Why Is Michelo Chizombe, a UPND Surrogate and Ally of President Hakainde, Questioning Former President Dr. Lungu’s Eligibility Despite Clear Constitutional Court Rulings?

0

Why Is Michelo Chizombe, a UPND Surrogate and Ally of President Hakainde, Questioning Former President Dr. Lungu’s Eligibility Despite Clear Constitutional Court Rulings? – Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

The issue of former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s eligibility to run in future elections continues to fuel debate in Zambia. Recently, a well-known UPND surrogate and ally of President Hakainde Hichilema, Michelo Chizombe, raised doubts about Dr. Lungu’s eligibility, despite the Constitutional Court—Zambia’s highest legal authority—ruling on the matter multiple times. These rulings have consistently affirmed Dr. Lungu’s eligibility, yet this ally of the president is challenging the Court’s verdicts.

The question arises: Why does this UPND surrogate persist in questioning Dr. Lungu’s eligibility when the Constitutional Court, the final authority on legal matters, has made its position clear on several occasions?

The Constitutional Court’s Clear Ruling

The Constitutional Court has thoroughly examined this matter, issuing rulings that repeatedly affirm former President Lungu’s eligibility to run for office again. In interpreting the Constitution’s term limit clause, the Court clarified that the two-term limit does not bar Lungu from contesting future elections because he has not served two full terms.

Dr. Lungu’s first term (2015–2016) followed the death of President Michael Sata, during which he served only two years to complete President Sata’s term. A full term is defined as a period of three years or more. Since Dr. Lungu served only two years, that period does not count as a full term.

Thus, former President Edgar Lungu remains eligible to run for another term, according to the Constitutional Court’s clear interpretation of Zambia’s Constitution.

In Whose Interest Is This?

Given the clarity of the Constitutional Court’s rulings, why continue to challenge Dr. Lungu’s eligibility? Is this persistent questioning in the interest of justice, or is it driven by political motivations?

Many citizens have called for Dr. Lungu’s return, especially as public dissatisfaction grows over the performance of the current UPND government. Issues such as economic recovery, high unemployment, and rising living costs have left many questioning the UPND’s leadership.

Continued challenges to the Court’s verdicts risk undermining public confidence in Zambia’s judiciary and legal system. If political interests are allowed to influence legal matters, Zambia’s democracy and the rule of law could be severely compromised. Legal decisions should be based on principles, not political expediency.

By challenging the Court’s decisions, UPND surrogates are setting a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial independence. It opens the door for future governments to disregard judicial rulings selectively, eroding democratic principles.

The December 10th Judgment

As December 10 approaches—the date when a final judgment on this matter is expected—the critical question is whether the Constitutional Court will uphold its previous rulings or succumb to political pressure from the UPND and its supporters. The Court must remain steadfast in its commitment to the law, upholding established precedents and resisting any attempts to influence its decisions for political gain.

Reversing its earlier rulings to appease political interests would set a dangerous precedent. It would suggest that Zambia’s judiciary is vulnerable to political manipulation, diminishing its credibility and independence. Such a move would also send a negative message both domestically and internationally, signaling that Zambia’s judiciary does not uphold the rule of law.

The Global Implications

Zambia’s reputation as a stable democracy could be at stake. A reversal of the Constitutional Court’s decisions under political pressure would suggest that Zambia’s legal system is not independent. This would erode trust in Zambia’s legal processes both within the country and globally.

An impartial and fair judicial system is a cornerstone of democratic governance and international credibility. For Zambia to maintain its standing as a stable democracy, its judiciary must remain independent and uphold the rule of law.

A Call for Respecting Legal Precedents

At this pivotal moment, the UPND must respect the rule of law and the judiciary’s independence. While political debate and differing opinions are natural in any democracy, undermining the legal system for political gain is perilous. The Constitutional Court’s rulings must not be subjected to continuous revision based on political considerations.

Rather than contest settled legal matters, the UPND should focus on addressing the pressing concerns of Zambians—such as prolonged load-shedding, stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, and declining quality of life.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court has ruled multiple times that President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu is eligible to participate in future elections. These rulings have been clear, well-reasoned, and final. It is time for UPND surrogates and political actors to accept the Court’s decisions and redirect their focus to critical national issues.

As December 10 approaches, the Zambian people will closely observe whether the Constitutional Court will uphold its previous rulings or succumb to political pressure. Any reversal would have serious consequences for the judiciary’s credibility and Zambia’s democratic institutions.

Zambia must remain committed to the rule of law, ensuring that political interests do not undermine the fairness and justice of its courts. The integrity of Zambia’s legal system is critical to the nation’s democracy, its people, and its international reputation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here