COURT MUST INTERPRET RUNNING MATE ISSUE – LAWYER  DICKSON JERE

COURT MUST INTERPRET RUNNING MATE ISSUE – LAWYER 

RENOWNED Lusaka lawyer Dickson Jere has proposed that a presidential candidate should be allowed to choose another running mate if one withdraws.

He explained that this would protect the integrity of the electoral process and prevent unnecessary disqualification. 

Jere observed that forcing a candidate to continue without a running mate undermines the spirit of the law. 

He noted that the Constitution is silent on the matter, leaving a gap that must be addressed. 

Jere advanced that the running mate system was introduced to ensure stability in succession.

He said, “A candidate without a running mate cannot legally file nomination papers.” 

Jere affirmed that the Vice President is elected directly and cannot be dismissed by the President.

He emphasised, “Voters elect both the President and Vice President as a pair on one ballot.” 

Jere argued that allowing a replacement before ballots are printed would safeguard fairness in the race.

He stressed that the Constitutional Court must interpret the law to provide clarity on this issue. 

Observers believe this debate could shape future electoral practices in Zambia. 

Legal experts suggest that comparative studies from other jurisdictions may guide the courts in resolving the matter.

He writes:

Runaway Running-mate
By Dickson Jere

I have seen a statement by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) on the withdrawal of running mates in the forthcoming election. The ECZ rightly observed that the Constitution is silent on what happens when the running-mate ranaway from the race. This is a legal conundrum that requires to be resolved.

So, when the law is silent, then it requires interpretation by the Court.

I take a different view from the ECZ interpretation that presidential candidates can contest when runningmate has withdrawn. You see, one must first understand what a running-mate is and the idea behind it. Running-mate is very serious business.

For starters, running-mate is also candidate who stands with his presidential candidate as a pair. One cannot stand alone as Presidential candidate in Zambia. The nomination is by two people. A Presidential candidate without a running-mate cannot file his nomination papers. It follows that a presidential candidate cannot stand without a running-mate.

Further, that same running-mate automatically becomes Vice President of the Republic of Zambia. And cannot be fired by the President because he or she was also elected directly by the people. It is for that reason that the Vice-President automatically takesover as President when there is a vacancy in the office of the President. No elections are held to fill the vacancy like in the past. In short, the country elects a standby President in advance in case the President dies, resigns or indeed is removed from office.

That said, voters vote for two people in the Presidential election. They vote for the President and the Vice president as a pair on one ballot.

So, you cannot have a presidential candidate going it alone!  It defeats the whole purpose of the running-mate concept introduced in 2016 Constitutional amendment.

My thoughts are, therefore, that presidential candidate who does not have a running-mate is out of the race. His candidature becomes invalid once his running-mate runs away notwithstanding the silence in the law. This will also stop presidential candidates from firing their running-mate few days before elections or in the rerun.

What happens when the running-mate runs away?

My take is that the presidential candidate should be allowed to pick another mate if ballots have not been printed. If ballots have been printed, then one cannot withdraw. It is until death do us part!

This matter needs to be tested in the ConCourt by way of interpretation. ECZ should seek that clarity since it is not a Court. Lawyers will research and provide persuasive arguments from other jurisdictions with similar clauses

When the law is silent, the Courts are mandated to fill in the gaps using different canons of interpretation. In this case, the Mischief Rule or Purposive Rule should be applied. What was the intention of Parliament? Only Courts have the mandate to answer that very question.

NB. I decided to avoid Articles and Clauses of the Constitution and law to make it easy to read and follow.