DISCOURSE ANALYSIS_ ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENT LUNGU TO CONTEST 2021 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS NOW ENTERS THE LOGICAL SEMANTICS VERSUS LEXICAL SEMANTICS PHASE
NAREP President Elias Chipimo Jnr. postulates that the President Edgar Lungu, having twice held office, as opposed to having twice served a term of office, cannot stand again for election as President. He argues that the constitutional restriction does not refer to a person ‘serving a term of office’ but a person ‘holding office’.
He argues further that “holding office” is defined as being sworn-in and serving until the next person is sworn-in as President; that in short, if the President resigned his office today, he would have “held office”, even though he would not have served a term of office and that is the critical distinction (https://www.lusakatimes.com/2017/01/14/elias-chipimo-jnr-details-president-lungu-not-eligible-2021-elections/).
After having read the whole article, I must accept that my brother has put up a very interesting thesis. It appears, we have now entered into a phase where we are concerned with matters such as sense, reference and presupposition and on one hand, and on the other hand, we are looking at the implication, and the analysis of words’ meanings, and relations between them. However, overall, this to me that is a healthy discourse that simply has entered a thought-provoking phase of logical semantics and lexical semantics.
My thesis is that Articles 105 and 106 appear to use a number of words, phrases or terms that are used interchangeably. The common phrases or terms that seem to be used interchangeably are: “assume office”; “perform executive functions”; “hold office”; and “serve”. Interpreting them literary may create a constitutional crisis, if one does not already exist.
To argue that “holding office” is different from “assuming office” or “performing executive functions” or “serving” because “holding office” is defined as being sworn-in and serving until the next person is sworn-in as President, if one resigns or dies during the first term of his office, then it means that person has not held office of the President.
For example, it would be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Michael Sata never held the Office of President simply because he did not serve until the next person is sworn-in as President. It could also be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Levy Mwanawasa only held the Office of the President for one term simply because he died, and therefore did not serve until the next person is sworn-in as President.
Either way, President Lungu still qualifies. If “holding office” is defined as “being sworn-in and serving until the next person is sworn-in as President”, then it means he is yet to hold office because no next person has yet been sworn-in as President. He remains the same person sworn-in in 2015 until 2021.
Going by the argument postulated by President Chipimo Jnr, President Lungu is eligible to contest in 2021 because he is yet to serve a term. Such an argument is extremely misleading can serve for “wamuyaya” term provided no next person is sworn-in.
I still hold the view that President Lungu is eligible for the last term in 2021 because:
- Although Article 106(3) prevents a person who has twice held the office of President from standing again for that office, there is an exemption under Article 106(6)(b) that would make President Lungu eligible to run again
- Article 106(6)(b) states that a person who was elected to the office of President shall only be deemed to have served a “term” if he served for three or more year
- President Lungu only served for 18 months and did not therefore complete a “term”Under Article 106(1) of the constitution, a term of office lasts 5 years.
- In any case, we as the Green Party would love to challenge President Lungu because he will be the most vulnerable Presidential candidate if he fails to deliver election promises by 2021.
Please dry that weed before lighting up! You are all crazy and unstable!
This is a healthy and interesting debate for leading minds in the legal and political theater to clear their doubts about the new constitution ahead of 2021. Hope it does not turn into a detraction to national development. The Chagwa administration is facing innumerable challenges as such, it needs support in driving equitable development. Democracy is not all about being political machinists around the clock, but more also being proactive drivers of Socio-economic development. We can choose a balanced act now of political acrobats, constitutionalism and development for the sake of our children. Otherwise, posterity may judge this generation harshly.
So according to this person Lungu can be President for Life because he is the same person and therefore cannot be deemed to be succeeding himself and each and every election going forward. Now we know why ganja remains shunned in our societies!
Where legal jargon and interpretation of constitutional law fails common sense will prevail. Thank you Mr Sinkamba for showing common sense where failed lawyers such as Chipimo have jumped on a bandwagon of complete nonsense -a bandwagon led by as my comrade Terrible would say Donkeys or Dunderheads whose own leader the Hungry Hyena is now going for a 6th term as tribal leader of their United Party for National Dunderheads. Thank you sir!
Your argument in favor of Lungu’s “third term” has been rendered useless by the below, competently argued by Mr Chipimo.
“In order to qualify under Article 106(6)(b), President Lungu would have to have been elected as a result of the person who would immediately have assumed the office of president (following the death of Mr. Sata) being unable to do so. This was not the case. Elections in 2015 were not held because there was no immediate successor eligible to automatically assume the office of president; they were held because the constitution required a fresh presidential election, regardless of availability of a suitable successor.”
This is the worst argument I have heard from an allegedly schooled person.
I have heard more sensible arguments in the chibuku drinking places.
Those of you who are being feed directly or indirectly by Vodiga Rungu, please shut the fark up because your views are biased, aka conflict of interests.
I am tired of these bafiikkala..
Can these empty politicians debate how to reduce poverty, how to create jobs, simply how to improve the standard of living for the people the people they want to lead or end the hunger thy, themselves face? Enough of this ldiotic debate already!
Take note of article 106:
clause 5(b), the Vice-President or the President-elect shall serve
for the unexpired term of office and be deemed, for the purposes of clause (3)—
(a) to have served a full term as President if, at the date on
which the President assumed office, at least three years
remain before the date of the next general election; or
(b) not to have served a term of office as President if, at the
date on which the President assumed office, less than
three years remain before the date of the next general
election.
Now, what does clause (3) say?
3) A person who has twice held office as President is not
eligible for election as President.
The reason why 5(b) is there is to determine whether a term of office was attained in order to ether qualify of disqualify (in clause 3) a person who has served part-term.
Take note that it says for the purpose of clause (3).
Thus if a person has served one full term and one part- term, if that part-term is 3 years or more then he has held office twice, else only the full term is counted.
In this case Lungu has held one part-term, and now, this one which will be full term by 2021. The part-term was less than 3 years (actually less than two years).
Therefore, for the purpose of clause (3), Lungu did not hold office. It was zero. Thus he is just beginning to serve a term now, and FOR PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (3), he has never held Office of President, but just starting to hold office…
106 (3) says anyone who has twice held office is not eligible.
But then, to determine whether someone is legally said to have held office or not 106(5)(b) was made specifically for purpose of 106 clause (3).
Can Chipimo explain what is meant in 106 (5) (b) by the statement ‘FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (3)’
It will be vital for any lawyer to be too quick to speak, because there are risks of credibility with regard to public view once errors are committed. In fact for any profession.
you see, after sparking this needless debate, lungu by now he’s even drinking jameson. He has achieved to divert the real attention of the masses from economical problems to stupid and well-calculated constitutional loopholes
God bless
What is “twice held the office?” Gone in that office two times? Twice sworn in? Twice served a portion of a term?
Pity this clause did not word it as PREVIOUS president. That would have taken care of the actual problem which is mid term deaths and serving out a predecessor’s term.
That way when one serves as new president, regardless whose previous term is being completed, it would be clearer in those circumstances what constitutes a first term if based on the previous president’s assumed office and time until next election.
It would also cater for two deaths or retirement of office during one term without requiring rewording.
In the meantime the wording remains open to manipulation if considered without reference to other relevant sections.
PEOPLE OF ZAMBIA DONT LET YOUR RIGHTS BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. YOU HAVE TO LEARN TO STAND UP AND RESIST CERTAIN THINGS. LOOK AT CONGO THE PEOPLE SAID NO!NO! NO! TO KABILA TRYING TO FORCE HIMSELF ON THE COUNTRY. IN MALAWI THEY ARE INVESTIGATING THE MAIZE SCANDAL AND THE MINISTER IS SUSPENDED WHILE THEY DO IT. MANJE ZAMBIA WE ARE NDWEEE WHILE PEOPLE EAT MASUKU FROM OUR BASKET!
ZAMBIANS ITS TIME WE LEARN TO RESIST BEING TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
STAND UP FOR OURSELVES AND DEMAND BETTER.
LUNGU DOES NOT QUALIFY TO RUN!!!!
THATS OVER FINNISH!!!!!!!!
SINKAMBA YOU ARE WRONG
1) IF ONE RESIGNS THEY REMAIN PRESIDENT UNTIL THE NEXT PERSON (VICE PRESIDENT) IS SWORN IN SO YES THE PERSON RESIGNING REMAINS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE NEXT PERSON IS SWORN IN HENCE DEEMED TO HAVE HELD OFFICE.
2) IN THE EVENT OF DEATH DURING THEIR TENURE A PERSON IS DEEMED TO HAVE SERVED A TERM BUT STILL CONSIDERED TO HAVE HELD OFFICE AND CONTINUE UNTIL EVEN IN DEATH UNTIL THE NEXT PERSON IS SWORN IN. THE PERSON THAT RUNS THE COUNTRY IS CONSIDERED TO PERFORM THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT YET THEY ARE NOT PRESIDENT. THEY ARE MARELY PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT. THATS WHY GUY SCOTT WAS ABLE TO RUN THE COUNTRY. HE WAS NOT PRESIDENT THE LATE SATA WAS UNTIL LUNGU WAS SWORN IN.
Meant to read as” IN THE EVENT OF DEATH A PERSON IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE SERVED A TERM BUT YET WOULD HAVE HELD OFFICE….”
It’s really funny that we should be debating this straight forward issue … ECL is totally eligible to run in 2021 for the simple fact that he was simply finishing MCS’s term and that the 2015 election was a by-election for all intents and purposes. A full term under our constitution is 5 years.
The same legal argument can be made for KK, for instance … and as the only UNIPist left standing, would argue that when the 1990 elections that ushered in the MMD were called for, KK did not need to accept for an immediate election to be held because his 5 year term was due to end in 1992 having won in 1987.
So, if we wanted we would have asked for ECL to serve up to 2020 for him to finish his constitutional first term of 5 years. But that was not the case because a lot of quarters…
Continued …
But that was not the case because a lot of quarters were convinced that ECL would lose 2016.
And while every legal argument could have been made for ECL to remain in power until 2020 having just won in 2015, every other legal argument could have been made to the contrary. So, ECL being a real patriot did not want to put the nation through another crisis, he openly told the nation he would contest 2016.
So, the foregoing is a no-brainer until one has a vested interest in making certain by stating otherwise … at issue is what a real term is. Is it 5 years or shorter unless of course for the sake of incapacity or infamy? If the answer is 5 years, then ECL’s real first term ends in 2021.
The second point at issue is, does finishing off one’s deceased president…
Continued …
The second point at issue is, does finishing off one’s deceased president under the old constitution constitute a term or not. If the answer is it does not, then on both counts, ECL qualifies to contest for his second term. From where I stand, both those two issues are in ECL’s favor and so he does qualify to stand in 2021.
On top of that, I am not even a lawyer but I deal so much with the best legal minds in my daily capacity and having taken a very serious interest so that the same legal minds don’t lead me astray I have studied these things very well.
Having said, I believe that the Constitutional Court will arrive at the same conclusions I have made here and we should not worry about anythings else we should now focus on making sure we move our country…
Continued …
Having said, I believe that the Constitutional Court will arrive at the same conclusions I have made here and we should not worry about anythings else we should now focus on making sure we move our country forward in every sense possible.
It behooves us all to concentrate on these developmental things, for what profit is it for anyone to focus on this minutia with 4 and half years? This includes the President himself … let’s talk about the bigger things. The next time I hear ECL talk about this I want him to say “… my focus right now is to make sure that every smart person in the Zambian Enterprise has clean drinking water, every child has a great education, every mom and dad is not having sleepless nights because they don’t know whether they will leave a better…
Continued …
The next time I hear ECL talk about this I want him to say “… my focus right now is to make sure that every smart person in the Zambian Enterprise has clean drinking water, every child has a great education, every mom and dad is not having sleepless nights because they don’t know whether they will leave a better Zambia for their children than their parents left them, that every college graduate finds a job and that everyone is daily contributing positively towards the our Gross National Product, etc”.
Let’s not worry about tomorrow everyone … tomorrow will take care of itself. Let’s make the most of today and if we all do our best today and follow our hearts and our current laws with pure intentions, tomorrow will take care of itself.
Sinkamba, who are you trying to impress, Lungu has held 2 terms, to mean he can not contest in 2021. use words wisely than trying to mislead people. Zambia is not Congo or Gambia. The man has done his part thank you very much, 2021, we need new blood new people. not even Mutati or Doras will be allowed. We mean Fresh Zambian blood to change the country. Zambia can not move forward with current leadership, they are all failures, who lack business strategies to change our country. Actually lets debate on putting a term to MPs and Ministers. Enough rubbish.
This is a very easy case. It can be interpreted in a way depending on which side one belongs to but since the current President has failed to perform, why doesn’t every body interpret it in such a way that he is eliminated from standing so that it makes our life easy. We all know that once it goes to concourt we will all loose out, his courts will just say he is eligible
You have really made my day ??? and you are right. We don’t expect anything against lungu from the courts. So it’s up to us to determine. This Sinkamba is genuinely high on marijuana. How many MPs does he have by the way?
I don’t believe Sinkamba wrote all that nonsense… Sinkamba thinks better than most drunken
you are very very right we cant trust the courts going by what we have seen so far,but Sinkambas re-battle to Chipimos challenge is lame to say the least…
This makes sense. I hope the constitutional court takes note of your very wise and prudent advice
Take note of article 106:
clause 5(b), the Vice-President or the President-elect shall serve
for the unexpired term of office and be deemed, for the purposes of clause (3)—
(a) to have served a full term as President if, at the date on
which the President assumed office, at least three years
remain before the date of the next general election; or
(b) not to have served a term of office as President if, at the
date on which the President assumed office, less than
three years remain before the date of the next general
election.
Now, what does clause (3) say?
3) A person who has twice held office as President is not
eligible for election as President.
“Office” here means a “term” and the “term” according to our Constitution is a period of 5 years. So a person who has…
What substance is Sinkamba now mixing with his marijuana? He seems to have completely lost his marbles.
This thesis is porous. Mr PS should have opted to keep quiet because his argument doesn’t in anyway destroy Mr EC Jr’s evidence. When a fool keeps quiet, he is deemed to be wise. In a bid to make himself relevant,he has exposed his ignoble. Chagwa is a claiming he doesn’t have. The new constitution started wen he was already serving his first term hence he seems confused to think that is not part of the new constitutional. DON’T DRINK & RULE!
Zambians zambians is this really a subject please ignore it we hold the key to employing a president let’s wait and see how he performs simple.
I think you are underestimating how difficult it is to dislodge an incumbant candidate , even a bad one. It is not as simplistic as you put it. No doubt Obama would have beaten Donald Trump hands down, that is the issue. Case of Devil you better than one you don’t.
Bemba man: I am with you and that is exactly what ECL said: God willing and if the people of Zambia want me to stand I will stand. By the way is it possible for someone to serve in any position without holding that position. These Lawyers are confusing me honestly. Chipimo says “holding office” is different to “serving office”. I mean how can you serve without first holding that particular office. I thought holding the office precedes serving in that office. Law te yanaba zoona
Bemba man: I am with you and that is exactly what ECL said: God willing and if the people of Zambia want me to stand I will stand. By the way is it possible for someone to serve in any position without holding that position. These Lawyers are confusing me honestly. Chipimo says “holding office” is different to “serving office”. I mean how can you serve without first holding that particular office. I thought holding the office precedes serving in that office. Law te yabana zoona
Obviously Sinamba’s association with the herb will bring a lot of Argumentum ad Hominem comments against him, but he should be heard without being subjected to a Weed filter.
Having said that I find his reasoning very dismissive. There a a Blogger on the Chipimo thread comment number 45.1 to 45.5 going by the name of Peace for Zambia who has put up another excellent semantic on this issue. Essentially he says that Article 5(b) which Chipimo used to great effect exists FOR PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (3) and that Chipimo is misquided and I think he makes a lot of sense to me.
I think there is a reason why LAZ has sat on the fence on this issue. It is not as straingt forward as either side of the issue want to make it seem.
Somebody please, NGOs or the two Rich Political Billionaires,…
Somebody please, NGOs or the two Rich Political Billionaires take this issue to the constitutional court. That was the reason the constitution court was setup for such matters as these. In fact this is where LAZ need to offer free services, since I hear people say that they are scared to go to Concourt because they could loose with huge costs. LAZ should help here with Pro Bono services to those wanting to taking this issue to the constitutional court.
Any voice to this issue now is useless, we want the concourt voicce, although I eagerly await for General Godfrey Miyanda’s view point. He always has a way of dropping a nuclear bomb onto a discussion at the last minute. Am sure he is busy manufacturing one.
am also waiting on the good General,for somebody who never studied law formally he can teach one or two of these so called lawyers,no wonder KK could not pin him down..
5 @MMD CHIEF BOOTLICKER at 07.07 am and @5.1 at 07.02: I have no nuclear bomb instead I have spotted a Smoke Bomb – so that is my next posting. Enjoy/// By the way, I support President Elias Chipimo’s conclusions; as presented no one has discredited them, so they remain unassailable///
@5.2 – The General is confused — he laughed that ECL assented to the Constitutional Bill blindly — now ECL is laughing all the way to State House!!!!!
You haven’t responded to Chipimo argument. Chipimo still has the strongest argument.
There is nothing sensible Mr. Ganjaman has said. If anything, he has just muddled his argument and confused himself. Mr Ganjaman if you and your fellow riff raffs have been paid to parrot such nonsense, better chew the money in silence.
We ask for help from NGO’s but am sure registration under societies act prohibits them from ppbeing involved in politics. Interesting !
Is that the way marijuana works Mr Sinkamba sure????? The next person being sworn in is the president or did you want Ellias Chipimo to say someone who has been sworn in twice? Your argument is the most shallow I have heard over this matter Sir. Kindly be mindful that you are seeking to lead people but with such kind of day time misleading, its not hard to see where your political career will end up-in the dust bin.
English is not our first language.
But in simple explanation, Lungu is no eligible to stand in 2021.
But even if he was eligible and the constitution genuinely allowed him, let’s still find a way to legally stop him some how otherwise mealie meal will go to a thousand kwacha
You can debate consitution until you are blue or wait to see how lungu performs until the chickens come home, that fraud convict lungu you have in state house ain’t going nowhere.
He will rule zambia for the next 20 years his health allowing. He was allowed already to interprete the consitution his way on using ministers illigally after dissolution of parliament by hordes of theives dancing dunning reverse.
Now just accept lungu for life.
Let’s just have a Constitution Interpretation Day of Prayer…
@2 Maboshe & Feebene, now yours is a practical demonstration that what I call Donkey thinking exists and is widespread among our UPND friends. What do you mean by “us”, “we” or “our life”? You have just seen that there are strong and credible arguments against Chipimo’s and yet you imagine that the same people will rally behind you? Hiho hiho hiho indeed.
And who says that His Excellent Lungu has failed to perform? Yes like any earthly government there are hitches here and there but in general I and many others think that we are on the right track as a country.
What we have in power is a human being and we are content with that as long as he seeks guidance from fellow citizens and most importantly from God, unlike UPND who would like us to believe that they can give us two…
Contd…they can give us two tenderpreneurs disguised as angels from heaven. Haven’t you heard? That GBM is in court again this time pursuing past tenders at Zesco. Timely reminder about the persons seeking to lead Zambia.
@ TERRIBLE STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST CHIPIMO? STRONG HOW?
1) NEXT PERSON BEING SWORN IN DOES NOT MEAN “DIFFERENT” PERSON. YOU COULD HAVE THE SAME PERSON BEING SWORN IN AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESIDENCY THAT IS CONSIDERED HOLDING OFFICE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.
2) IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OF A PRESIDENT THE PERSON THAT TOOK OVER MARELY PERFORMED FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT UNTIL THE NEXT PERSON WAS SWORN IN.
NOW PLEASE TELL US STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST CHIPIMO? STRONG HOW?
Very dull argument this man makes. We gave you a legal argument based on the constitution. Anyway we don’t care whether he stands or not because I know he is not very well . We just hope he resigns and doesn’t cost us millions in state funeral
I don’t see how the Constitutional court can play a role here. They are not an advisory bureau but an arbiter when one party is deemed by another to have broken the law. Otherwise it would be taking sides. If one threatens to kill someone the offence is threatening violence not carrying out murder or manslaughter, and the courts will rule accordingly. Similarly if one declares his intention to stand for president again, what is the offence before Concourt? None until that person actually tries to or does file in his nomination. That is why UPND has threatened mass demonstrations and not a legal suit, we all know how much they love the courts and how much money they have for lawyers.
So Zambians, both donkeys and the rest, you are free to debate as you like. But at the moment the…
@Terrible you are always comparing party politics and national politics,in Zambia who ever pays the piper calls the tune at Party level, that’s why you see all these happenings or lack of in FDD,UPND even in PF Sata was head from the time he formed PF till he became President. so at party level 2 things are at play money and ability to organise, look at ECL after winning the PF “nomination” it was RBs financial muscle and connections that secured the Presidency,if it was not for RB I think we will be writing about something else
Contd…
But at the moment the declaration of eligibility by His Excellent is for his own party and not for UPNDonkeys although it sends a chill down the spine of their six-term president.
In FDD its members have sued Nawakwi for attempting to change their constitution and go for a third term. The matter is properly before the courts because they are preparing for a convention. On the other hand, despite similar term limits in the UPNDonkey constitution, their leader has actually overstayed his original mandate and no donkey is suing him for that.
Those who seeks justice must go with clean hands, that is the answer which the courts would give HH if he were to sue His Excellent Chagwa Lungu. To state that he remains president of UPNDonkeys because GBM says so is no legal defence, it is just a typical donkey argument because GBM is not a UPNDonkey convention.
Why are you so worried about HH staying on as UPND president ?
Could it be to do with the fact that fraud convict lungu spent 10 billion on development, had to use ministers, ZP, ZAF and the army to campain for him yet still had to rig…even the Malawi gate scandal lungu had to steal funds to fight the mighty HH.
Lungu will have to borrow another 10 billion to rig and beat HH again in 2021….
….its still not too late for Sinkamba or is it Chikamba to withdraw this article and we shall assume he never disgraced himself to this level….
…the title of the article is contrary to what the article is articulating…
Take note of article 106:
clause 5(b), the Vice-President or the President-elect shall serve
for the unexpired term of office and be deemed, for the purposes of clause (3)—
(a) to have served a full term as President if, at the date on
which the President assumed office, at least three years
remain before the date of the next general election; or
(b) not to have served a term of office as President if, at the
date on which the President assumed office, less than
three years remain before the date of the next general
election.
Now, what does clause (3) say?
3) A person who has twice held office as President is not
eligible for election as President.
The reason why 5(b) is there is to determine whether a term of office was attained in order to ether qualify of disqualify (in clause 3) a person who has served part-term.
Take note that it says for the purpose of clause (3).
Thus if a person has served one full term and one part- term, if that part-term is 3 years or more then he has held office twice, else only the full term is counted.
In this case Lungu has held one part-term, and now, this one which will be full term by 2021. The part-term was less than 3 years (actually less than two years).
Therefore, for the purpose of clause (3), Lungu did not hold office. It was zero. Thus he is just beginning to serve a term now, and FOR PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (3), he has never held Office of President, but just starting to hold office…
106 (3) says anyone who has twice held office is not eligible.
But then, to determine whether someone is legally said to have held office or not 106(5)(b) was made specifically for purpose of 106 clause (3).
Can Chipimo explain what is meant in 106 (5) (b) by the statement ‘FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (3)’
It will be vital for any lawyer to be too quick to speak, because there are risks of credibility with regard to public view once errors are committed. In fact for any profession.
Terrible apparently you are intelligent, my reading of the article is about the eligibilty of HE ECL maybe i missed the bit about political parties.. oh does the Zambian Constitution on the eligibilty of president to hold office for 3 terms as President ofZAMBIA apply to political parties..TERRIBLE TERRIBLE only donkeys wear blinkers
Terrible terrible, the question of eligibilty for HE ECL is not a party issue but a national issue.. Please think of Zambia as a nation not just your political point of view. Too many people use this forum for projecting their own bias rather than having CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue for the better of Zambia. One Zambia One Nation One People
I agree with Peter Sinkamba on this one. To argue that “holding office” is defined as “being sworn-in and serving until the next person is sworn-in as President”, is obviously misleading. For such an argument to hold water, then five conditions must be satisfied for one to be said to have “held office”.
The first condition that must be met is that the person must be sworn-in. The second condition is that he must serve. The third condition is that there must be a next person. The fourth condition is that the fourth condition must be elected and declared as a President-Elect. The fifth and last condition is the President must serve until the next person or in other words called the President-Elect is also sworn-in. If any one of these conditions is not satisfied, then that President…
If any one of these conditions is not satisfied, then that President cannot be said to have “held office”.
Chipimo’s argument is flawed in that if one resigns or dies during the first term of his office, then that President cannot be said to have “held office” of the President, for he would not have met four other conditions. For example, it would be grossly erroneous, under lexical semantics, to argue that the Late President Michael Sata “held Office” of President simply because he did not serve until the next person is sworn-in as President. It could also be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Levy Mwanawasa “held Office” of the President for one term or never held office at all simply because he died, and therefore did not serve until the next person is…
is sworn-in as President. It could also be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Levy Mwanawasa “held Office” of the President for one term or never held office at all simply because he died, and therefore did not serve until the next person is sworn-in as President.
If argued from lexical semantics point of view, then it appears to me that President Lungu qualifies to contest in 2021. If “holding office” is defined as “being sworn-in and serving until the next person is sworn-in as President”, then it means President Lungu is yet to hold office because no next person has yet been sworn-in as President after he himself was sworn-in as President. He remains the same person sworn-in in 2015 until 2021.
Article 106 (6) talks about the Vice-President ASSUMING the office of President, or a person is elected to the office of President as a result of an election held SERVING for the unexpired term of office and be deemed, for the purposes of clause (3)—
(a) to have served a full term as President if, at the date on which the President ASSUMED OFFICE, at least three years remain before the date of the next general election; or
(b) not to have served a term of office as President if, at the date on which the President ASSUMED OFFICE, less than three years remain before the date of the next general election.
Now the question to Chipimo is: Is ASSUMING OFFICE the same as HOLDING OFFICE?
Alternatively, is SERVING the unexpired term the same as HOLDING OFFICE?
Zambia in the Sun. As you said semantics…. your own justifications are semantics also..
When Chipimo argues that the constitutional restriction does not refer to a person ‘serving a term of office’ but a person ‘holding office’, he is in fact arguing from a premise of semantics.
For from a premise of logic, a person ‘serving a term of office’ is actually ‘holding office’. How does one serve a term of office if he or she does not ‘hold the office’ for which he is serving a term?
It seems to me this is Sinkamba’s point of departure, and why I agree with him
The only honest president in Africa is Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe, this is according to BBC. He’s not put restrictions on his term because he doesn’t want to have such arguments like the one here. It distracts you from “serious ” issues like the impending invasion of red locusts
Sinkamba has not even understood the interpretation of Chipimo.he is saying certain things the learned lawyer has not said.Even people who don’t know anything about law are interpreting the constitution
Mukuka@30 Sinkamba is just quoting the conclusion of the article by Chipimo where Chipimo says constitutional restriction does not refer to a person ‘serving a term of office’ but a person ‘holding office’….. A constitution is not made by lawyers. It is made by ordinary people. The lawyers only change the views of the people who submit to legal lunguage. So an ordinary person, like Sinkamba knows exactly what was submitted to the constitutional commission and explains according to the it was submitted. That is why even the constitutional court makes reference to the views of the people as contained in the constitutional report if the interpretation by lawyers is vague
It could also be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Levy Mwanawasa only held the Office of the President for one term simply because he died, and therefore did not serve until the next person is sworn-in as President.
Yes it could be erroneous. We all know he served one and a fraction of his term
So, Sinkamba is right. “Holding of office’ and ‘serving the term of office’ is one and the same thing put differently
@ zambia under the sun.NO SINKAMBA IS WRONG HOLDING OFFICE IS BROADER THAN SERVING A TERM. YOU CAN HOLD OFFICE FOR LESS THAN A TERM. SERVING A TERM IS HOLDING OFFICE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS OR MORE.
Mr Sinkamba has written his line of thinking in a hollow and empty way. Please understand law not marijuana… Anyway what’s special about Lungu? The biggest Army Worm Zambia had ever had..
assuming Lungu is eligible, what does e have to show for even wanting to run – please stop this nonsense
The question is what is the maximum number of years an individual person can serve as President in Zambia. Us it ten years or thirteen years? I aver that at least the spirit of the Law is targeted to ten years only, for obvious reasons! The ten years is a limiting factor for Lungu and his minions who sneaked in the three years inclusion Clause for Lungu. Lungu must satisfy all the qualifying criteria without exception in order to qualify – whether written or unwritten! The Law was and should not be written to suit an individual.
Solution: this part of an equivocal part of the Constitution be reversed during the proposed Constitution Amendment process to remove the ambinguity introduced by PF at the last minute to accomodate their Leader, against the wishes of the People.
to me every thing is useless as far as this saga is concerned , it useless all together MY PRESIDENT should just use wisdom and step down in 2021 and leave the game to others period unlike where he has start unnecessary debates for the ordinary zambian pipo yet we need food on our table development through out zambia
From my understanding of Article 105 and 106, in the current form, the maximum a president can serve is 13 years not 10. Indeed, the maximum should be 10 years, though a Vice President who runs to two terms as VP can go up to 20 years within the corridors of presidency…….I mean 20 years! No one seem to be bothered now until one day it happens, and then you start making noise when you could have put in a remedy to it long time ago. This is Zambia for you
Comment:what does UPND constitution says about about a candidate who have lost 5 or 6 times consecutive because in pf one mast steep down and the party mast hold a convention to elect new leaders.
I really struggled to read this and make sense out of it. I think it was rushed out of the door without even proof read to correct simple grammatical errors.
I can’t believe the author thinks that ‘next person’ sworn in mean it has to be a different person from Mr Lungu… Oh dear! His use of dead people to argue is flawed too. By the way, I thought Mr Chipimo used the definition of ‘holding office’ from the constitution itself.
I too can’t wait to hear BG Godfrey Miyanda’s take on this issue.
But I reckon this is just a ploy by Mr Lungu to divert people from his alleged illegitimate presidency and the Malawi Maizegate.
I have just checked the constitution. ‘Hold office’ is used in relation to President-Elect after he’she is sworn-in. ‘Assume office’ is used in relation to the person who is elected after a vacancy in the presidency; ‘perform executive functions is used in relation to the speaker when he/she temporarily takes over’; ‘all these are derived from Articles 105 and 106 of the Constitution. The question is: did Lungu “hold office” or “assume office” for the period 2015 to 2016? Read Articles 105 and 106 in relation to the person who is elected when a vacancy falls in the presidency, and neither the Speaker nor the Vice President take over.
Sinkamba is right. It all semantics
Bola naikosa………………………………………….
Elias Chipimo Jr explanation is lucid to the point and unassailable. It is evident though that some Zambians do not understand/misunderstand our constitution and its clauses. The advice in advanced democracies is to seek legal advice than displaying and posturing with ignorance to the public through blogging as evidenced @Terrible.
Reply
Morality is at stake here. When I was watching Barrack Obama’s Farewell Address to Chicago supporters, you could hear people in the back ground shouting; ‘Four more years, Four more years!’ With a smile on his face He came out bluntly saying; ‘I can’t do that’. The American constitution would not allow that at all. I guess the electorate had seen good results in the way Obama worked to fulfill his campaign promises despite the Republicans standing in his way.
Similarly, You can only stay part of a Team’s first selection if you deserve that owing to your contribution.
Zimbabwe representing southern Africa very well at Afcon
SOME PEOPLE ARE SO AFRAID OF ECL TO THE EXTENT OF PISSING IN THEIR PANTS WHEN THEY HEAR THAT HE WANTS TO STAND AGAIN. SURELY IF ECL IS UNPOPULAR, AND A CHAKOLWA AS SOME OF YOU CLAIM WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF HIM? THE MAN HAS SIMPLY EXPRESSED HIS INTENTION, WHICH MAY EVEN BE OVERRULED BY THE CON COURT. OH, I THINK ECL IS THE ONLY GIANT IN THE ROOM.
@chisenga NO ONE IS AFRAID OF LUNGU. WHAT PEOPLE DON’T WANT IS TO SET THE WRONG PRECEDENT. ZAMBIA WILL EXIST LONGER THAN ALL OF US AND WHAT WE DO AND ALLOW NOW WE SET STANDARDS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE
“LUNGU IS NOT ELIGIBLE “!!!
In short someone who has been sworn in twice, like Guy Scot was president we can not say he has held but served as President, even Chagwa himself served as President when Sata was still alive but we don’t count that time. But from the time he accented the constitution in January he had instruments of power and now he has instruments of power. That is why there is no presidential portrait for Guy Scot in Zambia because he just served for a short period and was not sworn in as President.
UPND is the worst opposition party Zambia has ever had. MMD tried once in 1991 and won the election.
PF three times and won. But these, 7 times from the time of Mazoka they have never won a single election. Go back to the drawing board. Your leader is famous but not popular. This political party is just good at insulting and not marketing itself. “You are truly butto.cks who will never suddenly find themselves in front”. the late LP Mwanawasa sc. MISRIP.
Peter Sinkamba is now smoking what he preaches. Chipimo put a convincing argument.
Firstly, Let domeone tell this Sinkamba that it’s ok for people even in old age to wear teeth braces, no need thus to have teeth all over the place in typical warthog pig style like that. Secondly, his reasoning is wholly vexatious, it’s shameful. People must know when to shut the f**k up!
It’s too earlier to discuss this issue Zambians needs developments
Can one interpret the constitution in retrogression? The constitution that brought in Lungu didn’t have all these provisions. I hope Lungu didn’t assent to the constitution trying to fix his term issues with a view of 2021!!!
Ba Peter why are you succumbing to this cheap debate?? Bring up concrete debates and checks on issues such as KCM polluting Chingola, energy crisis in Zambia etc.. Before you know it, you will be popular! People are suffering you foo1s!
EDGAR is standing whether u like it or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please can one explain do we read the constitution back wards or forward? I ask because 106(3) is first then 106(5) (b) comes last which clarifies 106(3). this is not the first time people are misleading themselves, even in the issue of within 14 days they were doing the same starting with the big number them come backwards. Pls. first things first just as when you are born you can not be a baby after you are a grown up.
Peter Sinkamba is not arguing based on the principle of the law but trying to re-analysed what Elias has wirtten.
Sinkamba’s analysis is the worst I have come across from a person aspiring to lead this country.Even if he were right, of which he is not, the lay out and presentation of his argument leaves much to be desired. Chipimo’s argument was sound and he made a lot of reference to the constitution every time he was trying to prove his point. It would seem to me that Sinkamba is, either naive or simply ignorant of the law and he was trying very hard to save face and maybe to lobby something from Lungu. The whole of this garbage was hastily written and one can not make any sense out of it. Take your time next time and do research before you write on the next subject vexing you sir.
My logic is Lungu was first elected and sworn in under the last constitution, this counted as one term regardless of duration. Laws under the past constitution still hold, it doesn’t automatically become a clean slate because we are under a new constitution. If you follow this logic deputy ministers ceased to exist the moment Lungu assented to this constitution but we all know what happen. Lets not cherry pick interpretation of the law to suit an individual.
Its very clear, that President Lungu is eligible. It comes down to the length of a term. The decision to run again, will be decided by the new constitution which cannot be applied backwards.
In any case the popular vote is his.
I find the whole debate boring and an exercise in futility. Its as productive as debating whether masterbating is to be considered a sex act if it doesn’t lead to conception.
What use the presidency when all that it will be used for is to support high level graft, theft, corruption and misapplication of national resources.
What use is it to decide if a thug should shoot you in head with an anti aircraft gun or tie four grenades to your neck and pull the pins or stab you in the heart?
I have no faith in the Zambian presidency, the parliament and the judiciary. I have no faith in Zambia.
Why worry about who will rape you next?