By Kellys Kaunda
DECIPHERING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS – BEYOND THE EYE
Anywhere in the world, especially in the US, judicial appointments are among the most scrutinized by the press and political commentators.
This is because appointing authorities undertake these tasks with intent.
It is the latter that must be deciphered by commentators and independent observers.
In Zambia, just as elsewhere, timing is hotly debated. If an administration makes a crucial judicial appointment in an election year, the question is asked as to why this time?
Is the incumbent anticipating an electoral dispute and therefore wants to hedge his own political interests?
Another important question has always been: what is the record of the appointed judge on the bench so far?
In the kind of judgments rendered before may be identified patterns that suggest motive.
Each country will provide analysts with specific sites and tools of analysis.
It’s an important undertaking which must be encouraged because there’s always meaning in the decisions taken by the executive.
By virtue of being a politician, every President has self-serving interest. In fact, it is the rule of thumb that it is almost unheard-of that a President will make an appointment to critical organs of democratic accountability purely to serve public interest.
Do not be deceived! Pay absolute attention to the latest Presidential appointments to the judiciary because Hichilema is “methodical”.
Ask questions such as: why now? If you hear standard responses such as: why not? This gives you the redflag you are looking for.
Ask: why these particular individuals? Again, if the standard response is: why not them? They are Zambians and are qualified. There is another redflag you need to justify further digging.
When appointing authorities don’t want the public to read beyond their public actions, they always resort to standard responses.
When all is said and done, there’s more to the latest judicial appointments than meets the eye.