IN DEFENCE OF PRINCIPLE
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
A consistent question that praise singers keep throwing at me, complete with the attachment to this post, is this: “In 2020, you Sishuwa called for the removal of the Constitutional Court judges on the ground that they are incompetent. Today, you are opposing their removal. Why?”.
Well, the direct answer is that my opposition to the removal of the judges is a matter of principle. I do not need to like or agree with someone to defend their rights. I will defend the rights of anyone including those who abuse mine, if their rights are violated by another body or person. If, for instance, the government stops Edgar Lungu from enjoying his freedom of movement, and I criticize this action as a clear case of human rights violations, my position should be consistent even if you take out Edgar Lungu and put Hakainde Hichilema, provided the facts are the same. This is because I am defending a principle – the principle that every person, unless under derogation of the law, has the right to freedom of movement, which includes the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country – not the person.
It is true that in March 2020 I gave an interview to News Diggers newspaper in which I called for the removal of ALL judges of the Constitutional Court including Margaret Munalula and Hildah Chibomba for incompetence. See the full story on the link below.
diggers.news/local/2020/03/…
Has my position on the subject changed? No. I maintain what I said in 2020: that ALL the judges of the Constitutional Court should be removed from office for incompetence. What I am opposed to is the illegal way the judges have been removed from office. I have never said the judges are competent or that they should not be removed from office. What I have said and what I maintain is that their removal was illegal since it was founded on the exercise of authority that the JCC does not have. Why is this so difficult to understand?
x.com/ssishuwa/statu…
There is a huge difference between calling for the removal of a public leader from office and removing them illegally. Let me put this point in elementary form for easy understanding by offering two examples. If I call for the removal of President Hichilema from office for gross misconduct and incompetence, and someone decides to remove him from power through illegal means (e.g. a coup), I will oppose such a removal of Hichilema on principle, even if I want Hichilema out of public office for gross misconduct and/or incompetence. This is because he would have been removed from office illegally, and I do not support illegalities. I support the principle of removing leaders through lawful means such as free, fair and credible elections.
Similarly, if I see a person committing murder and I call for the perpetrator to be punished for what they have done, I cannot say “There is no need for trial because I saw this person killing the victim. The accused must simply be killed or sentenced to prison because I saw them commit the murder.” The law says a person is innocent until proven guilty. As a result, the person that saw the perpetrator killing another person will have to prove their case before a competent authority and in a manner that complies with the law. This includes subjecting the case to lawful processes including trial and equal treatment before the law. This way, the accused can even win the case if they have a good lawyer and if my testimony is weak. What will determine the integrity of the outcome, like in the case of the three judges, is the lawfulness of the process that produced such an outcome.
This is the context within which my opposition to the illegal removal of the judges should be understood. It is a matter of principle. Yes, I want the judges removed, all of them. But if one removed them illegally, I would oppose such a removal and defend their right to fair treatment. In fact, if President Hichilema had any respect for the Constitution of Zambia that he swore to protect, uphold and defend, he would have justifiably declined acting on the recommendations of the JCC because the process that produced them is defective. Note that the president has no legal obligation to accept or act on the recommendations of the JCC. That is why they are called recommendations. What if the recommendations are unlawful? Unfortunately, the president ignored his oath to the constitution and participated in the illegality!
Source. https://x.com/ssishuwa/status/1849812023015588177