Zambia’s Judiciary at a Crossroads: The Constitutional Court’s Integrity on Trial
By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma
Zambia’s judiciary, once celebrated as a symbol of fairness and an unwavering defender of the rule of law, now faces a critical test that could irrevocably tarnish its reputation. At the center of this controversy is the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), the nation’s highest judicial authority on constitutional matters, whose decisions are meant to provide finality and clarity in governance. However, the court’s recent decision to revisit the eligibility of former President Edgar Lungu—despite having ruled on the matter multiple times before—has sent shockwaves through the country, raising serious questions about its credibility, consistency, and independence.
How can the ConCourt justify reopening a case that it has already conclusively decided on more than once? What compelling reason exists to revisit settled constitutional matters when no new evidence or legal argument has been presented? Even more alarming is the political context: the appeal is driven by a United Party for National Development (UPND) cadre with close ties to President Hakainde Hichilema. This raises troubling concerns about the court’s integrity and susceptibility to political influence.
The Constitutional Court’s Mandate: A Matter of Finality and Authority
The Constitutional Court is entrusted with upholding the supreme law of the land with finality. Its rulings are supposed to resolve disputes decisively, ensuring legal certainty and political stability. When the ConCourt renders a judgment, that judgment is intended to be the end of the matter. The very principle of judicial finality ensures that the legal system operates with stability, and that the people of Zambia can trust in the impartiality of the law.
Although the ConCourt does have powers to revisit its own decisions in extraordinary circumstances—such as when compelling new evidence is presented or when a significant legal error has occurred—these instances are meant to be rare and exceptional. The ConCourt’s decision to entertain yet another challenge to President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility, in the absence of new evidence or legal reasoning, undermines the very foundation of judicial finality.
This unprecedented move creates a dangerous precedent. If previously resolved cases can be reopened at will, the judiciary risks being seen as politically manipulated, subject to the whims of powerful factions rather than the rule of law. The court’s authority will be seriously compromised, and the public’s trust in the legal system will be shattered.
The Lungu Eligibility Saga: A Test of Judicial Consistency and Integrity
For years, the eligibility of former President Edgar Lungu to contest future elections has been a flashpoint in Zambia’s political discourse. The ConCourt has, on three separate occasions, unequivocally ruled that President Edgar Lungu is eligible to stand for election, affirming that the two years he served following the death of President Michael Sata cannot be considered a full term under the Constitution. These rulings were clear, consistent, and provided a legal foundation on which the electorate and political actors could build.
Yet, in a highly controversial move, the ConCourt has now chosen to revisit this matter. This challenge, launched by a UPND cadre with close ties to President Hakainde Hichilema, is not based on any new evidence or legal argument. It simply rehashes a question that the court has already answered multiple times. The decision to revisit the issue raises serious concerns about the court’s motivations and whether it is bowing to political pressures.
The Dangerous Consequences of Reopening the Case
The ConCourt’s decision to revisit this issue threatens to send the following dangerous messages to the public:
1. Erosion of Judicial Finality
The principle of finality is the cornerstone of any legal system. If the ConCourt can open a case that has already been conclusively decided without new evidence or legal justification, it signals that no ruling is truly conclusive. This fosters uncertainty, not only in the legal system but also in the political sphere. Zambia’s democratic stability is built on the assumption that the judiciary can provide final and binding decisions. The reopening of this case puts that assumption at risk.
2. Perception of Political Interference
The fact that this appeal comes from a political ally of President Hichilema raises grave concerns about the independence of the judiciary. The timing and nature of this challenge suggest that the judiciary may be under political pressure to act in a manner favorable to the ruling party. If the public perceives that the court is acting in the service of political interests, its credibility will be irreparably damaged.
3. Precedent for Endless Litigation
Allowing politically motivated challenges to reopen settled cases without compelling legal justification sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for an endless cycle of litigation, where any decision, regardless of its finality, can be challenged by political actors seeking to overturn unfavorable rulings. This would paralyze the judiciary and create a legal environment ripe for manipulation and abuse.
4. Risk of Contradictory Rulings
The ConCourt’s previous rulings on President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility have been clear and consistent. A reversal of those rulings would not only undermine the consistency of the court’s jurisprudence, but it would also fuel political tensions in a deeply polarized country. It would make it clear that legal decisions can be swayed by political forces, further eroding public trust in the judiciary.
The Absence of Justification: A Breach of Judicial Integrity
There is no justifiable reason for the ConCourt to reopen this case. No new evidence has emerged, and no critical legal error has been identified in its previous rulings. The decision to revisit the issue seems arbitrary and politically motivated. Zambians have every reason to question the integrity of the court if it allows itself to be swayed by political considerations rather than legal principles.
The very foundation of the judiciary rests on its ability to render consistent and impartial decisions. Reopening a case without justification sets a dangerous precedent and risks undermining the public’s trust in the rule of law. The court must act transparently and be held accountable for its decisions.
The Broader Impact on Zambia’s Democracy
The ConCourt’s actions have broader implications that reach beyond this one case. The integrity of Zambia’s judiciary is integral to the health of its democracy. If the public perceives the judiciary as politically compromised, trust in the entire democratic process will erode.
1. Loss of Public Confidence
A judiciary that cannot be relied upon to deliver consistent and impartial decisions creates a dangerous climate of distrust. If the courts are seen as tools of political factions rather than independent arbiters of the law, Zambia’s democracy will be at risk.
2. Increased Political Instability
This case detracts from the pressing national issues that Zambia faces, deepening political divisions and casting a shadow over the electoral process. A judiciary that appears politically compromised risks destabilizing the entire political system.
3. Judicial Exploitation
By opening the door to endless challenges against settled matters, the judiciary exposes itself to exploitation by powerful political interests. This threatens to turn the courts into instruments of political maneuvering, eroding their legitimacy and the rule of law.
A Call for Transparency, Accountability, and Clarity
The ConCourt must provide a clear and compelling explanation for its decision to revisit this case. What new evidence or legal reasoning justifies reopening a matter that has already been resolved multiple times? Without a satisfactory explanation, the public will be left with no choice but to conclude that the court’s actions are politically motivated.
The judiciary must act as a guardian of democracy, upholding the rule of law without fear or favor. It must remain independent and impartial, adhering to the principles of consistency and finality. If the ConCourt fails to do so, it risks compromising the very foundation of Zambia’s democracy.
Conclusion: Defending Judicial Integrity
Zambia’s judiciary stands at a critical crossroads. The ConCourt’s decision to entertain yet another challenge to President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility is not just a legal matter—it is a profound test of the court’s commitment to impartiality, consistency, and the rule of law.
As the December 10 hearing approaches, the ConCourt must act with the utmost caution. The stakes are high, and the consequences of a decision that undermines judicial integrity will be far-reaching. To preserve the credibility of the judiciary and safeguard Zambia’s democratic future, the court must adhere to the principles of consistency, fairness, and finality. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public trust and a grave disservice to the nation.