By Peter Sinkamba
Former Finance Minister Alexander Chikwanda has accused Constitutional Court Justices of “rewriting the law by making a presumption on the wishes of the Parliament or establishing some strange interchangeability with parliament,” which in his view “is impropriety and illegitimacy”.
In a statement published by the Lusaka Times this morning, and signed off as PF Chairman and former Finance Minister, honorable Chikwanda says there is need for deep thinking in the nation. He said that justices should have the highest levels of intellect shrouded in ingrained habits to search widely so that they do not interchange facts with vague judgments and opinions.
“The justices have (sic) the highest levels of intellect shrouded in the ingrained habits to search widely so that they do not interchange facts with value (sic) judgments and opinions – this is why they are called learned. Respectability of the judiciary must be anchored on propriety and decisions which are totally above board and beyond reproach,” he said.
As a way forward, honorable Chikwanda has opposed proliferation of courts and instead, as a cost-saving measure proposed the scrapping of the Constitutional Court and holding of constitutional court sessions at the Supreme Court, where there is “experience, maturity and track records”.
“Going forward, we must pay urgent attention to remedying this situation. There will be a compelling need to avoid proliferation of courts. With hindsight, constitutional issues are a rarity; the best and most cost effective action would have been to constitute constitutional court sessions from the supreme court where you have experience, maturity and track records. We cannot ordain wisdom and requisite experience by bureaucratic fiats, no matter how elaborate myth-making may be.” he added.
As the Green Party, we respect the fact that a Zambian citizen, honorable Chikwanda has a constitutional right to criticize any Court judgment.
Whilst we agree with him on high intellectual tenets and capabilities of a judge, as well as the fact that respectability of the judiciary must be anchored on propriety and decisions which are totally above board and beyond reproach, however, we believe is economical with the truth.
Firstly, we believe that as Former Minister of Finance, he was the central person to moving the Constitution Amendment Bill which proposed the creation of the Concourt. No Bill which has a financial implication can be introduced in Parliament without express consent of the Minister of Finance.
Secondly, as a Cabinet Minister, and Member of Parliament, he personally played a pivotal role, not only in the establishment of the court itself, but also in the nomination, ratification and final appointment of the judges he is now criticizing for incompetence, impropriety and illegitimacy. He also played a key role to ensure the court he is now blaming for unnecessary costs, is fully financed.
So, without apologizing to the Nation for his various roles he played to establish and constitute the Court, what is he talking about? Is it sour grapes?
To whom is he shifting the blame for the quality of the judges serving on that bench? Is he shifting the blame to his former Cabinet boss, President Lungu, or what?
Thirdly, by signing-off as PF Chairman, is he detaching PF from establishment of the Court, let alone the quality of the judges serving on that bench? Is he shifting blame from PF to the Presidency? Is it a sign that PF is cracking or indeed PF detaching itself from President Lungu’s decisions?
We believe there is more to honorable Chikwanda’s statement than eyes can see. Perhaps, it is high time for President Lungu to think deeply and open his eyes.
The earlier he makes a decision on some of the proposals we presented to him concerning reconstituting the Concourt by recruiting from the Commonwealth competent and experienced judges to fill up the the 13-plus “vacancies” at the Concourt, the better for him and the Nation.
As an old adage goes: forewarned is forearmed.
The Author is the President of Green Party of Zambia
So us LT are popular, even Sinkamba reads our comments.
Thanks Peter for simplicity, I didn’t understand any of Chikwanda’s colonial English, it was so difficulty. Tho, thus, thy,
It’s a Kangaroo government.
Thank you Honorable Sinkamba… exactly what we have been saying…:
A Zambian argues without facts, that is a reason we elect wrong leaders. We are seriously dot thinking outside the box and observing an entire picture in context.
Thank you thank you.
To be honest, I support the President and I hope the president will come round full circle ?? to resolve our plight with such me ministers around him.
Also I’d love Green Party to replace UPND, I asked a question during your Phoenix interview but you ran out of time to answer.
I will still catch you at some point to catch up… so far so good. Match on Honorable.
Sinkamba would have done his family a great favour had he just shut it. Hon. Chikwanda raised a number of issues regarding a particular rulling yet his arguements is directed at the formation of the court. What is he trying to say
No one knows what he wants to say…The best he can do is to concentrate on determining good weed from the bad ones where his party is an expert…
My President has spoken, well said Ba Sinkamba! Keep up the great work!
Arrogance and mediocrity,many stakeholders have raised concern over the qualifications of these concort judges but powers that be still appointed unqualified individuals to the bar ,so these are the fruits now
Supreme Court sitting in Constitutional Court session is also a viable option. It makes economic sense and it also makes law sense. Constitutional Court as institution with separate offices filled by justices and administrators is not a guarantee of jurisprudence in itself. The profile of justices and their combinations would ultimately influence court rulings. That is the reason why ABC is providing free insight that could pave way for a great justice systme in the country.
No country can prosper without an independent judiciary. Sadly in Africa, this is more of a pipe dream.
I know appreciate Mr Sinkamba’s politics even though I disagree with him on several points.
To begin with,as a member of cabinet ABC was bound by collective responsibility even if he had differed with his colleagues on the finer details.
Secondly,I don’t find evidence in ABC’s writing that was opposed to the general idea of a concourt.To me he seems to disagree more how it was implemented.
Otherwise,good opposition from Mr Sinkamba.