NO LAW EXISTS TO COMPEL HH TO ABANDON COMMUNITY HOUSE AND LIVE AT PRESIDENTIAL VILLA
In his Petition, the Petitioner alleges that the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, has more than 20
months after assuming office, refused, neglected, declined and ignored to shift from his private residence in New Kasama to Nkwazi House located within the premises of State House along Independence Avenue in Lusaka, while operating from his designated office at State House.
This, according to the Petitioner,
has created a scenario where the President has to commute on an almost daily basis, from his private residence to State House.
The reliefs being sought in the Petition being declaratory in nature, an
Order compelling the President to shift to State House is not tenable.
In any event, there is no law that compels the President to reside at State House.
Conclusion
6.1 We find that in the absence of any constitutional provision or any other law that compels the President to reside at State House, and in light of the Respondent’s submission on the dilapidated state of Nkwazi House requiring high cost of renovations, the alleged constitutional breaches relating to the President’s alleged refusal to shift to State House lacks merit and is misconceived.
We find that the alleged breach relating to the right to life is improperly before this court for want of jurisdiction over Part lll of the Constitution.
Consequently, the Petition is wholly dismissed forthwith for lack of merit.
We make no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Petition is wholly dismissed forthwith for lack of merit.
The Constitutional Court cannot be faulted because it’s a court of law and not a court of good manners and good order. The court cannot make an order where there’s no law. I, however, think that it’s a matter of good political conduct and national pride for a sitting President of the Republic of Zambia to reside at State House. There are commuting costs being incurred needlessly by the state to move HH to State House and back to Community House every day. There’s an issue that can be made out of that.
No you’re wrong buddy. The President has not broken any law. The so called state house was not built for the Zambian President but the governor of Northern Rhodesia. Major Sir Hubert Young was the first occupant in 1935. The house was built in 1935. Even I wouldn’t want to live in a 1935 house. Come on be modern. It was a racist residence. The fact that Kaunda was too old fashioned or plain dull not to see that independence meant even building a new presidential state house!!!! Not the master’s den for crying out loud!!! So in the absence of our own house, where does HH go to stay to save costs of building a multi million dollar house? Community House, Period!!! The running monthly costs of commuting there are minimal baba. Let us be civil in our politicking please.
Thank you but a precedent has been established. In futute, another president will opt to stay in their home village and will be using a helicopter daily to get to state house , hoping we will respect that including the expenses involved.
The Constitutional Court has said no law has been broken and I agree that it is on firm ground with this conclusion. Where there’s no law, the court is always impotent. Where have I been uncivil in my commentary? Is disagreement uncivil? If State House living quaters are in a state of disrepair, is it so bad that no person can reasonably be expected to live there? Let’s have a parliamentary committee look at State House living quarters and report appropriately so that HH is freed from uninformed criticism. Explain what you mean by the current State House being a racist residence. Is a building capable of such feelings?
Ba Wapya Munzi, just eat with them quietly.