JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION DEALT WITH THE CASE OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUSTICES
FUNCTUS OFFICIO-The Case of the Petition Against Judges
By Amb. Emmanuel Mwamba
A Joseph Busenga has taken three Constitution Judges; Hon. Justice Annie M Sitali, Hon. Justice Mungeni Mulenga and Justice Palani Mulonda to the Judicial Service Complaints Commission.
He contends that the three judges grossly misconducted themselves and were incompetent in the manner they handled the presidential petition between Hakainde Hichilema and another, and Edgar Chagwa Lungu and two others, cause number 2016/CCZ/0031 filed on 19th August 2016.
He has therefore requested for their removal from the bench.
MATTER RESOLVED, PETITION DISMISSED
Wait a minute! This matter was fully determined and resolved.
Green Party President Mr. Peter Sinkamba brought an identical petition to the Judicial Service Complaints Commission.
In this matter referenced 2016/JCC/84, Mr. Sinkamba petitioned; Madam Justice Hilda Chibomba, Madam Justice Mugeni Mulenga, Madam Justice Annie Sitali, Madam Justice Margaret Munalula and Justice Palan Mulonda, to be removed for incompetence and gross misconduct in the manner the Constitutional Judges handled and determined the 2016 presidential election petition.
Infact, the current Chairperson of the Judicial Service Complaints Commission, Mr. Vincent Malambo SC represented one of the judges in the case to the JCC.
On 13th October, 2017 Justice Christopher S. Mushabati and Godfrey W. Simukoko dismissed the petition and anchored their decision that the final determination of the presidential petition resulting in split decision didn’t amount to misconduct or incompetence.
CONCLUSION
The JCC is likely bound by the principle of the Doctrine of functus officio.
This states that once the court or arbitration body passes any judgment after the lawful hearing, then the case cannot be re-opened and the judgment is binding.
The court or Commission may have no right to review its own judgement.
Functus officio holds that once an arbitrator renders a decision regarding the issues submitted, he lacks any power to re-examine that decision.
Clearly looking at the latest petition of Busenga and the old case of Sinkamba , the two cases share the same facts and literally are the same.
We wait to see how this matter will be handled.
