High Court Judge Ken Manda has ripped apart Attorney General Chakaka Nyirenda for blatant steps to undermine the court directions by taking the case to Supreme Court for a stay order when the High Court did not grant permission for him to do so.
Last month Chakaka Nyirenda took the case to the Supreme Court asking for a stay order which Justice Madise granted.
But in his ruling yesterday, Justice Manda said Nyirenda’s conduct leaves a lot to be desired.
“The Supreme Court though granted the stay order, we must state at this stage that we fail to appreciate what the order for stay was all about since in as far as we are concerned, this court never made any order or ruling on the Attorney General’s application. To be precise, tete was no order from this court at all. All there was a pending before us was an application for stay who had not been heard at that time. In this case, this court never determined the Attorney General’s application for stay. So, tge question is: against what ruling of this court was the Attorney General applying for a stay? we again have to wonder!” wondered Manda
Manda also brought the counsels in his chamber to look at how the stay was obtained in the Supreme Court that the order for stay is against the injunction and yet the same Attorney General applied for numerous preliminary objections in this court arguing that the issues were to be determined on the 30th May by the very same court.
“To be frank, I did find the Attorney General to be wanting in many aspects. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. This court will not be bulldozed into aligning itself with this line of approach. To say the least, what the Attorney General is doing is shambolic and goes against the clear direction of this court. I would be find it worrying if an Attorney General thinks that court directions can just be ignored just like that,” fumed Manda in his ruling.
Justice Manda has therefore, maintained that the case remains the same and adjourned to a date to be foxed for hearing of all substantive matters and preliminary objections to a date to be fixed, albeit after the “premature” issues taken to the Supreme Court are dealt with there.
