DR FRED M’membe has asked Constitutional Court judges to listen to people’s concerns and change for the better.
He was commenting on two University of Zambia law lecturers who have expressed concern at the poor judgments coming from the Constitutional Court.
In a write-up titled, ‘Where exactly is the ConCourt taking Zambia: a comment on the Mutembo Nchito judgment’, law lecturers Dr O’Brien Kaaba and Dr Pamela Towela Sambo argued that the ConCourt has done more harm to constitutionalism than promoting its values.
The duo argued that the judgment the court rendered in the Mutembo case left much to be desired.
In his reaction to the duo’s article, Dr M’membe, an advocate of the High Court of Zambia and leader of the Socialist Party, said a court without credibility is not a court.
“The performance of our Constitutional Court falls far below acceptable or tolerable levels of inefficiency, ineffectiveness and incompetence. Many people have raised concerns about the work of our Constitutional Court but no one seems to be willing to listen,” he wrote from Mwika Royal Village in Chinsali. “It’s like they have put cotton wool in their ears. But it is too dangerous for the Constitutional Court to continue on this path and in this way.”
He advised the Constitutional Court judges against fearing criticism, saying “with criticism they can get rid of a bad style and keep the good”.
Dr M’membe said although the criticism offered by the two lecturers sounded harsh, it was nevertheless timely and relevant.
“Our judges shouldn’t fear criticism because the truth is on the side of those who are honest. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly. Our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly,” Dr M’membe said. “It’s a pretty harsh criticism, and many judges would not want to hear that about themselves. In fact, many judges have no interest in hearing harsh criticism of themselves and some lawyers and other people, sometimes going to great lengths [to] protect them. I’m quite sure this needed saying.”
He stressed that, “Our minds and our work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing.
Dr M’membe recalled of the proverb “Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten”, meaning that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms.
“To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop an honest style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular maxims as ‘Say all you know and say it without reserve’, ‘Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words’ and ‘Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not’ – this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of dust and germs from contaminating our minds,” he said. “Let’s learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones. And let’s cure the sickness to save the patient. The mistakes of the past must be exposed without sparing anyone’s sensibilities; it is necessary to analyse and criticise what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude so that work in the future will be done more carefully and done better.”
Dr M’membe outlined the common reaction from people who face criticism and advised the judges to listen.
“Often when we’re confronted with criticism, our first instinct is to defend ourselves against the attack, especially when the attack comes from someone whom we think doesn’t know as much as we know ourselves,” he said. “It would have been easy to dismiss what these law lecturers are saying, but it’s better to listen, evaluate their suggestions, and make changes. When you’re confronted with criticism, consider if the person knows about an area where you lack knowledge, and then consider making changes. It may save you future embarrassment. Taking criticism helps.”
Dr M’membe said no section of the community has all the virtues, “neither does any have all the vices”.
“I am quite sure that most people try to do their jobs as best they can, even if the result is not always entirely successful. He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic. There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution – presidency, judge, legislator, whatever – should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t,” he said. “But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of honesty, courage and understanding. This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change.”
Dr M’membe expressed concern at the perception future generations would have about the Constitutional Court.
“I sometimes wonder how future generations will judge the work of this Constitutional Court of ours. I dare say that history may take a slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary commentators,” said Dr M’membe.
“Distance is well-known to lend enchantment, even to the less attractive views. After all, it has the inestimable advantage of hindsight. But it can also lend an extra dimension to judgment, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion – even of wisdom – that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small.”