Constitutional Court Judges: The Masters of Judicial Acrobatics
By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma
In the grand theater of Zambian democracy, where laws are sacred and justice is a pillar of governance, a group of unsung heroes deserves recognition—the Constitutional Court judges. These esteemed legal minds have revolutionized the art of interpretation, proving that the constitution is not carved in stone but can bend, twist, and somersault depending on the day, mood, or political climate. Their remarkable performance in handling the eligibility case of former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu deserves nothing short of a standing ovation.
Consistency: Who Needs It?
The Constitutional Court judges have boldly rejected the notion that consistency is the hallmark of sound jurisprudence. Why stick to earlier rulings when the law is clearly open to creative interpretation? In the case of Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, the judges have proven that decisions are like fine wine—they only get better when revisited and reconsidered.
Their refusal to be bound by their previous rulings is a true act of judicial courage. Why be predictable when you can surprise the nation with decisions that defy logic? The art of U-turns is not for the faint of heart, and these judges have mastered it with finesse.
The Art of Judicial Innovation
Constitutional provisions are often viewed as clear and straightforward, but Zambia’s Constitutional Court judges understand that true genius lies in innovation. Faced with Dr. Lungu’s eligibility case, they dusted off the rulebook and rewrote it—because why let old decisions stand in the way of progress?
By upholding one ruling yesterday and bending it today, the judges have embraced flexibility as a virtue. After all, laws are living things—they must evolve, adapt, and sometimes conveniently forget their own past. This bold approach ensures that every constitutional question becomes a thrilling guessing game for the nation.
Independence: A Shifting Concept
Judicial independence is often celebrated as the court’s guiding principle, but the Constitutional Court judges have taught us that independence, much like eligibility rulings, is a flexible concept. Their decisions demonstrate an uncanny ability to align with unspoken winds of influence—whether those winds blow from the corridors of power or elsewhere.
It takes extraordinary skill to craft rulings that balance legal acrobatics with political convenience. Yet, these judges have excelled at delivering decisions that leave both lawyers and laymen scratching their heads. Is it a legal precedent? Is it politics? Is it divine inspiration? Only the Constitutional Court judges know.
Legal Drama: Entertainment for All
Under the leadership of the Constitutional Court, Zambia’s judiciary has embraced its role as a provider of national entertainment. The eligibility case of Dr. Lungu has been a blockbuster event, filled with suspense, unexpected plot twists, and a cliffhanger conclusion that would put any soap opera to shame.
Citizens across Zambia have been glued to their radios and television screens, captivated by the sheer unpredictability of the court’s rulings. Who says the judiciary can’t deliver drama? Forget Netflix—Zambia’s Constitutional Court is where the real action is.
A Bold Legacy of Ambiguity
The hallmark of any great institution is the legacy it leaves behind, and the Constitutional Court judges are building a legacy that will endure for generations. Their rulings—opaque, inconsistent, and sometimes incomprehensible—are ensuring that future legal scholars, politicians, and ordinary citizens remain forever confused about the constitution.
By refusing to be bound by the weight of earlier rulings, they have created a precedent of non-precedent. Who needs clarity when ambiguity can keep everyone on their toes? Their decisions serve as a powerful reminder that the law is not about certainty—it’s about endless possibilities.
Conclusion: The Heroes Zambia Deserves
In handling the eligibility case of former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, the Constitutional Court judges have shown us that failure is not a setback—it’s a strategy. Their ability to interpret, reinterpret, and then reinterpret again is nothing short of extraordinary. They have proven that rulings are not about consistency or logic but about keeping the nation guessing.
While critics may grumble about “credibility” and “judicial integrity,” the Constitutional Court has risen above such petty concerns. Their brilliance lies in their unpredictability, their boldness in rewriting their own decisions, and their tireless commitment to keeping Zambians entertained and bewildered.
So let us celebrate these judicial acrobats, the guardians of constitutional chaos, and the architects of Zambia’s legal uncertainty. To the Constitutional Court judges: you are the heroes Zambia didn’t know it needed. Bravo, your honors. Bravo.