A LAW lecturer at the University of Zambia says the third term President Edgar Lungu is illegally fighting for is subtle when compared to the failed 2001 bid by Frederick Chiluba.
In his write-up titled: ‘Why President Lungu is not eligible to contest for re-election in 2021’, James Kayula warns that “Zambia faces a pernicious third term campaign and its far-reaching consequences”.
“Unlike the failed 2001 third term bid by the late president Frederick Chiluba, whose illegality was ‘naked’ to everyone’s eye, the current third term is subtle and benign as it presents itself in somewhat misplaced apparel of legitimacy provided by the Constitutional Court,” he wrote. “Yet, when stripped to its barest, it is simply a third term bid akin to that of the late [Pierre] Nkurunziza of Burundi, whose rule was not far from despotic.”
Kayula warned that the ruling of the Constitutional Court on President Lungu’s eligibility would potentially plunge the country into a crisis.
He argued that the Court avoided the actual question on eligibility and pronounced itself on irrelevant things.
“According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, any person who serves in the office of president for less than three years would be regarded not to have held office. This position is extremely dangerous and has the effect of wiping out the concept of term limit,” Kayula contended. “…This unscrupulous conduct can go on and on, unchecked, especially if the country had a brazen and emboldened individual as president, and unfortunately, Zambia is not short of such persons. Effectively, the interpretation of the Constitutional Court has the potential to rob the Constitution of this critical institutional barrier of term limit, and inadvertently and potentially re-introduce ‘life president’ and its dreaded evils. In the wake of legal advocacy and strengthening of the rule of law, this will not be allowed to pass.”
Kayula said the Constitutional Court still had a chance to atone for its poor judgment by openly declaring President Lungu ineligible to stand.
“The Constitutional Court, however, has a golden opportunity to reconcile itself with and revive the spirit of term limit since it did not directly pronounce itself on the rights of Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu to stand in 2021 on account that he was not a party to the case,” Kayula said. “As a consequence, this case was largely hypothetical and academic in the interpretation of the constitutional provisions dealing with the issue of eligibility. In having a ‘second bite at the cherry’, the Constitutional Court can, in 2021 unwrap itself from this web of constitutional crisis by declaring the incumbent ineligible to stand.”
He said the Constitutional Court ignored the actual issue at hand and ruled on a wrong matter.
Kayula further argued that the ConCourt presumed that President Lungu was already vice-president before he succeeded late president Michael Sata when in fact not.
“It must, however, be quickly noted and emphasised that Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu did not ascend to the office of president because he was vice-president or as a result of an election held because the then vice-president could not, for any reason, assume the office of president,” said Kayula. “The Constitutional Court, nevertheless, in the case of Daniel Pule & Others v. Attorney General, Judgment No. 60 of 2018, suggestively regarded Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu as one who assumed power under Article 106 (6), and stated that since the period from 25thJanuary 2015 to 13th September 2016 was less than three years, the incumbent would not be regarded as having served a full term. What is intriguing, curious and strikingly questionable is why the Constitutional Court seemed to have fitted the incumbent within Article 106 (6), when it is in fact very clear, factually, that the circumstances in which the incumbent assumed the Office of President are completely different from those contemplated under article 106 (6).”
See full article in tomorrow’s edition.