Prof Muna Ndulo
Prof Muna Ndulo

By Muna Ndulo

Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School, Cornell University USA, Honorary Professor of Law Universities of Cape Town, Western Cape and Free State, South Africa.

Introduction

I write to support the position of Elias Chipimo and the Law Association of Zambia in their condemnation of President Lungu’s irresponsible attacks on the judiciary.

This attack, I dare say, is yet another frontier in the creeping dictatorship and arrogance of power by the President in Zambia.

This is an epic depiction unbridled ambition for power – reminiscent of the Shakespearean depiction of such characters as Macbeth who are ready to destroy even what they have the constitutional duty to protect so long it helps their appropriation of state powers.

The attack on the judiciary is irresponsible and for a lawyer, it is inconceivable to do so.

Hence, it is my view that this is a deliberate attempt to further undermine the essential foundations of the rule of law and justice in Zambia.

It is particularly puzzling and indeed puerile that a lawyer could equate party regulations for standing for party presidency with constitutional provisions that govern the presidency.

The first is governed by a party document and the other by the grundnorm of the state –the Constitution. It is rather elementary even for those with basic knowledge of civics that “The principle of the separation of powers is the bedrock upon which the requirement of judicial independence and impartiality are founded” (International Commission of Jurists, 2004).

The Judiciary is not a junior partner in the machinery of state because it has full plenitude of powers under the constitution and other statutes to carry out its duties in a democratic society. Its powers are imprescriptible to the extent that they are prescribed by constitutional provisions.

Nothing, even the widest discretionary executive powers can whittle down this independence of the judiciary. It is therefore, sufficiently an erosion of the judicial foundations of democracy for the President to dishonor and make contemptuous threatening remarks about the judiciary.

It is the textbook exemplar of dictatorships – first of all kill all the lawyers, second jail all the opposing voices, declare emergencies and in all these co-opt the judiciary or send the judges to Auschwitz. Does it sound familiar with the catastrophes of dictatorships we have seen before?

Now, was it perhaps the failure of the legal education institutions that have led to this? I doubt. Education is the development of an entire person.

It is the acquisition of skills to view things rationally and with reason, to conduct oneself with civility and integrity and to navigate the world through a knowledge-based lens.

If education was to blame many of us would be complicit having served as law educators for decades.

It is then that I reminded myself of the words of Lord Acton, “That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

President Lungu betrays the judiciary when he implies that the judiciary is independent only when its rulings favor him or the government.

He confirmed this by his warning to the judiciary “not to follow Kenya.”

This is sheer hubris.

His remarks are not only ill-conceived and ignorant but simplistic because they focus on the result and do not seek to understand the jurisprudence of the Kenyan decision and do not enlighten us as to what in his view is wrong legally with the Kenya Supreme Court decision.

Additionally, his understanding of Kenya’s history is at best selective for it is the same Kenyan Supreme Court, and the same Kenyan judges, that decided for Kenyatta in the 2013 election petition.

The emergence of a strong and independent judiciary in Kenya is rooted in its history and willingness to learn from the past.

The absence of an independent judiciary was a critical factor in Kenya’s degeneration into bloody, post-election violence after the December 2007 general elections. That episode taught the Kenyans the importance of an independent judiciary.

As for the Presidents surrogates who immediately went into top gear to attack in the most degenerate manner anybody who criticized Lungu over his remarks, it is best to ignore them.

They should learn the lessons of history; because it is not unusual for those who fete the tiger to become the tiger’s ultimate feast.

These supporters are too blinded by the allure of primordial prejudices to see the grievous harm being done to democracy in Zambia today.

Nothing else can explain the cant and cascading absurdities being mobilized by these hirelings in support of Lungu’s attack on the Judiciary.

I do not know how anyone with average intelligence can interpret what President Lungu said as meaning anything other than threats and intimidation against the Judiciary.

One would have thought that it is better to admit wrongdoing or keep quite than to talk and so reveal your mediocrity and grossly shallow understanding of the issues at hand.

For the avoidance of doubt, threats to hold on to power regardless of the Constitution and court rulings borders on a conspiracy to commit treason.

It violates the oaths of office subscribed to by all public office holders in Zambia including the President. Indeed, treasonable conduct, has always included unconstitutional retention of power.

The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) adopted by the African Union (AU) in 2007 to promote democracy, rule of law and basic human rights declares in article 5 that “state parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure constitutional rule, particularly constitutional transfer of power”.

It defines unconstitutional change of Government in article 3 as; “(a) any refusal by an incumbent government to relinquish power to the winning party or candidate after free, fair and regular elections; or (b) any amendment or revision of the constitution or legal instruments which is an infringement on the principles of democratic change of government.”

In most countries, the Minister of Justice would have sprung to the defense of the judiciary.

Members of the judiciary are not members of the Parliament and cannot therefore defend themselves in Parliament. Judicial ethics do not allow them to speak to the press about judicial matters.

Representing them in Parliament is the task of the Minister of Justice.

Unfortunately, the current Minister of Justice, a non-lawyer, is out of his depth. His naïve and rhetorical comments on the Constitution making process expose his limitations in his understanding of legal issues.

The current speaker of Parliament – though a lawyer has abandoned all pretense to respect for the law and constitutionalism for political opportunism – is unable to guide the Minister.

His behavior eloquently proves the point made by Alexander Hamilton, one of the most prominent of the founders of the US constitution, concerning the supremacy of the US constitution.

Among other things Hamilton said: “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts (I would add Speakers of Parliaments), it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents…..These mast demand long and laborious study, to acquire a competent knowledge of them.

Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society, who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges.

And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge”.

The speaker does not possess the requisite integrity and requisite knowledge. He seems to fit into the category of those representatives who can destroy democracy through their obeisance and subservience to the executive.

I hope Parliamentarians recognize the duty incumbent on them to preserve democracy for the people. The clear abdication of duty seems to have bloated the hubris being orchestrated by the President.

In a democracy a cardinal principle of justice is that no judge, no lawyer and no citizen should be above the law, let alone be beyond the law.

The judiciary in a democracy is central to constitutionalism, the protection of the rule of law and the protection of human rights and freedoms.

It is also an essential check and balance on the other branches of government, ensuring that laws of parliament and acts of the executive comply with the constitution and the rule of law.

As once noted by Alfred Deakin – Australia’s first Attorney-General – “the courts are the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution. Thus, the Australian High Court he noted should be made “a most potent voice.” It was to determine the powers of the Commonwealth, the powers of the states, and the validity of the legislation.” (Ponnambalam, 1998, 38).

Rule of Law and Democratic Governance

The “rule of law” is one of the most important political and legal conceptions in democratic governance.

The concept assumes the existence of inalienable rights and liberties which government should not touch or violate.

It is comprised of the following basic principles: that all state power ought to be exercised under the authority of laws, and that there should be rules of law governing the election and appointment of those who make and execute policy, as well as the manner in which policies are made and executed. It demands, that policies be executed in such a way as to ensure rationality and fairness.

The rule of law connotes the use of state power, through rules of law for the establishment of the economic and social system agreed upon by the people via constitutionally sanctioned representative institutions or other acceptable surrogates.

It calls for governance in accordance with the constitution. All power, whether of Parliament, the executive or the courts, must be exercised in accordance with the constitution, which is the final word on the powers and roles of each branch.

As Nwabueze has observed: “Liberty implies the limitation of power by law and the one institution above all others essential to the preservation of the rule of law has always been and still is an honest, able, learned, and independent judiciary” (Nwabueze, 1993:189).

The maintenance of an independent and accountable judiciary is fundamental to constitutionalism and the protection of human rights.

Integral to the rule of law and constitutionalism is the doctrine of the separation of powers. In democratic states, courts are asked to review government’s acts for compliance with fundamental rights.

Moreover, such a review being at the instance of an individual assures personal participation in government.

In the famous case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall observed: “It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Those who apply the rule of particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret the law. A law repugnant to the constitution is void. Courts as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.”

The courts are the guardians of fundamental rights and provide a forum for public debate so that the exercise of public power by democratically elected persons remains accountable.

Judges’ interpretations of the constitution and other laws support the rule of law and constitutionalism. Only an independent judiciary can effectively review governmental acts and ensure the constitutional guarantee of human rights.

The executive must at all times support the independence of the judiciary.

About a year after Nelson Mandela became President, the Constitutional Court of South Africa heard an urgent application [The Executive Council of Western Cape Legislature and Others v. President of South Africa and Others, Constitutional Court of South Africa, (1995) challenging legislation that purported to confer powers on the President to legislate, which President Mandela did by way of proclamations.

The proclamations dealt with the vital local government elections that were soon to be held. An application was brought on the basis that the legislature may not empower the President to legislate and, to the extent that the President purported to do so, he acted in conflict with the Constitution.

Mr. Mandela was named as one of the respondents. The challenge was successful. The Court held that the provision purporting to empower the President to enact legislation was inconsistent with the constitution; enacting legislation was a function of Parliament and not within the President’s powers.

The Court came to this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that all political parties had agreed that the President should have the power to do what he did.

In a remarkable display of leadership, the same day of the court’s decision, Mr. Mandela rushed to the television and radio stations and declared that, while he had signed the proclamation believing that he had the power to do so, he respected the decision of the constitutional court and appealed to all concerned to similarly accept the court’s decision.

As George Bizos has lamented: “What a pity that many African leaders do not follow this example” (Bizos, 2011).

Some in the Government would argue that the power vested in the judiciary to set aside the laws made by a legislature constitutes a subversion of democracy.

In response, I would draw upon the words of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case involving a challenge to the Presidential appointment of Simelane as head of the South African National Prosecution Authority – Democratic Alliance v. The President of South Africa and Others (2012), (which in turn quoted former Chief Justice Mahomed’s words to the International Commission of Jurists):

That argument is, I think, based on a demonstrable fallacy.

The legislature has no mandate to make a law which transgresses the powers vested in it in terms of the Constitution.

Its mandate is to make only those laws permitted by the constitution and to defer to the judgment of the court, any conflict generated by an enactment challenged on constitutional grounds. If it does make laws which transgress its constitutional mandate or if it refuses to defer to the judgment of the court on any challenge to such laws, it is in breach of its own mandate.

The court has a constitutional right and duty to say so and it protects the very essence of a constitutional democracy when it does. A democratic legislature does not have the option to ignore, defy or subvert the court (Constitutional Court, 2011).

The same observations are valid for the executive branch. It too lacks a mandate beyond that which is granted to it by the constitution. The executive can only do what it is authorized by the constitution to do.

The determination of whether an executive action is constitutional is a judicial matter – in other words, it is a matter constitutionally left to the courts to decide.

Executive actions are, therefore, properly subject to judicial review to determine their compliance with the constitution.

This process of checks and balances among the branches of government supports the rule of law, constitutionalism and democratic governance.

Judicial Independence

It is beyond dispute that to sustain a democracy, an independent, impartial and upright judiciary is an absolute necessity.

Therefore, the constitution, laws and policies of a country must ensure that the justice system is truly independent from other branches of the state.

Judicial independence is recognized in many international and regional human rights instruments as one of the cornerstones of good governance. The principle is also enshrined in all democratic constitutions.

It involves two tenets; (a) judicial power must exist as a power separate from and independent of, executive and legislative power and (b) judicial power must repose in the judiciary as a separate organ of government, composed of persons different from and independent of those who compose the executive and legislature.

As the US Supreme Court observed in O’ Donoghue v. United States (1933):

If it be important to separate the several departments of government and restrict them to the exercise of their appointed powers, it follows as a logical corollary, equally important, that each department should be kept completely independent of the others-independent not in the sense that they shall not co-operate to the common end of carrying into effect the purposes of the constitution, but in the sense that the acts of each shall never be controlled by, or subjected, directly or indirectly, to, the coercive influence of either of the other department .

The principle of the separation of powers was further underscored in the South African Constitutional Court Judgment S. v. Mamabolo (E.T.V. and others intervening) (2001).

In the words of Justice Krigler: “In our constitutional order the judiciary is an independent pillar of the state, constitutionally mandated to exercise the judicial authority of the state fearlessly and impartially under the doctrine of the separation of powers.

It stands on an equal footing with the executive and legislature as pillars of the state.” As Sandra Day O’Connor of the US Supreme Court has similarly observed: “Judicial independence is the vital mechanism that empowers judges to make decisions that may be unpopular but none the less correct” (O’Connor, 2008).

In so doing, the judiciary vindicates the principle that no person, or group, however powerful, is above the law.

An independent judiciary requires both that individual judges are independent in the exercise of their powers, and that the judiciary as a whole is independent from wrongful interference by the other branches of government.

As to the independence of individual judges, there are at least two avenues for securing that independence.

First, judges must be protected from the threat of reprisals, so that fear does not direct their decision-making.

Second, the method by which judges are selected, and the ethical principles imposed upon them, must be constructed so as to minimize the risk of corruption and outside influence.

Thus, the first endeavor is to protect judicial independence from outside threats, and the second is to ensure that judicial authority is not abused and it is the core concern of judicial accountability.

To permit judges to be independent means that they must be left alone by the other judges, including the Chief Justice, to make their own decisions.

Should superior judges disagree with a lower court’s judgment, the appeal process enables the superior courts to have a bite at the case.

Yet independence comes at a price e.g. denial of promotions or transfers to remote duty stations. In spite of such challenges, judges and magistrates must recognize that they are duty bound to provide society with the highest possible standards of service and commitment, and that a failure to maintain this is rightly a matter of public concern.

That means the judiciary and judges must be accountable. Independence does not mean that judges can decide cases according to their personal preference. To the contrary, judges have a right and duty to decide cases before them according to the law, free from fear of reprisals of any kind.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to the rule of law. If judges are to be the independent guarantors of the rule of law values, they must be incorruptible.

Judges are entrusted with ultimate decisions over the life, freedoms, duties, rights, and property of citizens. Judges will never win the respect and trust of citizens if they are subject to corrupt influences.

Whenever a judge makes a decision for personal gain, or to carry favor, or to avoid censure, that judge and that act denigrates the rule of law. Further judicial accountability advances judicial competence.

A fundamental value of the rule of law is that judicial decisions are not made arbitrarily, but through a process of reasoned decision making.

The rule of law requires that decisions be justified in law, and therefore be reasoned, analytical, rational and non-arbitrary with respect to general legal standards. Independence, integrity and competence, then, are the hallmarks of a judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law and they are the principles to which a judiciary should be held accountable.

Experience has shown that the judicial role of interpreting legislation (as well as the constitution) can bring the courts into conflict with both parliament and the executive and make it the subject of harsh and bitter criticism.

Constitutional adjudication is inherently controversial and political disputes inevitably enter the judicial arena. Yet it is inimical to the rule of law if political pressure is directed towards the judges by those who have not succeeded in the judicial adjudication or who wish to influence future decisions.

Parliamentarians and ministers, like everyone else, must accept court decisions until they are either overturned by a superior court or through a constitutionally authorized process.

They like anyone else are entitled to criticize a ruling and examine whether or not the ruling is legally sound but what is never acceptable is the making of vague allegations of improper motives for decisions, personal attacks on the integrity of individual judges or threats against their personal safety.

Conclusion

As Nwabuze has rightly observed one of the dangers to the African state is the privatization the state.

The notion of the state under an absolute one-man rule being treated by the president as if it were his or her private state-as hif he owned it, with state affairs becoming practically indistinguishable from the strictly personal affairs of the ruler, with all institutions and powers of government being absolved in him or her, and with impromptu decisions and actions based on his or her personal whims and caprices being subscribed for regularized government decisions-taking processes and procedures.

And we may add the undermining of the judiciary so that justice is seen to flow from the president and celebrations of the goodness and greatness of the president (equally mandatory in the public and private sectors) replace other forms of legitimacy.

Perhaps we are not yet there but all indications, such as the assault on the judiciary, indicates that we are almost there.

If we are to stop this downward descent, we have to insist on the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary as non-negotiables.

Only a truly independent judiciary, free of pressure from, and indebtedness to, political parties, public officials, interest groups, and popular whims can be truly accountable to the public it serves.

I conclude with a piece of advice which is directed at those who wish to join the judiciary. Take heed of the eternal words as found in the scripture “…you shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice you shall follow…” (Deut. 16:19-20).

This piece of advice was given over 3,000 years ago.

It is as sound today as it was at the time it was given.

[Read 176 times, 1 reads today]
Loading...

50 COMMENTS

    • You are clearly an ignorant person sir. This is a well written article. Very sound reasoning. This is why Africa is were it is. People like you who refuse to think and have a hatred for those that do.

      0

      0
    • Prof. Ndulo is one of the very few remaining sober patriotic minds in Zambia. He can’t be compared to that chap illegally occupying state house. It’s amazing how somebody like lungu could actually be PRESIDENT! when he is completely brainless, a thief, dull, corrupt, a dictator. How did he manage to lay his paws on a legal qualification when evidence indicates he has zero clue about law?

      0

      0
    • He only decides to bring out the knowledge he was in attacking the person he dislikes, when HH makes attacks on the judiciary he’s always quiet.

      0

      0
    • Muna Ndulo is a Professor of Law at Cornell, and Ivy League University. Our Chagwa was deregistered by LAZ, there is no comparison between the two.

      0

      0
    • @Kapatu Villager…Niwe Kamushi sana, ayi? When did telling the truth become synonymous with embarrassing the president? What prof Ndulo said is the truth. A president who has no respect for the rule of law or the separation of powers soon evolves into a dictator. We’ve been in that state before, under Kaunda’s one party rule. But NEVER again shall the Zambian people allow a dictator to arise in our midst. Zambia is a democratic state and has to remain a democratic state. And everyone should respect that. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, you village id1ot.

      0

      0
    • Law skills and knowledge is not wisdom for leadership per se but on conclusion I see something which if its hatched may spell doom for Zambia; “…..one of the dangers of the African State [Zambia in particular] is the privatization of the STATE….”
      Prof. Muna Ndulo, must not run away from the fact that this HH if given State power will end up PRIVATIZING IT LIKE AN ANIMAL FARM. He has a clear agenda with his masters to do so. All what Prof of Law has elaborated is window dressed by blue fact and truth that President Lungu is intimidating the Judiciary, what I see personally isn’t the purported interference but wrong and unmeriting characters masquerading as Judges. What Prof must belabor on the appointment procedures and processes for such officials. I do not think such a simple…

      0

      0
  1. “For the avoidance of doubt, threats to hold on to power regardless of the Constitution and court rulings borders on a conspiracy to commit treason. It violates the oaths of office subscribed to by all public office holders in Zambia including the President. Indeed, treasonable conduct, has always included unconstitutional retention of power.”

    As Lungu retained power when the Constitution clearly states that power must be handed over to the Speaker when an election petition has been lodged with the ConCourt, he has therefore ALREADY committed treason against Zambia!

    How absurd then that he unlawfully jailed HH for treason when it is clear and obvious that HE is the guilty party!

    What is happening to our Zambia? Will nobody stand up for our CONSTITUTION and our RIGHTS?

    0

    0
  2. Well stated proff ,the Kenya supreme court decision was a spring of hope.Zambia must avoid copying Uganda & Zimbabwe and emulate Kenya’s rule of law version.

    0

    0
  3. Great piece of writing.In this article Prof Ndulo says any person with average intelligence should understand that vrhe President was varm twisting the judiciary
    I go further to say those defending his speech are ALL aware of how wrong it was and are saying so because of sycophant syndrome, they don’t love Zambia let alone Africa.

    0

    0
  4. Professor, you are right. The Zambian Justice Minister can do better in Agriculture Ministry not to be at the helm of law when we need countless legislations to be adquately interpreted by the legal brains. The law ministry is being handled by a non-lawyer hence cadres cannot even keep their own rules in parliament. We have fighters and others shower others with water. This is sad especially that I hear the president is a lawyer but leads a lawless group of cadre ministers.

    0

    0
    • Wrong thinking, Ministers are not technocrats but policy makers.
      Attorney General + Solicitor General must be and are Lawyers.
      Added to that Law Development Commission + “LAZ” or is it ba Lazarous!

      0

      0
  5. Brilliant piece by one of Zambia’s brightest. It is clear as day that HE tried to usurp the independence of the judiciary. Perhaps the executive can apologise to the judiciary so that we can restore our democratic credentials and avoid further slipping into a full blown dictatorship.

    0

    0
  6. If Zambians are not careful, it will be very difficult to remove Lungu from state house. he is now ready to go the Kagame, Museveni and Mugabe way. simply not caring about what people say and concentrate only on remaining on the seat.

    0

    0
  7. The fact that the Learned Professor is an ardent supporter of the UPND, his objective is highly impaired and therefore his analysis is subjective…

    0

    0
    • @Zakeyo…Even if the professor leans towards the opposition, the truth of what he said still remains valid. If you love democracy and want to see democracy succeed in Zambia, you too would have no problem agreeing with him. It’s no secret that the ConCourt in Zambia has sometimes not shown much independence in their decisions, as was the case last year after the election. They obviously seemed to have succumbed to intimidation by the executive branch in particular. No one from the opposition is trying to manipulate the ConCourt into siding with them. For instance if the ConCourt rule that the Constitution allows ECL to stand in 2021, as long as they come to that decision without intimidation, cohesion, or any other external illegal factors, that would be alright to everyone…

      0

      0
    • (Continued)… What the Zambian people don’t want to see is the ConCourt making it’s rulings under duress, or coercion. The Zambian people want to see a clear separation of powers among the three branches of government, the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive. We don’t want a supreme leader in Zambia. We don’t want a king either. We want a democratically elected president, who respects the rule of law, and is himself not above the law. That’s not too much to ask.

      0

      0
  8. Thank you Professor Ndulo for your crystal clear thoughts. Man you have the brains and the brain power. My fear though is; is anyone listening? Does an average Zambian have the deliberate capacity to digest and assimilate such elevated thought? Does the current occupant of the presidency even understand all this? Just questions.

    0

    0
  9. Any member of society can complain about anything, including the executive, judicature and legislature. The Zambian executive is also still as good as can be. So is its legislature. Candidates will win or lose elections, whether they like it or not. Presidents do not seek permission before deployment of combat troops. Rather, presidents seek authorization to extend deployment. In a war situation, then law and order become equivalent to the law of the jungle. In Kenya, institutions are like in a state of transition. In South Africa, the same applies. It was wrong to weaken the presidency in a violent society like South Africa. You are always welcome in Beijing.

    0

    0
  10. Professor Ndulo and Elias Chipimo I totally disagree with your interpretation of the constitution. And please STOP misleading the public. Of course you have the right and freedom to express yourselves as you wish but you are peddling lies. Edgar Lungu is eligible to stand as a candidate for the position of President of Zambia in 2021. The constitution reads as follows: Article 106(3) A person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President.
    The Constitution further clarifies tenure and defines holding of office under Article 106(6)(a) & (b). The full Article 106(6) reads as follows: If the Vice-President assumes the office of President, in accordance with clause (5)(a), or a person is elected to the office of President as a result of an election held…

    0

    0
    • When the Matter Mumba + 3 others Vs Attorney General – The Tenure of an Elected President in Zambia, came for interpretation before Judge Florence Lengalenga, all plus sundry yelled and screamed blue murder that the quartet were PF sponsored, today just be ready mwefipuba mwe. Very short sighted thugs you all could have allowed ECL to hammer out five years then this argument makes sense, Article 106 must be read in its entirety with its inherent clarifications therein.
      ECL qualifies because mwalipwalala bane!

      0

      0
  11. We at our best, when we learn from History and Contemporary Events, both at home and abroad.

    0

    0
  12. in accordance with 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

    THIS IS SO VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND

    0

    0
    • But you are forgetting that there are TWO constitutions involved. In 2015 he held office under the old constitution which did not talk about the period of service except serving twice.

      0

      0
  13. Professor and Mr. Chipimo with regards to separation of power, I agree with you. But it is important to note that the Law is not made in a vacuum. The primary reason the Law is in place is to maintain public order and if a decision of a court enhances public disorder then it is not a good decision and should not be emulated. Lawyers and citizens can argue around what is correct and what is not, but when there is public disorder whether caused by just unruly citizens or by a court decision it falls on the politicians, particularly the ones elected into office at the time to inspire sanity in the public to avoid instability caused by the disorder. It is important to keep this in mind when criticizing the President over his statement.

    0

    0
  14. The man is still bitter after the loss. How come he never even advised HH against insulting the judiciary? It’s not a secret the prof was to return to Zambia to take up some ministrial position in the Upnd government.

    0

    0
    • “How come he never even advised HH against insulting the judiciary?”

      THIS IS WHAT BAZUNGU CALL HITTING THE NAIL DEAD CENTRE!!!!! WALASA, BOYI!!!!!!!!!!!

      0

      0
  15. Prof. Ndulo is a upnd sympathiser, it is no secret. I don’t and will never expect him to say anything positive about ECL/PF. YALI, which is not a law body, took time to analyse ECLs Solwezi speech and gave an unbiased response about the matter. Ndulo, a law professor quickly rushes to side with LAZ and Chipimo without citing parts of the speech which border on threats. As the Chitimukulu put it, the advocates of regime change are sponsoring “USEFUL 1.D.I.OTS” to disparage legitimate governments to achieve their aims. Ndulo has no heart for the country, his is to see his preferred candidate assume power otherwise he wouldn’t support wrongs. Zambia is under attack from sinister elements ready to see the country burn lest they get their wish. They have dangled power to hh and his gang of…

    0

    0
  16. ….tribalists and elements like Ndulo. What these people forget is that it is not in the interest of Zambian people; If the sinister elements succeed, they will demand for their “pound of flesh” and would care less what happens to the population!! BEWARE, THIS COLONIALISM RELOADED. REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHIEFS OF OLD???

    0

    0
  17. Baron Ndulo,aka Ndlew, cannot comment on a matter which is before the courts.He is merely reminding us about the uncommon tension between the Executive and the Judiciary. His lecture should have avoided political comment notwithstanding that he is not a judge in Zambia but an academic lawyer.Apart from this I agree with his long drawn analysis.

    0

    0
  18. Prof, it’s difficult to advise conceited people! Zambians are proud for nothing ….! Save your energies and serve the civilized world. Zambians have made a covenant with death and suffering! No need to waste time on Zed. It’s a lost cause, a busket case and an empty shell of its old self!

    0

    0
  19. Yes what must prevail is the CORRECT INTERPRETAION OF THE CONSTITUTION and JUSTICE. It does not matter what happened in Kenya or anywhere else.ConCcourt must make this ruling fast. Do not be intimidated. You are protected by the constitution.

    0

    0
  20. This is classroom lecture which must seem to be followed but the happenings on the ground are tough so much that a small diversion may also seem appropriate. Is also in order in a democracy to win or loose an election before it is conducted?

    0

    0
  21. I commend Professor Ndulo for his thorough analysis and clear presentation on the judiciary in Zambia. His thesis is a timely masterpiece devoid of political partisanship contrary to some insinuations on this forum. I am particularly encouraged because I have also responded to the poorly researched statement by YALI blindly supporting the threats and intimidation by President Lungu. Of the whole article what stands out for me about judges are the words “FEAR MUST NOT DIRECT THEIR DECISION-MAKING.” That fear is present amidst the defenceless judges who heard the President’s partisan clarion call for his 2021bid! How is he going to remove the present fear inflicted by himself on these defenceless judges? What will be his cure? This is his serious homework!

    0

    0
    • President’s comments and not threats are based on reliable intelligence reports not personal ambition. Secondly, what does the constitution say about what quantifies a term???

      0

      0
  22. I hear Hansungule and Ndulo are friends and both are Tongas. Mwanawasa reached out to both these two gentlemen to help mother Zambia but to no avail. Sata also reached out to Ndulo but Ndulo refused to be part of the efforts Sata was making to correct the constitution of Zambia. I wonder if these two Profs will eventually return to Zambia to help HH, their fellow tribesman. Both Hansungule and Ndulo have chosen to be paper critics or armchair critics when they were given an opportunity to be part of the changers of the constitution like patriot Mvunga has done. Every time Mvunga has been called upon by Zambia he has accepted to be part of the changers. He does not believe to be an armchair critic. So a question to you Ndulo and Hansungule, why do you believe you can make changes to…

    0

    0
  23. The president has the right to warn the judiaciary, it his job! You man never said anything when Under Five was insulting the bench! The president never did! Oh! I know, the professor “comes from togther!”

    0

    0
  24. In Namwala, blood is thicker than water! Baseless article! You amaze me you educated people who see a dictator in a hard-working president but the truth is that he is not Tonga! Just say it and stop beating about the bush.

    0

    0
  25. Professor Ndulo is comparing President Lungu to Mobutu, Kagame, Museveni, Kabila for real? Then he doesn’t know who or what a dictator is! Shut up tribalist Professor!

    0

    0
  26. That is what kills the professors from that region, tribalism. Otherwise they and their counsel would be respected. Under5 insults the judiciary by name and tribe leaving out his tribesmate judges, and the professor is quiet. Come a comment from The President and the “professor” comes out guns blazing all because the President comes from the east, yes no other criteria or fault just being an easterner! Why don’t you emulate real Professors like Mwizenge Tembo, Chifumbe Chintu etc who are respected and have no hint of tribalism in them? The tragedy of an otherwise good region yaba! The tribalism is with a few individual but unfortunately those few are so tribal and noisy that people mistaje the whole tribe for tribalists. And they are so openly proud of their tribalism!

    0

    0
  27. When HH insulted the judiciary up to CONCOURT judges. What did this good for nothing professor Ndulo say?

    0

    0

Comments are closed.