraud.

Ndasauka: Third UTM witness revised sworn statement rejected

Lawyer Bright Theu representing  first petitioner, UTM president  Saulos Chilima, conceded in the court that the party legal team overlooked the need to request court permission for Darlington Ndasauka to use the revised sworn statement.

Judge Mike Tembo has since ordered that the revised sworn statement should not be allowed to be used in the case.

He said no permission was sought and MEC lawyers had already cross examined Ndasauka without reference to the document.

Meanwhile, President Mutharika’s lawyer, Frank Mbeta, has resumed cross-examining Ndasauka focused on discrediting the witness and his testimony.

Mbeta is pushing hard to demonstrate that some errors made during computation of presidential election results could actually have advantaged candidates such as second petitioner, Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president  Lazarus Chakwera and not necessarily President Mutharika.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
National CEO
Guest
National CEO

If the correction was advantaging someone, whether Peter or Lazarus, then it’s correct to say the elections were not fair.

Mana
Guest
Mana

Kugwa nano poyerayera.

TOSH
Guest

thats not an issue we going to comply with court

Moto kuti Ziii
Guest
Moto kuti Ziii

UTM put your house in order please. Its becoming embarrassing listening to this Ndasauka. Mukuchedwetsa zinthu aliyense akudziwa kuti umboni uli ndi MCP osati za nkhambakamwa yayi

Noxy
Guest

MEC and APM Lawyers are the best as far as this case is concerned.They have proved to the Court that use of tipex,alterations,duplicate sheets did not change valid votes.The petitioners Ambwita.

Central
Guest
Central

Who asked you to assess the capacities and or capabilities of the lawyers? Secondly who made the analysis and or gave you this conclusion Noxy? Ntchenche yopupuluma Noxy inapsyindidwa ndi manyi!! Chonde osathamangila kukatela pa nyansi zisanagwe pansi mudzavulalaaaaaaaaaaa……………….. Do you think the 5 judges’s IQs are shallow like you have demonstrated about yours? Is the case about “changing valid votes” as you put it? Koma mulanduwu unaumvetsa iweyoooooooooo? Bwinotu bwinoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

cairo
Guest
cairo

I concur with u 101% and mbali imeneyi kuli khang’ana zokha zokha. In fact, lawyers for UTM and MCP know the outcome koma akuchita pretend kuti atha kuwina. The point is that akufuna kufufuta nawo ndalama zawozo bwino bwino.

Agenda Setting Theory
Guest
Agenda Setting Theory

If errors had advantaged MCP candidate should we still say the electoral process was fair. What about those who were disadvantaged by these errors? Shameless lawyers.

cHa Denzo120 SKC
Guest
cHa Denzo120 SKC

but Akulu AGENDA…………, it it right to say waba ndi UJE pamene zinthuzo zili ndi uje winayo????? Shameless lawyers are the ones who fall short of equipping the witnesses with little or no evidence at all.

Mandado@147
Guest

Tell us who won the case in December after all is set and done!