PATRIOTS for Economic Progress leader Sean Tembo says he is disappointed by the failure of the Constitutional Court to impose appropriate sanctions against Speaker Patrick Matibini for his willful breach of the Constitution in the Roan parliamentary seat case.
Tembo, who welcomed the court’s judgment in the case in which it said among others that Dr Matibini exceeded his powers in declaring the Roan seat vacant, however noted that the Speaker either knew or should have known that his action constituted an interpretation of the Constitution which is an exclusive preserve of the Judiciary, and was therefore illegal.
“As Patriots for Economic Progress (PeP), we welcome the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the Roan parliamentary seat case in which the Court made a number of important determinations which include the fact that Speaker Patrick Matibini exceeded his powers in declaring the Roan parliamentary seat vacant, and also that the principle of exclusive cognizance is not absolute and applies only to internal procedural matters and could not be used by the Speaker as an excuse for breaching the Constitution or usurping the power to interpret the Constitution, which power is solely vested in the Judiciary,” Tembo said.
He said by failing to impose the necessary punishment on Dr Matibini for his gross transgressions in this matter, the Constitutional Court did not only reward the Speaker for his bad behaviour, but it also effectively reduced itself to an academic institution that issues academic judgments, long after the fact, instead of being a court that dispenses justice and prevents future bad behaviour.
Tembo said bad behaviour must be punished and not rewarded.
“As Patriots for Economic Progress, we are disappointed by the failure of the Constitutional Court to impose appropriate sanctions against Speaker Matibini for his willful breach of the Constitution. It is worth noting that before becoming Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Patrick Matibini was a Judge of the High Court, of reasonable repute,” he said. “Therefore, he either knew or should have known that his action of declaring the Roan seat vacant constituted an interpretation of the Constitution, which act is an exclusive preserve of the Judiciary, and was therefore illegal. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should have imposed appropriate sanctions against Speaker Matibini’s glaring misconduct and illegality in this matter.”
Tembo said he was further disappointed by the failure of the Constitutional Court to award damages to Chishimba Kambwili for the undue loss of privilege and rewards as member of parliament for Roan Constituency.
He said there was surely no question about the fact that the petitioner suffered damages as a result of his tenure as Roan MP being curtailed because of the illegal actions of Speaker.
Tembo noted however that instead of addressing the petitioner’s case in its totality, the court unfortunately only cherry-picked that component that directly affected it, and in the process rendered a self-serving judgment that fell far from any characterisation of dispensing justice.
“Therefore, it remains a wonder as to the reasoning of the court in deciding not to award damages to the Petitioner. Overall, as Patriots for Economic Progress, it is our considered view that in rendering this judgment, the Constitutional Court was not motivated by the quest to dispense justice, but rather, the entire judgment was a self-serving act by the court,” Tembo said. “It is evident to all and sundry that in this case, the court only substantively addressed the issue of Speaker Matibini usurping the powers of the Judiciary to interpret the Constitution. As a part of the Judiciary itself, the court was clearly offended by this particular trespass on its territory by Speaker Matibini.”
Tembo beseeched the court to make satisfactory effort to issue well coherent judgments.
“As Patriots for Economic Progress, we are cognizant of the fact that the Constitutional Court is a reasonably new court, which is probably still trying to find its feet. However, we wish to implore the court to make adequate effort to issue well-reasoned judgments. A good court judgment is supposed to help to settle controversy and not be a source of controversy itself,” said Tembo.