Home | News | MACFORD STANDS HIS GROUND IN ELECTIONS CLAIMS

MACFORD STANDS HIS GROUND IN ELECTIONS CLAIMS

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – Elections hopeful Macford Sibandze has come out with guns blazing against businessmen Floyd Mlotshwa and Webster Lukhele.


This comes after the two, who lost in the Primary Elections, took the legal route and challenged Sibandze’s election for the position of Member of Parliament under the Manzini North Inkhundla.


The allegation by the businessmen was that Sibandze was not a resident of Makholweni and should therefore not have registered and partook in the elections under the area.


Mlotshwa and Lukhele are the first and second applicants in the matter, respectively.
In his responding affidavit which was filed yesterday, Sibandze said he was born from Tjengisile Kunene and Oscar Dingizwe Sibandze, who were not married and was raised at his mother’s parental homestead at Sicelwini KaKunene, otherwise popularly known as Kagogo Groening.


He said he had always regarded the place as his homestead hence he was registered as a subject of Sicelwini under Chief Nkhosini and Indvuna Nkentwane. These are allegations whose veracity is yet to be proven in court.


According to the former minister of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, as he grew up and had his own family, he decided to build a homestead for his children at KaShali.


“At the time of building the homestead, I did not relinquish my right of being a subject of Sicelwini hence later, after I had built at KaShali, I obtained a place for myself closer to the Kunene homestead where I built houses for rental purposes,” he submitted.


Sibandze said in the year 2013, he registered for the elections under the same Inkhundla as a subject of Sicelwini, was nominated for MP but lost in the Secondary Elections.
Competitor
“Coincidentally, the second applicant (Webster) was one of the candidates and my competitor in those elections who knew of this fact but did not raise that issue,” Sibandze submitted.
He argued that the applicants sought an interim yet they had failed to meet the requirements of one.
“The applicants have failed to state and show the prejudice they will suffer in the event an interim interdict is refused outweighs that which may be suffered by the second respondent in the event the relief sought is granted,” reads part of the affidavit filed by Sibandze.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

: Protesters clash with police
Is being in a physical confrontation with protesters a ticket to a promotion for police officers?