36 Views

…Uphold the Constitution or Bow to Political Pressure?

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

On December 10, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Zambia will ship a extremely anticipated judgment that might form the nation’s democratic future. The resolution revolves across the eligibility of former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu to contest future elections. Among the Constitutional Court judges on the heart of this historic ruling is Hon. Mr. Justice Arnold Mweetwa Shilimi, Deputy President of the Constitutional Court, who is claimed to have shut ties to President Hakainde Hichilema. His credibility and constancy to the Constitution at the moment are below scrutiny.

The Background of the Case

This isn’t the primary time the Constitutional Court has deliberated on Dr. Lungu’s eligibility. On greater than three events, the court docket—Zambia’s closing arbiter of constitutional interpretation—has dominated that the 2 years Dr. Lungu served after the passing of President Michael Sata don’t represent a full presidential time period. The court docket has persistently affirmed that Article 106(6)(b) of the Constitution is obvious: a time period served for lower than three years doesn’t depend as a full time period.

These rulings collectively established that Dr. Lungu, having solely served one full time period between 2016 and 2021, stays eligible to contest one other time period. The Constitutional Court has thus already set a agency precedent, rooted in constitutional provisions, that should information this newest deliberation.

The Question of Political Influence

Yet, regardless of the court docket’s constant rulings, the matter has resurfaced, spearheaded by Mr. Chizombe Michelo—a recognized ally of President Hichilema and the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND). This improvement has fueled hypothesis about undue political affect within the judiciary, significantly since no new proof has been offered to justify reopening the case. Zambia’s authorized framework calls for contemporary and compelling proof to revisit beforehand settled issues. The absence of such proof raises the query: Why is that this case being heard once more?

Many Zambians, significantly these calling for the return of Dr. Lungu after realizing that the UPND authorities has did not ship on its guarantees, concern that revisiting this difficulty is an try and undermine Dr. Lungu’s eligibility via judicial means, thus tilting the political panorama in favor of the ruling get together.

If the court docket reverses its earlier rulings below political stress, it might characterize a direct menace to the sanctity of Zambia’s judicial system and democratic order.

Justice Shilimi’s Role Under Intense Scrutiny

Hon. Mr. Justice Arnold Mweetwa Shilimi’s place as Deputy President of the Constitutional Court makes him a central determine on this crucial case. However, allegations of his shut relationship with President Hichilema have raised issues about his impartiality. Dr. Lungu formally requested that Justice Shilimi recuse himself from this case, citing allegations that he shares not solely a private friendship but in addition enterprise ties with President Hichilema. Justice Shilimi, nonetheless, has refused to recuse himself, intensifying scrutiny of his impartiality.

These allegations, whether or not true or perceived, are deeply troubling. The judiciary should stay impartial and free from the affect of any political entity. Justice Shilimi’s position on this case is especially delicate as a result of it represents not only a authorized resolution however a referendum on the credibility of Zambia’s judicial system. Any ruling that seems biased would severely undermine public confidence within the judiciary and lift doubts about its capacity to perform as a guardian of the Constitution.

The query now’s whether or not he’ll uphold the ideas enshrined within the Constitution and the precedent established by the court docket, or yield to exterior pressures looking for to overturn these established authorized truths.

This case is a check of judicial independence and the integrity of Zambia’s democratic establishments. By turning in opposition to earlier rulings, Hon. Justice Shilimi dangers undermining the credibility of the court docket and the belief of the Zambian individuals in its impartiality. Consistency isn’t merely a procedural requirement; it’s the basis of justice and the rule of regulation.

A Call to Defend the Constitution

The Zambian individuals demand nothing lower than the very best degree of integrity and independence from their judiciary. Hon. Shilimi should keep in mind that this case is greater than a authorized dedication; it’s a reflection of the judiciary’s dedication to its constitutional mandate.

It is important to emphasise that the Constitutional Court has already dominated a number of instances that Dr. Lungu is eligible to contest future elections. These selections are rooted within the plain language of the Constitution, which stipulates {that a} president who serves lower than three years of a time period can’t be stated to have accomplished a full time period. Had Dr. Lungu served three years or extra throughout his first tenure, he would certainly be ineligible. However, this isn’t the case, and the court docket has persistently upheld this interpretation.

The People Are Watching

This second will outline Hon. Mr. Justice Shilimi’s legacy and his contribution to Zambia’s democratic governance. Will he uphold the Constitution and stay in step with the court docket’s earlier rulings, or will he succumb to political stress that might compromise the judiciary’s integrity?

The nation is watching carefully. Justice Shilimi’s judgment should be guided by constitutional ideas, not private relationships or political affiliations. By delivering a good and neutral ruling, he has the chance to reaffirm the judiciary’s position as a guardian of justice and democracy. Conversely, a call that aligns with political pursuits on the expense of authorized integrity would tarnish his repute and deal a devastating blow to Zambia’s democratic establishments.

The Zambian persons are watching. The judiciary should stand as a bulwark in opposition to political expediency, safeguarding the nation’s democratic values and constitutional order. Hon. Justice Shilimi, the selection is obvious: defend the Constitution and the rule of regulation, or danger eroding the credibility of Zambia’s highest court docket. History will bear in mind this second, and it’ll bear in mind the place you stood.