EFZ DEMANDS IMMEDIATE END TO PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMIT DISCUSSIONS
By Leah Ngoma
The Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia-EFZ- has demanded an immediate end to discussions surrounding the proposed removal of presidential term limits, warning that any attempt to alter constitutional provisions to accommodate individual political ambitions threatens the country’s democratic foundations.
EFZ Executive Director Reverend Allan Kasungami says the debate is unnecessary and risks plunging the country into political instability at a time when Zambia needs to focus on national healing following a divisive election.
In a statement, Reverend Kasungami says the constitution is the cornerstone of Zambia’s democracy and should not be altered for political expediency, adding that the country should instead prioritise economic recovery, national unity and improved service delivery.
He says the continued debate over presidential tenure limits is also diverting attention from pressing challenges facing citizens, including the high cost of living, economic hardships and increasing vulnerabilities.
Reverend Kasungami says EFZ’s position is informed by the 2001 Oasis Declaration, in which the church and civil society united to oppose a third-term bid and safeguard the two-term presidential limit.
He has since urged political players, civil society organisations and the church to reject any attempts to undermine the constitution.
Reverend Kasungami says all discussions regarding the removal of presidential term limits should cease immediately to allow the country to redirect its attention towards addressing the economic challenges facing citizens and promoting national unity.
PHOENIX NEWS
It should be made very clear that the BIBLE to professing Christians is infallible and remains the Word of Almighty God. To us who believe it is unchangeable. Period no debate.
A national constitution on the other hand is a document that seeks to guide us on governance issues and how we harmonies our living together as citizens with equal rights. However, contrary to the Bible It can be amended , modified and redrafted to take into account more accommodating views.
Having experienced a bit of life from the time our first Republican President was ruling up to the times when all the other esteemed Presidents led our beautiful country. The aspect of the Third term was a topic that constantly cropped up. This seems to be a bone of contention among politicians and must be resolved once and for all. Infact even our previous President who led PF pushed this agenda. Hence we must agree that this issue needs addressing. God forbid but , eventually a determined reckless and ruthless future Leader may find a way round this issue and the price of not fixing this now may be too grave. Better to fix it now that regret later.
Guess what I am.saying is let is be open minded while being cautious not to destroy the document which binds us together.
Instead of bury our heads in the sand and pretend this provision will not be a thorny issue. Let it be debated upon. It is a healthy thing to do. Give reasons as to why it is not needed. Allow people to digest this mentally and then they can form an opinion that is based on facts.
Those for the idea can advance their reasoning at the end of the day the entire eligible population will make informed decisions and will decide their preference through a referendum if necessary.
It is not factual to state that this constitution we have can not be change to suit the times and needs. Shutting down such a debate would ve unconstitutional because there is no law in my knowledge which expressly prohibits this. Incase I am uninformed may some from the learned institutions of law conform where it is written expressly that such debates is Unconstitutional?
To jus use feelings about not wanting/ wanting to debate about it is not enough. We need to know expressly what the law says and logically follow through with it.
Let us not use fear to stop others from expressing their constitutional rights. The noble thing would be to state ones position factually and hence help others formulate a better frame of mind about this very tricky issue in our national politics.
Lets not reduce this debate to be about one man.Let us look beyond now and some of our life time and really see how this impacts future generations long term.
So lets not shy away from adding voices. Each submission will help.
The wording of this write up was unfortunately not legally well thought through from a legal point as it is assumes the right to demand and direct for an absolute shut down of debate. One can ask does this institution and its leaders constitutionally possess such powers.
Therefore more care should have been given regarding giving a personal / group opinion rather than the interference of where another’s groups / individual rights begins. These unfortunately are not emotional issues but legal matters whose principles are deeply rooted in law.
The question needing answers is are this power vested therein the law to command such an absolute action. Our legal experts will be needed to interpret this.