Watch out for ethnic-regional imbalances in Hichilema’s judicial appointments
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
On 8 August 2025 President Hakainde Hichilema signed into law the Superior Courts Act, which provides for the number of judges of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, Court of Appeal, and the High Court. The new statute repeals and replaces the Superior Courts (Number of Judges) Act of 2016. It provides for thirteen judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice; thirteen judges of the Constitutional Court, including its President and Deputy President; not more than thirty-one judges of the Court of Appeal (this is up from 19 in 2016), including the Judge President and the Deputy; and not more than one hundred judges of the High Court (up from 60 judges in 2016).
There are three broad points I wish to make on this important development.
The first is that I commend President Hichilema for increasing the number of judges at the two busiest levels of our justice system: the High Court and Court of Appeal. A key reason why it takes a long time for cases to be disposed of is because judges are simply overwhelmed. On average, a High Court judge in Lusaka handles about 300 cases a year. This is simply unmanageable and prevents the timely delivery of justice. When one adds the low salaries that judges receive, it is hard to understand why any self-respecting individual would aspire to be a judge under the circumstances.
According to the latest Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Regulations published in May 2025, the current annual basic salary of a judge on the High Court bench is K370, 473.73. Their counterpart on the Court of Appeal receives a basic salary of K388, 997.38 per annum. This means a High Court judge gets about K30, 000 monthly before tax while one on the Court of Appeal receives about K32, 000. This is far less than what politicians in the two other branches of government – parliament and the executive – get.
It is largely because of Zambia’s high rate of unemployment that many people are prepared to take up such low-paying jobs on the thinking that although ‘the salary is low, it is better than nothing’ especially when other conditions of service such as housing allowances are added. And precisely because such individuals join the judiciary for the paycheck, not any commitment to justice, many of them, eager to beef up their income, become susceptible to corruption from a highly corrupt executive that often wants to use judges for its partisan goals.
Judges of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court handle very few cases a year, averaging 20 at most, so I am not concerned about them. Much of the workload that is before the superior courts is handled by the low-staffed High Court and Court of Appeal benches. That is why I am praising Hichilema for increasing the numbers of judges to the two courts by 40 and 12 respectively. In fact, even these additional numbers are not enough, given the volume of work that is before the High Court and Court of Appeal, but the increase marks a good starting point. Instead of fighting to increase the number of members of parliament, Hichilema is better advised to increase the number of judges because they provide a clear and more important service to the people.
The second point is that there is an urgent need to enact a law that provides for a transparent system that would result in merit-based identification, interviews, and appointment of potential judges. The increase in the numbers alone is not enough. It needs to be supported by other measures. In addition to an unmanageable caseload and poor conditions of service, another factor that contributes to poor and late delivery of justice is the sheer incompetence of some of our judges. However, we will not solve the problem of corruption and incompetence in the judiciary if people who end up as judges are not appointed on merit. Even before Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and President Hichilema move to fill up the created vacancies in the judiciary, it is important to enact an Act of Parliament that would provide for a competitive, merit-based, and transparent system of appointing judges. This should involve advertising vacancies, publishing the names of both unsuccessful and shortlisted candidates, and conducting interviews before a properly reconstituted JSC which should include the Chief Justice.
Presently, everything is done in secrecy and in a manner that overly concentrates power in the presidency. Judges are currently appointed by the President on the recommendation of the JSC, but members of this body are themselves appointed by the President subject to ratification by a generally pliant parliament through a simple majority. No one knows the criteria that the JSC uses to identify judges. People just wake up to news that so and so has been appointed to this or that court without any knowledge of how the affected individuals were identified. Right now, the appointment of judges operates like an admission to a secret society. What is needed is to create legislation that will provide for a very clear process of appointing judges in a transparent, competitive, and open manner.
As earlier stated, let there be adverts calling for interested candidates to apply for positions in the judiciary so that anyone interested and meeting the outlined requisite qualifications is free to apply and become a judge. The JSC, whose members should not be appointed by the president, will then hold open and even televised interviews with the shortlisted candidates. Members of the public should be free to give evidence-driven testimony against any shortlisted person whom they think lacks the integrity to serve as a judge. This manner of proceeding would ensure that those who end up as judges in our superior courts do so not because they know someone in the corridors of power but are qualified, competent, and impartial individuals with demonstrable experience, intimate knowledge and understanding of the law and who possess proven levels of integrity.
The incompetence that we see in our judiciary today is not accidental; it is the result of the lack of a transparent and open mechanism of appointing judges. A key reason why I voted for Hichilema in the 2021 election was that I had hoped that he would change this undesirable status quo where judges are appointed in a secretive way that does not foster transparency. After all, he had promised to create such a mechanism when he was in opposition. But after winning power, the President has reneged on his campaign promise, as he has done on so many others, and has used the same rotten system that his predecessors relied upon to appoint judges.
The problem, in my view, is not just the lack of capacity in the individuals appointed to these roles; it is the inadequacies of a system that allows such individuals to end up as judges in the first place. Unless the current system is changed, the next crop of appointments to superior courts risks including several dishonourable magistrates, mainly those in Lusaka, who have been making a truckload of such questionable judgements in favour of the executive that one would be forgiven for thinking that they have been promised appointments to the High Court if they secure the interests of those in power.
The third and final point is the need to ensure regional, gender, youth, and equitable representation of persons with disabilities in the appointment of judges. This would promote inclusion and national unity and prevent accusations and perceptions that the President is packing the courts with individuals who predominantly come from one region. The good thing is that there already exists a law in place for this measure. All that is required is for the President to comply with it.
Article 259 of Zambia’s Constitution provides that “Where a person is empowered to make a nomination or an appointment to a public office, that person shall ensure — (a) that the person being nominated or appointed has the requisite qualification to discharge the functions of the office, as prescribed or specified in public office circulars or establishment registers; (b) that fifty percent of each gender is nominated or appointed from the total available positions, unless it is not practicable to do so; and (c) equitable representation of the youth and persons with disabilities, where these qualify for nomination or appointment.”
The same Article also states that “A person empowered to make a nomination or appointment to a public office shall, where possible, ensure that the nomination or appointment reflects the regional diversity of the people of Zambia.” This means the Constitution itself requires the President to be sensitive to regional representation when making appointments to any public office. Unfortunately, Hichilema has so far not shown much respect for the law.
For instance, in February 2023, the President appointed a total number of 20 judges to various positions in the superior courts. These included Margaret Munalula, Arnold Shilimi, Mudford Mwandenga, Maria Mapani, Kenneth Mulife, Mwiinde Siavwapa, Laston Mwanabo, Mwaka Ngoma Samundengu, Mbile Muwindwa Wina, Vincent S. Siloka, Greenwell Malumani, Mabolobolo Mwananjiti, and Situmbeko Chocho. The rest were Abha Nayah Patel, Yvonne Chembe, Enias Chulu, Obister Musukwa, Anne Malata – Ononuju, Geoffrey Chilufya Mulenga, and Malaro Nyirenda.
Of these 20 appointments, the first thirteen came from only three provinces or one region: Southern, Western, and Northwestern. Such regional imbalances are unlawful and must be avoided in the next set of appointments. If there are 50 vacancies in the judiciary, Hichilema must make sure that those appointed reflect regional, gender, youth, and equitable representation of persons with disabilities in Zambia today. If there is to be any departure from this constitutional principle, there must be compelling grounds.
As the Judicial Service Commission and Hichilema move to fill the numerous vacancies created in the superior courts, I make an earnest appeal to members of the public to remain vigilant and specifically watch out for ethnic-regional imbalances in the distribution of the soon-to-be announced appointments of judges. We owe it to ourselves to build a better, equal, united, just, and fair Zambia in which no citizen feels shut out or excluded from any public opportunities on account of their ethnic identity, region of origin, gender, disability, and where presidents respect the laws that we have set for ourselves. It is possible.
SOURCE: https://x.com/ssishuwa/status/1959638749161402491
Sishua, please shut up. We are tired of your stupidity preacing tribalism.
This forever tribal narrative by Sishuwa is nauseating, to say the least. If I were in Government, I would propose that the Public Service Commission publishes annually, in the public media, all names of Civil Servants by tribe and position, for the Citizens to judge for themselves. That is one transparent way to know the extent of this so called Tribal Cancer. Maybe only UNIP alone had handled tribal balancing better and their record remain unbeaten to date, because in my view, MMD and PF had rotten tribal records, makamaka PF, their record will never be broken and perhaps UPND is playing “Catch Up”. Whatever Party will take over from UPND, when/if that happens next year, that Party is also sharpening its Knives to outperform the UPND in tribal appointments. What a Vicious Circle and Circus! Anyway, it is to be expected: Africans and their Tribal Affiliations and Mentality!!
This is another Mwamba & PF propagandist. No ethics, No integrity, not ashamed and looking for a plashy job. He has displayed his character and he’s no better than the PF and the entire opposition put together. They only have one thing in common, hoping that the opposition is voted in power so they can come and loot the treasury empty as a collective. You will never hear them issue an policies or manifesto.
Thank you Sishuwa! I see your intent in this article is to compel HH and his team to avoid packing the court with people from his region since we shall scrutinize the appointment now. If they already have a list they will now start adding other names and removing others.
In my opinion, regarding the extensive article authored by Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa on equity and fairness in judicial appointments—including those in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and Constitutional Court along with the issue of tribal or regional balance in these appointments, I would appreciate it if Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa had begun by detailing the positions filled by gender, youth, disability, and region to assess the composition before making that unverified statement that could alarm the public.
Furthermore, he ought to have initiated his analysis with a qualitative and quantitative review of the previous PF government’s appointment practices, examining the qualifications, experience, tribal affiliations, and integrity of those appointed. This should have been juxtaposed with the recent appointments made by President Hakainde Hichilema. If the previous appointments were predominantly from one or two regions, what actions should the President have taken?
In all fairness, Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa should recognize the positive changes President Hakainde Hichilema is implementing; he has introduced sanity and fairness in the application and enforcement of the rule of law and governance in Zambia. The PF government had undermined the rule of law and governance systems in the country, and significant efforts to rectify these issues are underway. It appears that despite his education, Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa is grappling with an inferiority complex, failing to grasp reality, and misguiding himself in his advocacy work, similar to many who have misunderstood the UPND government and its policies.
It is essential to give credit where it is warranted and to avoid making unnecessary arguments and unfounded claims merely to appear as if someone is advocating for genuine things yet it is their usual falsehood based on vague and unverified agendas.
Utter nonsense.
VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2026.
Thank you Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa for your well researched article.. Only a hardcore Tribalist will condemn such an Article..And all those Commenting above are ofcourse from the same regions..
We have eyes and can see what is going on in Zambia.
Hakainde’s Executive Misrule…The Misrule of Sacreds, by Sacreds and for Sacreds..The it’s our time ideology in all sectors…and how they boast!
Compromised Democratic Institutions
Moribund Governance Systems
Nellie Mutti ‘s Parliament , iyeee
And indeed Mumba Malila’s Judiciary , iyeee
The Axis will fall on 13th August 2026
This is what am voting on.
I could not agree with you more. Sishuwa has hit the nail on its head. He is a patriot, and he is pointing out that cancer that has been worsened by UPND. There is no reason for Sishuwa to hate his own tribesmen, it is not possible. He just does not agree with the levels of tribalism we are seeing. People should remember that Sishuwa, like myself, campaigned for Hakainde in 2021. We both regret it now.
REJECT TRIBALISM, CORRUPTION AND OPPRESSION.
VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2026.
I am of the same opinion as Knowledge. As the concern is tribal balancing, it would be best to look at what the tribal make -up of the judges was BEFORE HH became president and also now with the appointments HH has made. That would give a good picture as to what tribal balancing should look like. It may well be that in appointing the judges, HH may have been trying to redress a past imbalance. That Sishuwa did not do such an obvious thing in his analysis must surely mean he knows the true picture would not suit his narrative
Dr Shishuwa has not outlined the type of youths he wants to seat on benches of our superior courts. Let him analyse who sat on these benches from Kaunda through to Lungu and tell us what he means by regional balancing of the judiciary. Look at the Chief Justices of Zambia from 1964 to date. Deputies, Supreme Court Judges etc. The regions he alleges of getting appointed are pitifully small. The regions that have been neglected must now get the shares that were denied to them
Dr Sishuwa must learn to extricate himself from bias when discussing other people’s actions. He went through a viva voce to get PhD which was devoid of any biases. Any public discourse must be objective.