JUSTICE HAMAUNDU’S EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO HEAD ACC
…let’s avoid lynch mob mentality targeting defenceless individuals and undermining governance institutions…
By AMOS CHANDA
JUDGES and other presiding officers of our courts of law are on paper, very powerful individuals on whose judgement rests our individual liberties depending on their dispensation or a lack thereof, of justice, but in the face of public attacks oftentimes are arraigned against them unfairly, they are awfully defenceless.
The case of Justice Evans Hamaundu’s nomination to chair the board of commissioners of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is one such example of the now seemingly entrenched culture of a lynch mob mentality in our society.
This culture is not only detrimental to the reputations and other interests of individuals targeted, but worse so, for such people in the position of Justice Hamaundu, who may not have sufficient space to publicly defend themselves.
This abhorrent culture exists, not just in the widely abused social media and other spaces, but even among law enforcement agencies, who portray their accused as guilty until proven innocent, turning the very sacred tenet of mother justice right down its head.
Whilst it’s the targeted individual who bears the brunt of such excesses and unfair treatment, ultimately, it is lasting damage to the collective integrity of our governance institutions that is more telling.
The short term aggrandizement derived from such herd mentality moved by some disingenuous individuals, are less consequential than the damage we inflict on individuals and institutions.
We are creating for ourselves a dubious reputation that we are a 20 million corrupt mob from whom no “clean person” can be picked to head any of our public institutions.
Whilst academic and professional qualifications are now rarely questioned for appointees, it seems naysayers have fast replaced such pretensions with a new “assessment criteria” mainly anchored on such debasing references to ethnicity and the quite often unproven allegations of corruption, ostensibly designed to besmirch reputations of others.
How sensible would it be that a person can qualify to hold such a coveted office of Supreme Court Judge, and be unqualified to hold a part-time oversight role of chairperson of the board ACC or indeed any other governance institution?
How is it logical that Justice Hamaundu, appointed to the Supreme Court on 16 January 2014 by President Micheal Sata, would be “ethnically” incorrect today to be appointed to any other high office by President Hakainde Hichilema?
Is it not this same person who was appointed Judge of the High Court by President Mwanawasa in 2003?
This rich legal history of this merit-inclined judge, transcending three Presidents, cannot be reduced to ethnicity and unproven charges of graft.
From 1996 when he joined the Judiciary until now, with all of his 29 long years of distinguished service, are critics suggesting that he has metamorphosed into incompetence with all his invaluable experience?
With the dismissed frivolous and preposterous allegations of malpractice against Justice Hamaundu and three other Supreme Court judges, do the critics hold that the judge is guilty as alleged by the now deceased Mr. Misheck Chatora?
Since his admission to the bar in 1984 and entry into the Judiciary as Resident Magistrate in 1996, Justice Hamaundu’s reputation has always preceded him.
Further, this is a man with a well established record in the corporate sector where he worked with an unblemished record at every stage of his assignment.
He served as group company secretary for the National Media Corporation;company secretary for Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company, and company secretary for Maamba Collieries.
By any standard, the accuser, the late Mr Chatora isn’t, and cannot be our gold standard for an integrity test for the judges of our apex court.
As for the alleged “coincidence” of the President’s nomination of Justice Hamaundu to chair the ACC board immediately on his retirement as Supreme Court Judge, I would be surprised if this is indeed a coincidence.
The search for the appropriate head of the ACC has been ongoing for a while. The President would have known this judge would be retiring and so he waited until his exit before assigning him this oversight role.
The President would have known because a retiring judge writes to the President, three months ahead of time informing him of their desire to retire or consideration for continuation under contract.
As to why the President would wait for this particular judge to retire and not appoint anyone else, this judge perhaps was fitting the description of the person required to head the ACC.
For an oversight role for an institution so central to people’s property rights, civil liberties and general governance of our public resources and processes, a person the rank of Supreme or High Court judge is suitably qualified.
Mr Justice Hamaundu is hereby exceptionally qualified for the role.
And I should hope that the ratification and vetting authorities will address themselves to proven facts about the person and avoid the sway of the now entrenched lynch mob mentality being promoted in some circles.
Oversight functions at the ACC requires good judgment, a good judicious mind such as Justice Hamaundu’s, both in terms of training and unique experience of many years of justice dispensation at the very apex of the justice system.
We can’t hold ourselves as a nation where its entire 20 million people are collectively and singularly accused, and supposedly guilty, until proven innocent.
Whilst others have various opportunities to address the filthy thrown at them, judges sadly don’t. So those with something to say about the nominee, must exercise restraint and only say that which can reasonably be held as fair comment and in public interest.
Otherwise, the best approach is for anyone with dissenting views to approach the parliamentary committee for confirmation hearings and present their case.
To merely present these allegations on the basis of an historical and dismissed complaint before the JCC, is by all accounts disingenuous.
It is highly questionable, and not surprising that the JCC dismissed Mr Chatora’s allegations against the four Supreme Court judges: Justice Micheal Musonda, the Deputy Chief Justice, Justice Nigel Mutuna, Justice Roydah Kaoma and Justice Hamaundu.
That these four judges of our very apex court sought K20, 000 each as gratification is a scandalous slur on the collective conscience, not just of the Supreme Court but the nation as a whole.
That a blue-chip company the reputation of Zambian Breweries, with all its stringent anti graft measures and impeccable good corporate governance protocols, can easily reach a decision to bribe judges of the Supreme Court with any amount, let alone K20,000, is an extreme extension of the accuser’s imagination.
But since he is late, any further criticism of his judgment would be insensitive, his raucous allegations notwithstanding.
By virtue of my former position in government, (without offending the strictures of the oath of office) I had some official opportunity to glance at some of the professional and personal credentials of some of these judges, and the four simply pass for some of the best and brightest of our Judiciary.
Frivolous and vexatious allegations against individuals won’t just hurt the victims, but also erode public confidence in the public institutions designed to deliver public good.
We can’t be that ingrained, incredulous nation just for the sake of it.
(The author is a former State House press aide and former diplomat at the Zambia Mission in London.)
JUSTICE HAMAUNDU’S EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO HEAD ACC
…let’s avoid lynch mob mentality targeting defenceless individuals and undermining governance institutions…
By AMOS CHANDA
JUDGES and other presiding officers of our courts of law are on paper, very powerful individuals on whose judgement rests our individual liberties depending on their dispensation or a lack thereof, of justice, but in the face of public attacks oftentimes are arraigned against them unfairly, they are awfully defenceless.
The case of Justice Evans Hamaundu’s nomination to chair the board of commissioners of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is one such example of the now seemingly entrenched culture of a lynch mob mentality in our society.
This culture is not only detrimental to the reputations and other interests of individuals targeted, but worse so, for such people in the position of Justice Hamaundu, who may not have sufficient space to publicly defend themselves.
This abhorrent culture exists, not just in the widely abused social media and other spaces, but even among law enforcement agencies, who portray their accused as guilty until proven innocent, turning the very sacred tenet of mother justice right down its head.
Whilst it’s the targeted individual who bears the brunt of such excesses and unfair treatment, ultimately, it is lasting damage to the collective integrity of our governance institutions that is more telling.
The short term aggrandizement derived from such herd mentality moved by some disingenuous individuals, are less consequential than the damage we inflict on individuals and institutions.
We are creating for ourselves a dubious reputation that we are a 20 million corrupt mob from whom no “clean person” can be picked to head any of our public institutions.
Whilst academic and professional qualifications are now rarely questioned for appointees, it seems naysayers have fast replaced such pretensions with a new “assessment criteria” mainly anchored on such debasing references to ethnicity and the quite often unproven allegations of corruption, ostensibly designed to besmirch reputations of others.
How sensible would it be that a person can qualify to hold such a coveted office of Supreme Court Judge, and be unqualified to hold a part-time oversight role of chairperson of the board ACC or indeed any other governance institution?
How is it logical that Justice Hamaundu, appointed to the Supreme Court on 16 January 2014 by President Micheal Sata, would be “ethnically” incorrect today to be appointed to any other high office by President Hakainde Hichilema?
Is it not this same person who was appointed Judge of the High Court by President Mwanawasa in 2003?
This rich legal history of this merit-inclined judge, transcending three Presidents, cannot be reduced to ethnicity and unproven charges of graft.
From 1996 when he joined the Judiciary until now, with all of his 29 long years of distinguished service, are critics suggesting that he has metamorphosed into incompetence with all his invaluable experience?
With the dismissed frivolous and preposterous allegations of malpractice against Justice Hamaundu and three other Supreme Court judges, do the critics hold that the judge is guilty as alleged by the now deceased Mr. Misheck Chatora?
Since his admission to the bar in 1984 and entry into the Judiciary as Resident Magistrate in 1996, Justice Hamaundu’s reputation has always preceded him.
Further, this is a man with a well established record in the corporate sector where he worked with an unblemished record at every stage of his assignment.
He served as group company secretary for the National Media Corporation;company secretary for Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company, and company secretary for Maamba Collieries.
By any standard, the accuser, the late Mr Chatora isn’t, and cannot be our gold standard for an integrity test for the judges of our apex court.
As for the alleged “coincidence” of the President’s nomination of Justice Hamaundu to chair the ACC board immediately on his retirement as Supreme Court Judge, I would be surprised if this is indeed a coincidence.
The search for the appropriate head of the ACC has been ongoing for a while. The President would have known this judge would be retiring and so he waited until his exit before assigning him this oversight role.
The President would have known because a retiring judge writes to the President, three months ahead of time informing him of their desire to retire or consideration for continuation under contract.
As to why the President would wait for this particular judge to retire and not appoint anyone else, this judge perhaps was fitting the description of the person required to head the ACC.
For an oversight role for an institution so central to people’s property rights, civil liberties and general governance of our public resources and processes, a person the rank of Supreme or High Court judge is suitably qualified.
Mr Justice Hamaundu is hereby exceptionally qualified for the role.
And I should hope that the ratification and vetting authorities will address themselves to proven facts about the person and avoid the sway of the now entrenched lynch mob mentality being promoted in some circles.
Oversight functions at the ACC requires good judgment, a good judicious mind such as Justice Hamaundu’s, both in terms of training and unique experience of many years of justice dispensation at the very apex of the justice system.
We can’t hold ourselves as a nation where its entire 20 million people are collectively and singularly accused, and supposedly guilty, until proven innocent.
Whilst others have various opportunities to address the filthy thrown at them, judges sadly don’t. So those with something to say about the nominee, must exercise restraint and only say that which can reasonably be held as fair comment and in public interest.
Otherwise, the best approach is for anyone with dissenting views to approach the parliamentary committee for confirmation hearings and present their case.
To merely present these allegations on the basis of an historical and dismissed complaint before the JCC, is by all accounts disingenuous.
It is highly questionable, and not surprising that the JCC dismissed Mr Chatora’s allegations against the four Supreme Court judges: Justice Micheal Musonda, the Deputy Chief Justice, Justice Nigel Mutuna, Justice Roydah Kaoma and Justice Hamaundu.
That these four judges of our very apex court sought K20, 000 each as gratification is a scandalous slur on the collective conscience, not just of the Supreme Court but the nation as a whole.
That a blue-chip company the reputation of Zambian Breweries, with all its stringent anti graft measures and impeccable good corporate governance protocols, can easily reach a decision to bribe judges of the Supreme Court with any amount, let alone K20,000, is an extreme extension of the accuser’s imagination.
But since he is late, any further criticism of his judgment would be insensitive, his raucous allegations notwithstanding.
By virtue of my former position in government, (without offending the strictures of the oath of office) I had some official opportunity to glance at some of the professional and personal credentials of some of these judges, and the four simply pass for some of the best and brightest of our Judiciary.
Frivolous and vexatious allegations against individuals won’t just hurt the victims, but also erode public confidence in the public institutions designed to deliver public good.
We can’t be that ingrained, incredulous nation just for the sake of it.
(The author is a former State House press aide and former diplomat at the Zambia Mission in London.)
