REBUTTAL TO EMMANUEL MWAMBA’S REPORT TO THE AFRICA BAR ASSOCIATION (AfBA)

REBUTTAL TO EMMANUEL MWAMBA’S REPORT TO THE AFRICA BAR ASSOCIATION (AfBA)

By Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo -LLB /Political Analyst

Emmanuel Mwamba’s decision to report the Chief Justice of Zambia, Dr. Mumba Malila, to the Africa Bar Association (AfBA) is legally misplaced and constitutionally indefensible, as Zambia is a sovereign state whose justice system is governed strictly by its own Constitution and domestic institutions.

Since independence in 1964, Zambia has consistently resolved political and legal disputes through constitutional democracy, with court decisions, whether favorable or not, accepted as part of the rule of law, without any external body exercising authority over the Judiciary.

Zambia’s constitutional order is unequivocal. Article 1(1) of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 provides that:

“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Zambia & any other written Law , customary law & customary practice that is inconsistent with it’s provisions is void to the extent of the inconsistency.”

This supremacy clause confirms that all matters concerning judicial discipline, accountability, and constitutional interpretation must be handled within Zambia’s legal framework. External bodies, including AfBA, have no authority to override or substitute Zambia’s constitutional institutions.

Judicial independence is guaranteed under Article 118 (1), which states that justice shall be administered in a just manner and shall promote accountability of course without interference. However, independence is not absolute immunity. It is a notorious fact that the Constitution deliberately balances independence with accountability through Articles 219 and 236, which establish the Judicial Service Commission and the judicial complaints Commission for investigating alleged misconduct or incapacity of judges.

These provisions represent the only lawful route for challenging the conduct of any judge, including the Chief Justice in Zambia. Bypassing these mechanisms in favor of AfBA is not a constitutional act but a political maneuver which has short legs.

The Africa Bar Association itself is governed by its own Constitution as a professional and advocacy body whose objectives include the promotion of the rule of law, judicial independence, and human rights across Africa. Its role has historically been limited to issuing statements, conducting trial observations, convening conferences, and engaging in professional dialogue in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

AfBA has never exercised disciplinary authority over a national judiciary, nor has it overturned court judgments. Its jurisdiction is moral and professional, not legal or coercive. Therefore, Mr. Mwamba’s appeal to AfBA cannot produce any binding legal outcome under Zambian law.

Emmanuel Mwamba’s claim that unfavorable judicial outcomes amount to executive collusion misunderstands the doctrine of separation of powers. The courts are constitutionally mandated to interpret the law, including politically sensitive provisions such as Article 106(3) on presidential term limits.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling on presidential eligibility was an exercise of judicial interpretation, not executive interference. It must be understood that disagreement with that interpretation does not transform it into evidence of judicial misconduct.

As a former Ambassador, Mr. Mwamba carries a heightened obligation to act with restraint, patriotism, and respect for Zambia’s constitutional order. Diplomacy is built on respect for institutions and lawful processes, not on exporting political disagreements to foreign platforms.

(C) UPND Media Team