THREE constitutional law lecturers at the University of Zambia have questioned LAZ’s ‘diplomatic’ approach to authoritarianism that has grown in the country.
In a write-up titled; The slow and painful death of LAZ: neutrality is choosing the side of the oppressor, Pamela Towela Sambo, O’Brien Kaaba, and Felicity Kayumba Kalunga state that the association is in fact supporting autocratic rule.
The trio argues that such an approach from the current Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) council is a promotion of dictatorship being perpetuated by the current government.
“Under the ongoing democratic backsliding, it is imperative that LAZ asserts its independence both in word and deed. This can only be demonstrated by taking a firm, clear, unequivocal and publicly ascertainable stand against the status quo,” the lecturers wrote. “Continuing with the current approach of closed-door meetings as the main way of claiming to realise its objectives of advancing social justice and the rule of law is not only going to be ineffective but may in the long run damage the reputation and credibility of the Association. It does not work. It has not worked anywhere and will not work now, but simply play into the hands of autocracy. What works is standing up to authoritarianism.”
In supporting their argument, the three quoted retired South African Constitutional Court chief justice who said that, “standing up to bullies does change the world. Doing nothing allows evil people to prosper.”
The lecturers have expressed sincere disappointment with LAZ’s quietness in the midst of numerous injustices permeated by the PF government.
“Meeting these objectives inevitably mandates LAZ to unequivocally condemn any and all threats to democracy and side with the victims of authoritarianism. The law requires LAZ to be biased only towards the law and justice in all circumstances,” they state. “This mandate cannot be accomplished by a LAZ that is apologetic and subservient to or expends its resources to endear itself to political elites. LAZ should openly and categorically stand on the side of the law and constitutionalism and categorically denounce the ongoing assault on democracy. To act otherwise, using an alien ‘quiet diplomacy,’ is to dilute and betray its duty towards advancing law as an instrument of social justice; a dereliction of the duty to seek the advancement of the rule of law and human rights in Zambia and beyond.”
They stated that the Abyud Shonga-led council had shifted from the objectives and mandate for which LAZ was established.
“The new LAZ Council seems to have departed from the approach of previous councils in the manner of articulating concerns about the rule of law. Instead of taking clear and categorical positions to advance the rule of law and constitutionalism, the current LAZ Council seemingly prefers a lukewarm approach of behind-closed-door discussions with the public entities or persons who are at the heart of the current democratic backsliding,” the trio noted. “For example, one of the first official public acts of the Shonga led LAZ Council was to pay a courtesy call on the Republican President on 21 July 2020. At this meeting, the LAZ Council reminded the President that ‘our role is to speak out when the rule of law is being breached. We advised that we would prefer to talk to the government when breaches occur so that we can be part of the solution’. This approach may appear neutral to those not well versed with the rule of law and constitutionalism; and indeed, the objectives to which LAZ is legally wedded. On the contrary, such pronouncements can be fatal in situations involving the breach of the rule of law and social injustice by the government.”
The scholars cited other examples where LAZ has ignored a breach of the law by public institutions.
They stated that instead of condemning Electoral Commission of Zambia about its illegal online voter registration process, LAZ just scratched on the matter.
“There are presently two judicial review applications in the High Court and a constitutional challenge in the Constitutional Court, all of which cases are challenging the legality and constitutionality of ECZ actions. Prior to these cases being filed into the courts of law, LAZ was mute, and conducted no meaningful public education on any of the alleged illegal ECZ actions,” stated the lecturers. “Needless to mention, the ECZ is an important public institution, accountable to the law and the general public, more so in this run up to general elections. It must be in the interest of LAZ, and indeed the law, that the ECZ conducts its affairs within the strictest confines of written law… It is laughable that LAZ considers ‘ensuring the right thing is done’ revolves around concern for the good image of ECZ. Instead of focusing on the image of the ECZ as the right thing to do, LAZ should instead categorically advise the ECZ concerning its obligations under written electoral law and practice in thriving democracies; the breach of which will be responsible for any perceived damage to the integrity of ECZ.”