By Luxon Kazabu.
I am not surprised by the ruling of the ConCourt on the eligibility of President Lungu to contest the presidential election the third time against the Constitution. I am also not surprised by the dissenting judgment of Judge Munalula.In my opinion she is the only one who qualifies to sit on the ConCourt bench.
Since the establishment of the ConCourt, the judges have shown an inclination to serving the interests of an individual and the ruling Party. I respect the decision of the Court but do not agree with it.The ruling was to a large influenced by the wrong decisions the Court made in the Pule and Kapalasa petitions after reformulating the question of Pule and others to suit the judges predetermined judgment.
It is not the duty of the Court to rewrite questions that are presented to it by petitioners.Their duty is to simply answer.By their action the Court abused its authority. The Court also applied provisions of the 2016 version of the 1991 Constitution which don’t apply to Lungu retrospectively .That is unlawful.
The Court has through and through from the Pule Petition relied on the lateral rule approach in interpreting the provisions of the constitution instead of the purposive one that deals with the purpose of Article 106(3). What is the purpose of Article 106 (3)? To prevent a life President ( wamuyaya).
The Court has still got to answer the following questions:
1.Has President Lungu twice held office or not? It is not about the length of a term.It is about holding office.
2. Why did the Court allow the Attorney General’s application to join the proceedings and represent a private individual and candidate of PF?
3. Why did the Court not make a ruling on the application of the three reputable professors to join the proceedings as friends of the Court but simply ignored it? The professors through their brief, simply sought to give some insights on universal principles followed in interpreting constitutional provisions and references on decided cases from various jurisdictions. The action of the Court smells a rat.
Anyway, we now await the verdict of the Court of Public Opinion and Morality on 12th August,2021.