By Kennedy Limwanya
EDGAR LUNGU’S ELIGIBILITY: HERE IS MY TAKE
Yesterday, one Mcfarlane Munyanga posed a question on whether President Edgar Lungu was eligible to stand in next year’s presidential election.
If the answer was in the affirmative, could it mean that former president Rupiah Banda was equally eligible to stand?
Among the reactions was that this question should be left to lawyers while another opined that President Lungu was eligible to stand as he had served less than three years from his first term in 2015.
My contribution was as follows:
Very interesting question, Mcfarlane.
One needn’t necessarily be a lawyer to understand the Constitution.
Remember that in the 1980 treason trial, Brigadier-General Godfrey Miyanda didn’t need the services of a lawyer.
He defended himself.
The man is an avid reader.
His understanding of legal matters is amazing. We all have a lot to learn from Gen Miyanda.
Back to the question. Former President Rupiah Banda is eligible to stand, having only served one term.
Despite having served for only two years and 11 months, RB’s tenure was counted as a full term running from September 2006, when President Levy Mwanawasa was elected, to September 2011.
Had RB won in 2011, that would have been his second and last term. Article 106 (3) of the Zambian Constitution is instructive.
“A person who has twice held office as President shall not be eligible for election as President”.
No ambiguities, whatsoever.
The issue of defining a term comes in when a running mate is brought into the picture.
If, God forbid, President Lungu dropped dead today and Veep Inonge Wina took over without an election, she would be deemed to not having served a full term since we only have 17 months before the next election.
Her first term would begin in 2021.
The issue of three years refers to a running mate. In 2016, President Lungu was not a running mate; he was a presidential candidate.
He has twice appeared on the ballot paper, he has twice been elected twice, he has twice held office.
Why are we fighting over a very straightforward issue?
For the sake of greed, we want to bring in new interpretations of what is very clear; defending the morally indefensible.
I submit.