SANGWA NOT LEGAL AUTHORITY, HIS LEGAL OPINIONS ARE NOT BINDING – UNZA DON
Zambia is recognized as a common law jurisdiction meaning it’s judicial system is based on English common law and as well as customary law. Our sources of law are the current statutory legislations and judicial declarations.
The Courts are the legally mandated institutions with the authority to interpret our laws. They interpret laws so as to explain or translate the meaning of a word or phrase contained within a statute.
An individual’s interpretation of the law is not authority but merely their own legal opinion. No lawyer has the equivalent authority as the Courts of interpreting the law. Being a State Counsel or Constitutional lawyer like John Sangwa does not give one the Constitutional authority of interpreting the law.
In pushing a Political agenda of the opposition, John Sangwa has embarked on a brutal and ruthless campaign of misleading the masses that President Edgar Chagwa Lungu is not eligible for this year’s elections. Mr. Sangwa is pretending to be defending the Constitution when he is only defending his opinion and that of his pay masters. The arguments he is now bringing out in the public were unsuccessfully argued by him in Court when this matter was taken before the Constitutional Court for interpretation by Dr. Danny Pule, Wright Musoma, Pastor Peter Canda and Robert Mwanza.
The applicants were seeking interpretation of articles 106 and 267, (1) President Edgar Lungu’s tenure and (2) his eligibility for 2021 elections. The Court was uncomfortable with the way the tenure question was phrased because it was personalised by the use of the name “Edgar Chagwa Lungu,” it rephrased it by removing the name Edgar Lungu but the substance of the question remained the same. The Court then ruled that the Presidential term of office that ran from 25th of January, 2015 to 13th September 2016 could not be considered as a full term because it was less than 3 years. Subsequently, the Court ruled that the second question regarding the incumbent’s (Edgar Lungu) eligibility for 2021 elections was otiose or unnecessary to answer because the it had exhaustively defined what a full term was.
As Counsel for the 1st interested party, John Sangwa was present in Court when the law was being interpreted, it’s quite shocking that a lawyer of his caliber, a state counsel for that matter can be the first person playing dumb and ignorant by disrespecting the Court’s interpretation using frivolous claims that the Court did not declare President Edgar Lungu as eligible for 2021 elections. I know for a fact that counting 14 days was a challenge for John Sangwa but I didn’t expect him not to know that President Edgar Lungu was the one in office when the Court ruled that the term that ran from 25th January 2015 to September 13th didn’t amount to a full term hence the arguments that he is not eligible for 2021 elections because he will have served two terms are unsubstantiated and groundless.
To be judged to have held office, one ought to have served a full term which must be at least 3 years, anything less is not a full term and doesn’t amount to holding of office at law. Come August when we will be going to the polls, President Edgar Lungu will be deemed to have served only one term according to article 106 (a) and (b). If John Sangwa is still not clear with the Constitutional Court’s clear interpretation, he is very much free to go and ask the Court for an interpretation because it is his right and he is no longer barred from appearing before the Courts.