McPherson Mutale Wrote
PRESIDENT LUNGU MADE THIS BED HE SHOULD BE READY TO LAY IN IT.
“The impending Constitutional Court ruling on December 10, 2024, regarding the eligibility of former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu has ignited a deeply polarized and highly charged national debate. The emotive and divisive discourse surrounding this matter underscores the fragile state of Zambia’s democracy and the inherent risks of judicial politicization.
Both proponents and opponents of Mr. Lungu’s potential candidacy have entrenched themselves in hardline positions, invoking prior Constitutional Court decisions, such as the Dan Pule, Bampi Kapalasa, and Legal Resources Foundation cases, to bolster their arguments. However, these debates often miss the larger picture: the perilous precedent of subordinating the judiciary to political machinations.
Zambia’s judiciary, purportedly an independent arbiter of justice, has long been shackled by the overbearing influence of the executive. Judges are appointed by the president and ratified by a parliament often dominated by the ruling party, creating an inherent conflict of interest. This structural flaw undermines the judiciary’s capacity to serve as an impartial guardian of constitutionalism. The Dan Pule case (2018), which interpreted the contentious issue of term limits, is a glaring example of this subjugation.
The court ruled in favor of Mr. Lungu, declaring that his first term from 2015 to 2016, following the death of President Michael Sata, did not constitute a full term. While legally defensible within the narrow confines of the Constitution, this decision was politically expedient, paving the way for Mr. Lungu to contest in 2021.
Critics, including State Counsel John Sangwa, vehemently opposed this ruling, warning of its long-term ramifications. Sangwa argued that allowing Mr. Lungu to contest again would create a constitutional crisis, eroding public trust in the judiciary.
His prediction has now come to pass. Ironically, Sangwa’s current stance—calling for consistency from the court despite his earlier opposition—seem like a contradiction but it is not. Both parties to this debate now want Sangwa to say what they want to hear. This reflects the toxic politicization of legal discourse, where principles are sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.
The judiciary’s complicity in perpetuating this crisis cannot be overstated. By bending to executive pressure, the Constitutional Court effectively prioritized the political survival of an individual over the stability of the state. The court’s decision in the Dan Pule case was not a triumph of jurisprudence but a capitulation to political will.
Today, as the same court grapples with the question of Mr. Lungu’s eligibility, it finds itself ensnared in the very crisis it helped create. Any attempt to overturn or reinterpret its earlier rulings risks further eroding public confidence in the judiciary and inflaming political tensions.
The implications of this case extend far beyond Mr. Lungu’s political aspirations. They strike at the heart of Zambia’s constitutional democracy. The judiciary’s independence is the cornerstone of any democracy, and its erosion threatens the rule of law.
The UPND government, despite its rhetoric of reform, has shown similar tendencies to politicize the judiciary. This cycle of judicial capture—where each successive administration installs its loyalists—undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.
Mr. Lungu’s supporters argue that denying him the right to contest would violate his constitutional rights. This argument, while superficially appealing, ignores the broader context. The presidency is not a personal entitlement but a public trust.
The notion that Zambia’s stability hinges on one individual’s political ambitions is both dangerous and deeply flawed. Moreover, the threats of unrest from Mr. Lungu’s camp if he is barred from contesting are a direct challenge to the rule of law. Such rhetoric sets a dangerous precedent where political blackmail supersedes constitutionalism.
The judiciary must rise above these pressures and prioritize the nation’s long-term stability over short-term political considerations. Correcting the mistakes of the past will undoubtedly be painful, but delaying this reckoning will only compound the damage. The court’s primary allegiance should be to the Constitution and the Zambian people, not to the political elites who wield temporary power.
Mr. Lungu’s presidency was marked by significant controversy, from the brutal suppression of dissent to widespread allegations of corruption. His tenure exemplified the dangers of concentrating power in the executive.
The failed attempt to amend the Constitution through Bill 10, which sought to entrench presidential authority, was a stark reminder of the risks of unchecked power. Zambia cannot afford to return to this era of democratic backsliding.
If Mr. Lungu genuinely cares about Zambia’s future, he should step aside and allow new leaders to emerge. His insistence on returning to power not only deepens political divisions but also distracts from the urgent task of addressing the nation’s pressing challenges, including economic recovery and social cohesion.
Leadership is not about clinging to power; it is about fostering a legacy that transcends personal ambition. Mr. Lungu has an opportunity to play a constructive role as a mentor and advisor, guiding the next generation of leaders.
The December 10 ruling is not merely a legal determination; it is a litmus test for Zambia’s democracy. The judiciary must seize this moment to reaffirm its independence and restore public confidence.
The stakes are too high for business as usual. This is a time for courage, for justice, and for putting the nation’s interests above all else. Zambia deserves better than the perpetual cycle of political manipulation and judicial complicity. It is time to break free.”
An objective analysis of the Judiciary. For too long, it has pandered to political whims and this was most evident during PF misrule. A good example is when a certain judge (now deceased, if my memory serves me right) made a ruling which incensed the PF and in a shameless display of cowardice, the judge claimed that he was suffering from a bout of malaria when he made the ruling.
Another example is when PF cadres camped outside the Supreme Court grounds to protest the extention of the hearing of the presidential petition. Again the court capitulated.
A perfect example of executive interference in the judiciary, is when Mr. Lungu as then President of the Republic threatened the Judiciary not be adventurous and emulate their Kenyan counterparts during the hearing of his eligibility case (The Kenyan court had just nullified the election of Uhuru Kenyatta and ordered fresh elections). As expected, the Con Court again gave in to executive pressure.
It is time for the Judiciary to correct past mistakes and turn a new page.
1. Better i follow uwabufi than murderer
2. It’s better i follow uwabufi than pompwe, hard cole thief.
3. It’s better i listern to uwabufi than tolerate the gasser – who killed multitudes of peoole because of the same power that he shed countless blood that cries every time in the ground.
Lungu’s interest us not the nation; it is about his personal gain.
Fact of the matter us that he is not Zambian, like it or not. This is a known fact.
Even if the nation was to go into flames, he cares less. Hence this behaviour/conduct.