NAREP leader Elias Chipimo
NAREP leader Elias Chipimo

Summary Analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision That the Presidential Tenure From 25 January, 2015-13 September, 2016 Did Not Constitute a Full Term

By Elias C. Chipimo

Origin of the Three Year Partial Term Rule

Under Zambia’s Republican Constitution, the rule about a presidential term not qualifying as a full term if it spanned a period of less than 3 years, first came into existence in the 2016 amended Constitution. It arises in only two situations: (a) where the office of president falls vacant and the vice-president automatically takes over (e.g. if the incumbent dies); and (b) when an election is held because the vice-president who should take over to serve the remaining term is either unwilling or unable to do so. We can call these the “New Clauses”.

Obviously neither of these situations was at play during the 2015 presidential election because these provisions were not in existence and were therefore not recognised in the law at that time.

Decision of the Constitutional Court

In a case brought to determine the eligibility of President Edgar Lungu to stand as a presidential candidate in 2021, having served less than three years in his first term, the Constitutional Court determined that:

“…. _the presidential tenure of office that ran from January 25, 2015 to September 13, 2016 and straddled two constitutional regimes, cannot be considered as a full term_ “.

In doing so, the Constitutional Court effectively backdated the application of the New Clauses to a time when there was already a law governing: (a) the eligibility of a person to stand again as a presidential candidate who has twice been elected as president (he or she would be disqualified); and (b) how long a presidential term needed to be in order to count as a full term under the law (there was previously no minimum period, meaning prior to the 2016 amendment to the Constitution, a person could technically be president for less than a year and still be deemed to have served a full term).

To give you an example of the awkwardness of this position, imagine the Constitution being amended to raise the qualification age for presidency to 40 years from 35. Using the logic above, a president who was elected at 35 years would now be deemed to be ineligible to have stood in the earlier election based on a law that had not existed at the time.

The pre-amended Constitution clearly stated that “a person who has twice been elected as President” could not run again for that office, while the amended Constitution states that a person who has “twice held office” cannot run again for that office. There is no contradiction in these two positions – the later version simply tidies up the earlier one by making clear that there also has to be a swearing in.

Basis of the Decision

The Court’s justification for their decision is that they felt Parliament would have intended to make transitional provisions to address the question of the term of the president under the pre-amendment Constitution but simply overlooked it. As stated by the Court:

“….. _the question is what could have been the intention of the legislature on this aspect of the transitional arrangements for the presidential term straddling two constitutional regimes? Our firm view is that it could not have been the intention of the legislature not to provide for the period that was served and that straddled two Constitutional regimes, as to how it should be treated_ .”

In short, the Court decided that they should backdate the application of the three-year rule, even though it did not exist at the time of President Lungu’s first election, because of the need to clarify how this would affect a person that happened to be president in between these two constitutional regimes.

Critique of the Decision

I believe the Constitutional Court misdirected itself and I set out seven grounds to justify this conclusion:

1. The idea that the first period served by the incumbent president straddled two Constitutional regimes and therefore needed some form of transitional wording is really a fabrication of a concept. The Court somehow managed to identify a problem that did not exist – the amended constitution was assented to seven months before the 2016 election. Parliament was dissolved in May, 2016 and the remaining time to the election was merely a caretaker phase as the official campaign period had already commenced and was nearing its conclusion. The president’s tenure was therefore coming to an end under the 2015 mandate which was adequately covered by the pre-amended Constitution. As we shall see later, serving even for one year constituted a full term under the pre-amended Constitution.

2. In inserting and backdating the application of a provision that was only due to come into effect after the Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed, the Constitutional Court has, in effect, usurped the power of Parliament, abrogating the fundamental rule of separation of powers. They concluded that ” _it could not have been the intention of the legislature not to provide for the period that was served and that straddled two Constitutional regimes, as to how it should be treated_ “, and then went on to decide on behalf of Parliament, which option they believe Parliament would have chosen. Raising the concern about intention is one thing; deciding which option Parliament would have taken is quite another. The Court has therefore planted into an earlier time, a provision in the law that Parliament did not on the face of it intend to come into effect until 2016 and they have done it using a set of facts that does not fit with the situation contemplated by the very provision they are relying on. For there to be justification that Parliament’s intention should be assumed by the Courts, there would have to be compelling reasons that doing nothing would result in injustice or unreasonableness. This was not the case – there would be no crisis if President Lungu was subjected to the same rule as his predecessors, namely that anything less than three years still constitutes a full term.

3. In 2015, the president was elected under the pre-amendment Constitution and was therefore subject to its provisions as they existed at the time. When the amendments were made – not too long before the campaign period had been officially opened – the logical assumption is that they would apply to future elections since they referred to a system that was planned to be introduced by the very amendments (i.e. the system of the running mate).

4. Interpreting the intention of Parliament in this way goes against the principle in law that unless expressly stated, law has no retrospective effect. As a general rule, law is not to be applied to the retrospectively unless it clearly stipulates as such. Even then, it cannot be applied to undermine rights that were available to someone before the new law existed.

5. No transitional provision was necessary in this case if the intention (as is clearly stated in the amended Constitution) was to tie the three-year rule to vice-presidents taking over from an incumbent (or any other person doing the same because the vice-president could not or chose not to stand). By deciding that some form of transitional provision was necessary, the Court was effectively making a decision to protect one man, President Lungu, because only he was affected by the decision of Parliament not to include any transitional provisions. This was not a new Constitution that was being presented; it was merely the same document being amended and unless the intention was clearly stated by the Legislature, there was no basis for the Court to impose an intention on Parliament.

6. Under the pre-amended Constitution, there was no such thing as a partial term. If the incumbent died two years before the next election then a fresh election would have to be held and this remaining two years would be counted as a full term. The clear intention of the legislature under the pre-amended Constitution was not to have partial terms. By introducing this new issue of a partial terms of less than three years not counting as a full term, it ought to have been clear that this was only to apply under the new dispensation – i.e. after the amended Constitution came into force and not before. Parliament would not have needed to put transitional arrangements in place to deal with such a straightforward matter. All future elections would be subject to the new provisions and all prior elections would be subject to the old provisions.

7. The facts that would need to be present to support the retrospective application of the minimum three-year term rule are absent: in 2015, there was no automatic process for any vice-president to take over and the election was held, not because there was a vacancy or because of any incapacity of the vice-president. The election in September 2015 was held because the Constitution at the time required an election to be held within 90 days whenever there was a vacancy in the office of the president.

Conclusion

The indisputable fact is that the person whose term of office started on 25 January 2015 did not ascend to the office of President because he was vice-president or as a result of an election held because the then vice-president could not, for any reason, assume the office of President. There was no need for the Constitutional Court to assume that Parliament overlooked the need for transitional provisions regarding the issue of term of office. In doing so, the Court has probably overstepped its jurisdiction and granted rights to an incumbent president that were not given to him by Parliament. Although in their judgement they try to distance themselves from making this an issue about President Lungu, their decision makes it precisely that because he is the only one that will acquire a new right as a result of their assumption of what they believe Parliament would have done if they had applied their minds to it. This is a matter that can be taken up in the High Court as it is not premised on the interpretation of the Constitution but is a jurisprudential issue concerning the separation of powers and the powers the Constitutional Court has given itself to address a problem that never existed in the first place.

The Author is the President of the Opposition National Restoration Party in Zambia

[Read 4,098 times, 1 reads today]
Loading...

144 COMMENTS

  1. Why can’t this political failure concentrate on having at least councillors for his briefcase/social media party rather than blurting irrelevant rubbish over issues that will not change????

    16

    52
    • I think firstly we must respect people’s right to have an opinion. That is the essence of individuality. the right to have an opinion. No one has the right to insult another simply because he has a contrary opinion. To deny others this right is the heart of despotism. To insult people for having an opinion simply shows that we are tyrants at heart, but we just pack the means and power to enforce our tyranny.
      Secondly, the constitution court has made its ruling. it has the final say. Let’s respect that. We can disagree, but let’s do so respectfully. But we must not dwell on it. Let’s move forward.

      46

      0
    • continued…
      The German government wrote to our government to complain about the misuse of aid and the forging of a bank statement to cover it up. No one has been called to account. Just another scandal in the long list of scandals that characterise PF.
      It’s so sad that people can see all these evils and still try so hard to defend the non existent integrity of this government. A case of the emperor not having clothes. And you see some people who try to sound very knowledgeable with long winding blogs to defend corruption. But the only thing they show is that they lack the more important virtue – wisdom! Trully knowledge without wisdom creates puffed up fools.
      But when one looks at the opposition, there isn’t much difference with PF. it’s full of discredited characters. One wonders…

      4

      0
    • If an accountant fails to balance books, he is a failure. If a footballer goes for trials and is sent back, he is a failure. If a politician fails to convince voters to give him a chance even at local level, he is a failure!!! THAT IS NOT AN INSULT. Whatever Chipimo says about the ConCourt ruling won’t have an impact on our political landscape at all and presidential is not his level as he can’t even convince marketeers to give him a chance at local level!! Let’s channel our energies on more productive issues.

      8

      29
    • THIS IS TIME TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND THE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION…..DONT SLEEP TOO MUCH…THIS HAVARD GRADUATE IS LEARNED…I LIKE HIS SKILLS IN LAW….

      31

      3
    • LET’S ROLL
      You wonder why we have several constitutional amendments. This is not peculiar to Zambia. Countries world over run into the need to fine tune clauses of the Construction to bear meaningful interpretation. Elias son of the Veteran politician Mr Chipimo senior, let the sleeping dog lay. How many judges constitute the bench of the Concourt? Unless you also want to call them compromised in a respectful manner. Amend clauses that bring equivocal conotations. I offer myself to listen to the 7 rather than 1 Elias. From where I stand, precedence has been set. From now on that is the interpretation.

      6

      8
    • Thorn in the $%(* wants to let sleeping dogs lay …really laughable…7 handpicked Lazy Lungu hand picked stooges are right let’s close this case…you clearly know nothing about law.

      9

      8
    • @Gay gay
      Tell me. What are you gonna do about it? Mmh! Join your rank n’ file in the likes of double h in taking to the street? Yes like the 2016 poll results, we humbly encourage you to sink ya baldheards in the sand and move on.
      What’s the useless after rulling altercation about?

      8

      5
    • 1.3  Zambian Citizen

      And what do you call a lawyer who gets his law licence taken away because of fraud ????

      17

      4
    • Thorn in the $%&^ – like I said you have no understanding of the law and have poor reading culture…I doubt you have read the whole article…best you wait for the kid with female name from the embassy who posts nonsense on here and debate with him.

      9

      4
    • “This is a matter that can be taken up in the High Court as it is not premised on the interpretation of the Constitution but is a jurisprudential issue concerning the separation of powers and the powers the Constitutional Court has given itself to address a problem that never existed in the first place.”

      There is you answer as you are too lazy like that bum in State House to read till the end!!!

      7

      3
    • @jay gay
      What are you gonna do about it? Lay low and mature up. What do you know about elections and court verdicts if I may ask?All you see in a contest is rigging and unfair ruling. What kinda people are you? Extremely unproductive, ungovernable and rule of law defilers. Elias had his position made up going by his interview on Prime. He has been prejudicial days before December 7. Get schooled nigga.

      6

      6
    • @Zambian Citizen, with due respect: instead of calling Alias a “failure”, why not go a full pound for pound round with him by putting in your own counter-claims to his article. I take it for granted you equally have a ‘beautiful mind.’ Argumentum ad hominen will not take us anywhere! Bless you bruv.

      7

      0
    • In other words, Elias is telling all the learned 7 judges and 68% of all of the smart people of the Zambian Enterprise that support the ConCourt decision that he (Elias C Chipimo Jr) is way smarter than us.

      Now you see why you will lose the next election too. Leadership is not about wanting to sound smarter than any one else in the room, we saw you do that time and time again during Presidential Debates in the past but didn’t even get 1% of the vote.

      I advised you what to do if you wanted to capture the hearts of the smart people of the Zambian Enterprise last time we met in Atlanta but didn’t listen.

      Oh, I take that back, you listened for a while and actually made one great move that made MCS (MHSRIP) make you his special envoy to Brazil with Edith. After that something…

      4

      9
    • Continued…

      After that something happened to you and I cannot put my finger on it.

      You keep fighting wrong battles, man but hey, it’s your constitutional right to be whatever.

      3

      7
    • Look who has joined the thread the BIGGEST educated foooool in the market…he has joined the queue advising Chipimo to keep quiet and become a useless shameless bootlicker like himself. …really laughable…let me tell you something about professionalism- its skill expected of a professional…something you will never know as you are blind follower.

      4

      4
    • “What are you gonna do about it? Lay low and mature up. What do you know about elections and court verdicts if I may ask?All you see in a contest is rigging and unfair ruling. What kinda people are you? ”
      Listen to yourself…I told you know nothing little pr**k…am not your YO YO EXSAY YO N****. You have no manners…why shouldn’t anybody not challenge this if they have the funds to pay lawyers ..Lazy Lungu is not a God…just like Mwanawasa passed someone else took over.

      2

      2
    • Oh my goodness … Gay Gay is in the house ladies and gentlemen!!! His low IQ, low life, low libido, low class spasms never cease to amaze me.

      Hey Gay Gay follow the debate starting with comments from 3.1 below for some more education. Your neurons seem to be failing made.

      2

      3
    • This young man should replace the current concourt president and perharps the CJ. We need objective and courage legal practictioners.

      4

      2
    • JUNIOR I have told you time and time again ….you may be some Chief in Atlanta here you are nothing save it for the dull kids who adore you and parrot you. You think everyone is going to read your three paragraphs giving people a good run about…learn to be concise!!

      0

      1
    • Wow!!! @Gay Gay … thanks a trillion, mate!!! You have just answered my trillion dollar question as to why you have always been this stup1111222d!!

      You don’t read enough or you just read a bit and think you understand “intent”!!!!

      Bravo, bravo, bravo …. read, and read and read or learn to read you sorry son of a gun!!!

      1

      2
    • The problem this country has is to accommodate those who just observed the corridors of schools from a distance arguing and insulting those who spent years pounding and qualifying in the fields that they propound. Let such *****s forgive themselves on the basis of freedom of vomiting. All the learned Zambians know is that the con men court has no qualified judge for that institution at all.

      2

      0
    • To be right does not need one to have Councillors or to have a huge Party or following. Chipimo has clarified this issue and the intention of the ConCourt to adjudicate in such a manner as to give Lungu a third term. In doing so they have betrayed the country for the sake of one man’s appetite for power.
      Secondly, the ConCourt should bear in mind that the ‘Term’ amendment in the 2016 Constitution was a straight forward and intentional fudge by the PF Party machine to manipulate the Constitution for Lungu’s benefit. Chipimo has blown it wide open that even that manipulation could not succeed without the PF conniving with the ConCourt. Friday the 7th was a day of shame and it will come to haunt all the ConCourt Judges when a better day rises.

      1

      0
    • Animo Farms misdirected themselves when they allowed themselves to eat a lot of cows. EAT MORE CHICKEN.

      1

      1
    • Lazy bum illiterate TONGA tribal UPND hooligan bully son of a polygamist father who never taught him table manners and toilet training pooping in his diapers in public HAGAIN. He is supporting a “THIEF” simply because the “THIEF” who is a lawyer and should know better but is not and is supporting CHILDISH’ view, the only reason Larry Mweetwa is supporting him. Flip the coin the TRIBAL guru of UPND will flip too and call him a thief without mincing any word! Gay Jay needing cynical MUTINTA and BoSpakata to change his diapers HAGAIN! Thank God it is UNELECTABLE.

      1

      1
    • Chipimo is misleading himself…a simple example is e.g if the death penault is abolished, does he mean to say those on trial will be hunged when convicted because they were arrested before the law was changed, No. The law is not applied retrospectively.

      2

      1
  2. Chipimo you have a point, but this is Zambia!!!! Who gives a sh$+ about what the constitution says or not, we have dead leaders

    17

    1
    • He has Zero point, any constitutional court will have weigh facts before it, based on the intention of the constitution not on technicalities. The intention of the amendment to the constitution is to clarify the term of office not suppositions about how such clarity would have worked in retrospect… its about going forward.. in fact the amended constitution supersedes all other previous provisions and constitutions. There is no “strutting between” two constitutions here… Chipimo siana pime bwino apa peve.

      6

      5
    • @Hakainde … that’s a 100 for you. Listen, if you read the whole article, Elias is urging only on 2 things even if he said he was going to give us 7 reasons.

      Going through all of them, any objective analyst would only come up with these two.

      1. That the decision is wrong because the court used “intent” as a basis for the decision. Wow!!! I thought that’s what “constitutionality” is all about.

      Elias missed the memo!!! This is the ConCourt and their number 1 objective is to decide based on “intent”.

      For example, when the Affordable Care Act was sued because of mandory fines if one didn’t enroll, the plaintiffs argued that, the mandatory fine’s “intent” was in an essence a “tax” and the US Supreme Court ruled in their favor, Congress was forced to change that legislation to tax…

      0

      0
    • Continued…

      Congress was forced to change that legislation to tax individuals through their yearly taxable income if they opted.

      This whole thing was premised in “intent” therefore Chipimo Jr erred in fact by saying the ConCourt took over a legislative role. Why? Because just like in the case of the Affordable Care Act the US Supreme Court made Congress to retroactively change the law, Parliament can now make those changes as well.

      2. His argument that there was only one person the ConCourt was protecting is even worse than the first reason. Take Rosa L Park landmark decision made Congress call her the “First Lady Of Civil Right” came about because she was first.

      On December 1, 1955 she refused to obey the segregation law that required black persons to sit at the back of the…

      0

      0
    • Continued…

      On December 1, 1955 she refused to obey the segregation law that required black persons to sit at the back of the bus. Browder v Gayle she lost in Alabama but the US Supreme Court ruled in her favor and listen to this because it was a double whammy!!!

      Not only were all those laws in every state in the union banned forcing all state legislatures to rewrite laws (a thing Chipimo in his point 1 is telling us is wrong) but his point number 2 of protections for the “first” person is also debunked.

      So, Elias’ analysis is not only extremely flawed and subjective but also extremely erroneous because of its myopic approach. There are several cases around the world that can make Chipimo look very stup111222dy in his attempt to sound and look smart.

      The problem with an…

      0

      0
    • Continued…

      The problem with an average Zambian is that we lack exposure and not very well versed in international matters thus the narrow and myopic thought process.

      Your Honor I rest my case …

      0

      0
    • @Gay Gay … let me make things easier for you. Elias is my friend, I have met him and his wife before. I have even sent campaign contributions to his NAREP and my Cheques have been cashed.

      Here I am disagreeing with him on principle and when we meet we will goof off and laugh together … I don’t think you are anywhere nearer to him relationshipwise than myself so watch your language.

      Now contrast that with ECL, I have never sent any campaign contributions to his campaign but next time all my political donations for Zambia will be for his re-election

      Go figure …

      0

      0
    • Chipimo is a finished chap! He has no mental fortitude left in him to be a leader in Zambia! If a non-lawyer could easily interpret the case by reading the law and a lawyer fails to interpret it then such a lawyer is useress! I took at least two law classes in school and I can interpret the law better than this “finished” man trying to misdirect himself and the people! UNELECTABLES!

      1

      1
  3. Kangaroo court run by unqualified magistrates,masquerading as judges,they will never get anything right ever….

    15

    5
    • Prof. HANSONI missed the Kangaroo Court that was meeting at the FARM in NAMWALA. Let him write a memo on the university letterhead and the UN will reverse the Court’s wise ruling. Animo Farm thinks TRIBE first and ISSUE second but it is good that it is UNELECTABLE.

      1

      0
  4. President Chipimo has contradicted himself. The thrust of his argument is that “The indisputable fact is that the person whose term of office started on 25 January 2015 did not ascend to the office of President because he was vice-president or as a result of an election held because the then vice-president could not, for any reason, assume the office of President.” This is a fundamental contradiction because then Vice President Guy Scott could not automatically ascend to presidency. The law at the time was that when the sitting president dies, a by-election must be held within 90 days. This law itself abundantly qualifies to be a justifiable reason why Guy Scott could not automatically ascend to presidency. So, what is Chipimo talking about, kanshi?

    12

    15
    • There is NO contradiction. Chipimo is pointing out that in the 2015 election there was no condition (..did not ascend…) because this condition is in the amended constitution. His argument is that the court applied a piece of legislation to an event that happened before that legislation even existed.

      11

      4
    • Chipimo says “prior to the 2016 amendment to the Constitution, a person could technically be president for less than a year and still be deemed to have served a full term. This is a lie. According to Article 35(1) of the 1996 Constitution, it provided that the “President SHALL hold office for 5 years”. So the term of office was mandatorily 5 years. Below 5 years was not a term. So the Constitutional Court did not misdirect itself when it discussed article 35 together with article 106 which explained clearly at what point serving in office of the presidency qualified to be a term

      3

      3
    • The point is that there was a President at the time, and the court was merely emphasizing the need to consider the plight of such a sitting president given the new laws (thru Transitional Clauses). There was therefore need to preserve his original rights (under Old Cons) and entitle him to the new rights, without prejudice or favor.

      Article 267 of the new constitution says:
      (c) a reference to an office, State organ, State institution or locality shall be read with any modification necessary to make it applicable in the circumstances;
      (d) a reference in a provision applying that provision to another provision shall be read with any modification necessary to make it applicable in the circumstances and any reference to the modified provision shall apply as modified;

      0

      0
    • Note that last part “shall apply as modified, not as per the old Constitution as Chips is trying to argue in point number 3 and 4 about retrospective application. Clearly the law was trying to protect existing institutions and offices, along with the office bearers.

      0

      0
    • Chipimo your wrong interpretation of the law tells me why I cannot hire you as a lawyer. Even Silwamba looks more intelligent than you even though sometimes he is on that stuff!

      1

      0
  5. Most of the comments so far say it louder as to why the concept called Zambia is where it is. There is no sensible and reasonable debate on anything and in my view PF and most (BUT ALL) their cadres would rather have a one party dictatorial state akin to what was repudiated in 1991. In the Zambia of today people of Chipimo’s calibre are rare; the guy is exactly like his late dad. From UNZA days Chipimo says things as they are and those who are brain-dead simply can’t figure this. And this is Zambia’s tragedy!

    23

    5
    • They have no concept of what one party state is and those who do are benefit from the corrupt regime to bother to jog their memories!!

      5

      2
    • We don’t benefit in the imaginary “corruption,” a word which is just made up in your head and means “ONLY A TONGA CAN BE PERFECT AND PRESIDENT FOR US TO SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY!” Thank God HAKAINDE will NEVER be president in Zambia! UNELECTABLE, CORRUPT and PRIVATISATION THIEF, he is.

      1

      0
  6. It is interesting to note that at the time of constitution amendment, these so called lawyers took a political stand against PF instead of pushing for real ammendments. It was the same with the 14 days of challenging the President. UPND MPs instigated by their leadership walked away from Parliament and left it for the PF to ammend the constitution. PF was pushed for constitution amendment and they did just that. THE SO CALLED LAWYERS WERE SLEEPING AND HOPING PF WILL CRASH LAND because of the constitution problem. Now PF is using all the constitution flaws to their benefit. It is still legal!!!

    15

    3
    • Actually, Gen Miyanda once said President Lungu should not assent the Constitution Bill blindly – now I believe President Lungu read the Constitution very well and unlike the noise makers, he understood very well the implications. Chipimo is just wasting time -m typical of lawyers. The fact that Chipimo can say “In doing so, the Court has PROBABLY overstepped its jurisdiction and granted rights to an incumbent president that were not given to him by Parliament” – a statement that is not specific simply means he is not sure what he is saying. This is time wasting and playing around with legal semantics – only good for legal students.

      9

      6
    • Sorry, you have lost me there. When did PF amend the constitution?? As far back as i can remember, the current amendment 2016 is a result of the Mung’omba Commission started by FTJ, the Mwanwasa CRC and the Sata Technical Committee. Experts, Civil Society, all political parties participated in these processes. How today is PF alone responsible???

      5

      1
    • The opposition is Zambia have abdicated their sacred role as police to the ruling party on behalf of the masses. This is where failure upon failure is anchored. The democratic machinery in Zed is operating at half mast. We can not expect development at all. UPND was supposed to offer solid defence of democracy during the constitutional review process, but all they did as usual is cry and moan about technicalities and accommodations, never did they roll up their sleeves an play the hard ball no matter the playing field. A level playing field is and illusion in politics all over the world. Its as rear as a unicorn. a winner is on who beats the odds against them….No wonder they have failed every time they have tried.

      10

      1
    • President Lungu is a smart lawyer who got a distinction in his class, a feat that is nearly impossible if you have passed through UNZA. He is a bright leader who knows what he is doing and the CONCOURT interpreted the law very well. This was not about President LUNGU but it was about ZAMBIA. This was a very simple case except for the tribal H-organisation that may think it was hoodwinked! No! IT IS JUST UNELECTABLE because it bases the fight like all of you on TRIBALISM and fake charges of “CORRUPTION” when the real corrupt person who has shipped money out of Zambia to the tax haven country of PANAMA receives a free pass and is worshiped by the CLAN as their god and savior.

      1

      0
  7. 7 judges against one Elias chipimos mind of Chaos in Paradise, I think even if it were only 2 judges Chipimo cannot match their thinking, mind you the total of Judges was 7, judges who accepted eligibility of ECL was 7, so chipimo can be the 8th judge if he likes. still won’t change a thing

    I’m transcendent and I approve this message

    9

    6
    • CHIPIMO is showing his senility and reasons why he cannot be a president in Zambia. He has just disqualified himself. He should now quit and join the UNELECTABLE CHILDISH. They can make a big NOISE WITH HIM BECAUSE EMPTY TINS FROM THE TRIBAL CLAN MAKE A LOT OF NOISE.

      1

      1
    • If you have no faculties to engage anybody sensibly simply excuse yourself…its clear here some cadres on the thread would rather throw stones at Chipimo than listen to what he says. Why should he be bitter he is a lawyer!!

      8

      4
  8. it is like people are scared of Lungu. chipimo where were you during the amendment of the Constitution? Zambian Opposition Parties they dont know what they want .they have no direction they keeps on contradicting themselves. In an event where one of the current opposition Leader have chance of being in power it will be more difficult to rule than the current Leader because things they keep on opposing will be the same things will keep them in power and people will turn against them to say these are the things you were against with. Let them not to look for ways just to remove Lungu from Power it will not help them in future.

    9

    5
  9. CHIPIMO, may either be running a political party or PRESSURE GROUP!! He may have substance in what he says, BUT FOR NOW, THE PREOCCUPATION OF ZAMBIANS IS PROVIDING THEM WITH VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO LUNGU AND HIS PF!! The opposition has been on these “LEGAL SEMANTICS” for far too long and instead of reorganising themselves to provide viable alternatives to PF they are always TOO FIXATED WITH WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE!! LUNGU AND PF COULD HAVE BEEN SERVING THEIR LAST TERM BUT MAY CONTINUE DUE TO A DISORGANIZED OPPOSITION!! To begin with, CHIPIMO SHOULD CONSIDER JOINING FORCES WITH OTHERS TO CREATE A FORMIDALE OPPOSITION VOICE AS HIS PARTY HAS FAILED TO MAKE AN IMPACT!!

    7

    3
    • Precisely. He should be spending time with guys from FDD and PAC to create a strong ideology and manifesto to sell to the electorate. Not speaking about bygones and calling himself “president” when he doesn’t even have a councillor in his party!!

      4

      6
    • Look at them they would rather throw mud at him as question Lazy Lungu’s eligibility is a threat to their livelihood …so long as he is there they will continue eating corruptly!!

      5

      5
    • The political Ideologies don’t agree. Poll result numbers don’t add up plus double h is poised to lead in which ever pact he forges. Last he did a mini megapact with a dozens of factional MMD in Nevers, disgruntled PF in sampa, sata jr. and guy, Orange in sampa and chanda, old forgotten MMD in Lupando, fake opinion poles in Neo, propagandists media support in Mmembe and Muvi TV plus a few community radio station in the regions. Face it forging pacts with opposition don’t win votes. What wins votes is credibility in the message put across ELECTORATES. Not chase the ECZ trucks, regional vote rigging and Xenophobic terrorism.

      4

      0
    • @12.3 Kay1 NOT EVEN A BIT, I AM ANGRY AGAINST THE OPPOSITION THAT HAS FAILED TO SHOW US WHAT THEY DO TO IMPROVE THE GOVERNANCE OF OUR COUNTRY!! Debating a court ruling for the next one year instead of taking the Government to task with facts on corruption and other vices is NOT helping us!! UPND WASTED TIME DENYING THAT LUNGU WAS A PRESIDENT, boycotting parliament till they lost some pay, where did it take us as a country??PEOPLE WHO WIN ELECTIONS AND TAKE POWER FROM RULING PARTIES DWELL ON PEOPLE’s DAILY NEEDS,FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND HOW THEY CAN MEET THEM BETTER THAN RUNNING GOVT!! In Zambia the opposition believes by consistently insulting the judiciary or contradicting court rulings then you can win votes! HAS IT WORKED??

      2

      1
    • sorry I meant “…..future perspectives and how they can meet them better than THOSE running govt!!”

      1

      0
  10. Thank you my President for this information. The PF are a disgruntled group bent on destroying this country. The Lung Tun regime has no good intentions for this country.

    6

    4
  11. I agree with you, Edgar served his first term under the old Constitution which didn’t have such provisions. The new Constitution can’t nullify what happened under the old Constitution, such things don’t happen in Law. What the ConCourt made was a political ruling, they misdirected themselves

    9

    7
    • Exactly ..you can not backdate provisions just like that…this issue is not going away Lazy Lungu is not the only candidate who can be a President their are over 5 million Zambians over the age of 35 who can!!

      3

      5
    • Read Article 267 (c) and (d).

      Note that last part “shall apply as modified, not as per the old Constitution as Chips is trying to argue in point number 3 and 4 about retrospective application. Clearly the law was trying to protect existing institutions and offices, along with the office bearers.

      Don’t just argue based on hearsay.

      Read for yourself as directed by Article 43 sub2 (a) & (c).

      0

      0
    • Lazy bum TONGA tribal hooligan bully son of a tribal polygamous father who never taught him table manners and toilet training pooping in his diapers and pyjamas HAGAIN needing cynical MUTINTA HICHILEMA, BoSPakata and HAKAINDE MENTAL to change his diapers HAGAIN. The good news is that PRIVATISATION THIEF is UNELECTABLE.

      1

      0
  12. Zambian oposition is directionless. Lelo kambwili ku Luanshya, Mailo HH ati so & so. Then ati mulongoti alelanda ifyakwe. Ba Milupi nabo lelo baisa mailo baya. No Direction at all. We are dissapointed.

    6

    4
    • The Tribal TONGA thief is UNELECTABLE. EAT MORE CHICKEN. Have you considered taking him for a rodeo? You may just win! You guys know how to ride mad cows.

      1

      0
  13. Chipimo!
    If one runs for less than 3 years, that period is not a “Term”. Therefore that is a “ZERO TERM”. ZERO! TERM is NULL and VOID. not half, not one! EL was re-elect in 2016 after saving “ZERO TERM” from 2015 after the death of SATA. God willing 2016 to 2021 will be “ONE TERM”.

    10

    5
  14. Exellent bo Chipimo,this is how an oposition leader is to give checks and balances.I really feel sorry for upnd,they cant put up such an arguement.Can they also post an article as to why they are not happy with the rulling as chipimo has done.Sinkamba also explained his side,its like upnd enjoys ku kazyaanya.

    4

    2
    • How can you feel sorry for UPND when they said last week that they were studying the CONCOURT Judgement? Do you want them to issue a statement immediately on Friday without seeking legal counsel on the matter?

      1

      5
    • Corrupt privatisation thief with money stuck in a Tax Haven country of PANAMA! Kindly make him a Paramount Chief of the Namwalans!

      1

      0
  15. A lawyer’s job is to argue on facts according to the interpretation of what is written in the books of law. I love listening to their submissions even in court movies. But when judgement is passed, post judicial commentaries don’t make sense especially if there is absolutely no room for appeal. The fact that Elias has some form of post judicial and extra judicial feelings about the outcome on the eligibility case does not make him right and the court wrong. Like any court verdict, you have the vindicated and the aggrieved.

    3

    2
    • Soon Peter Sinkamba will publish his own. In favor or against the Concourt, that won’t make any difference. So we move on.

      4

      2
  16. Chipimo, you are a twit and a let down! Your father Mr. Chipimo Snr (MHSRIP) wouldnt like to see you sink so low and useless especially lately. Could it be that you have forgotten to apply the law you studied (not learnt)? You say “serving even for one year constituted a full term under the pre-amended Constitution”, honestly even the least of thinkers in any given setting would laugh at you. What can honestly one do in one year as a President other than settling down?
    When you came on political space, many had so much faith in you to the extent that those who know what type of thinkers we are, some of your closest colleagues even started enticing people like us to help you, but we refrained because we needed to scan and understand what you stood for. As posterity is, we have been…

    1

    6
  17. contd
    When you came on political space, many had so much faith in you to the extent that those who know what type of thinkers we are, some of your closest colleagues even started enticing people like us to help you, but we refrained because we needed to scan and understand what you stood for. As posterity is, we have been vindicated because now you are siding with the perpetual loser HH, who in our view isnt as sellable like you had you strategized and studied the political space. We all know that HH and UPND will NEVER in the foreseeable future form government, where have you positioned yourself? You have dropped from 7 to 2! HH isnt a factor and 90% Zambians dont accept him for obvious reasons. He represents the imperialists and himself is a jerk, a liar, divisive chap, a big conman, a…

    0

    3
  18. contd
    We all know that HH and UPND will NEVER in the foreseeable future form government, where have you positioned yourself? You have dropped from 7 to 2! HH isnt a factor and 90% Zambians dont accept him for obvious reasons. He represents the imperialists and himself is a jerk, a liar, divisive chap, a big conman, a thief, a bitter man a mr “know it all”, that the person you choose to share the table with?

    0

    2
  19. More years of stealing and abuse of the law allowed by these so called judges paid huge tax payers for producing guess work .How on earth can you expect these lot to pass judgement against someone who has given them a job .He has warned them and threatened them not to have independent minds like judges in Kenya otherwise they would have been consequences.
    The selection of judges should be done by an independent body and not this Lungu .We saw PF cadres trooping to the Con courts without a permit . In a similar circumstances the police can’t allow the opposition to have peaceful demonstrations because the same police which allowed the PF to gather at Con court without a permit have been told to stop the opposition from having peaceful demonstrations by the PF . These are the signs of a…

    3

    0
  20. A law that is not consistent with constitution is not valid. The person who should not stand is HH. UPND constitution is contrary to the national constitution.
    On the matter at hand doest the law apply in retrospect? IF it does Elias has missed the point.

    3

    2
  21. 1 corporate lawyer with zero experience in judgements says 7 judges with an accumulated total of over 100yrs experience among them says those judges misdirected themselves..lol. Give me a break Ba Mr. Almighty intelligent.

    2

    3
  22. I’m no lawyer but this concourt judgement effectively qualifies RB and KK to another two full presidential terms, since according to their logic laws passed before 2016 amendment are null and void, it’s a clean slate after 2016, what happened before doesn’t count.

    6

    0
  23. Let’s just pause for a moment. ..suppose HH had won the 2015 by election and found himself in the current situation what would be his reaction and that of his lawyers. I want an honest answer.

    2

    2
    • flag Corruption scandals: Social Security Cash Luxury Presidential Jet Ambulances Fire Trucks Mukula Trees Ndola-Lusaka Rd Malawi Maizegate Fuelgate Swaziland landgate Zesco Loans

      We will never know the answer because he never won (actually he won but he was robbed by Lungu). But I suspect his lawyers and his minions would be pushing to have him run again in 2021 for a 3rd term just Lungu’s minions are doing now.

      Again Zambia is a failed state project. Most citizens in other countries wouldn’t be tolerating the craziness that passes as normal in this country with easy to manipulate people who pray for their political gods everyday. Lungu knows it and that’s why he can do anything he wants, including stealing elections, resources and going for a 3rd term using pretext legal institutions.

      1

      1
    • Just be honest and give me what would be your answer. If someone asked what kind of wife I would want to marry I will be able to describe her and I won’t I can’t know because I have never been married.

      1

      0
  24. Tenure of
    office of
    President

    “106. (1) The term of office for a President is five years which
    shall run concurrently with the term of Parliament, except that the
    term of office of President shall expire when the President-elect
    assumes office in accordance with Article 105.
    (2) A President shall hold office from the date the President elect
    is sworn into office and ending on the date the next President elect
    is sworn into office.
    (3) A person who has twice held office as President is not
    eligible for election as President.
    (4) The office of President becomes vacant if the President—
    (a) dies;
    (b) resigns by notice in writing to the Speaker of the National
    Assembly; or
    (c) otherwise ceases to hold office under Article 81,107 or
    108.
    (5) When a vacancy occurs in the…

    1

    0
    • ….and I gather this was copied from the Kenyan Constitution. Copy & paste. Our fellow countrymen had seating after seating and allowance after allowance deliberating on the composition of the LAW. If you felt lazy attending to clauses like these, fix them by modifying them to your unequivocal interpretation. Otherwise the constitutional court is believable.

      2

      1
  25. This is s great analysis from Mr. Chipimo. Even those of us who have scanty background about law have got something out of this.
    Its clear that the outcome of the ruling was premeditated and there was no other outcome we could have waited to counter this. The judges deliberately misled themselves and its very clear that nothing could have changed anything.
    Let them enjoy stage planned outcomes its their time. But one day time will come for the just Zambia and we shall see dances of all kinds when that time will come and thats what they fear most.
    Disaster!!!

    4

    1
  26. The opposition should really put their act together. Lungu and the PF will go through come 2021 because of their popularity but due to a fragmented opposition vote. Frankly I fail to understand why everyone who leaves PF thinks they can be President, Kambwili, Musenge, Mulongoti, Kalaba and so on. They should assess themselves first! If they truly have people’s interests at heart as they claim, they should join forces with the already existing opposition parties especially those that have performed fairly well in the last two general and presidential elections. HH has narrowly lost to ECL twice under very challenging circumstances. If those elections had been held in a free and fair manner, the results would probably have been different. In January 2015 HH lost by only 27,757 votes and…

    1

    1
  27. Since you all say the concourt judgement is final. What as happened to the judgement which concourt passed for the Ministers to repay salaries which were drawn for staying in Office illegally?Is there any opposition with substance to find out the status quo?

    3

    0
  28. Should have read “Lungu and the PF will go through come 2021 NOT because of their popularity but due to a fragmented opposition vote”

    0

    0
  29. Chipimo’s analysis of the Concourt judgement on President Lungu’s eligibility case gives some grounded eargument although nothing else will change. In my view the clause that backs up this eligibility judgement applies to a VP assuming office after a vacancy occurs in the office of President or where a VP fails to take office for some reason and the Speaker performs executive functions and an election is held after sixty days. The Constitution is quite clear under Article 106 (2) and (3) as to the term of office and who is not eligible for election. We are told the constitution should be read holistically but during the presidential petition the clause dealing with the 14 days period was not read holistically with the other clauses that define how the period should be calculated i.e…

    1

    0
  30. flag Corruption scandals: Social Security Cash Luxury Presidential Jet Ambulances Fire Trucks Mukula Trees Ndola-Lusaka Rd Malawi Maizegate Fuelgate Swaziland landgate Zesco Loans

    Very well articulated Elias Chipimo… never took this guy seriously but he quite articulate and knowledgeable. His arguments above make sense even to laymen. His argument about using the new constitution and backdating makes lots of sense. These ConCourt sycophants trying to guess the ‘intention’ of Parliament is downright ridiculous and bizarre. Chipimo’s 35/45 years age example simplifies the argument quite well.

    I hate to say but these are the type and calibre of people who should be running this country and not these corrupt numskulls whose IQ is no better than that of a fish. Zambia is a failed project, and as for the Concourt, their judgment was predictable, the reason I didn’t stay up late at night looking forward to it because I knew Lungu put these political stooges to…

    3

    0
    • flag Corruption scandals: Social Security Cash Luxury Presidential Jet Ambulances Fire Trucks Mukula Trees Ndola-Lusaka Rd Malawi Maizegate Fuelgate Swaziland landgate Zesco Loans

      …I knew Lungu put these political stooges to serve his personal ambitions. Wait until he amends the Constitution in 2026 using the same minions. The people need to reclaim their Zambia project from this Lungu before it is too late.

      3

      0
  31. Even when political pacts are forged, the preoccupation of all fragments’ head is top leadership. Can you imagine the selfishness? That’s why electorates don’t mind them Pacts. The last time Zambians used emotions to remove a leader, we ended up with FTJ, the master dribbler. Since history has a way of repeating itself, we do have an FTJ like fellow masquerading as a politician. Some miserable chancer. Sheep in wolf clothing. I hope you know who I am alluding to. Sad.
    He wants to rule before Elias and other more likely leaders.

    3

    0
  32. Disregard of law and order is now normal in Zambia. Just because Chipimo is against the incumbent, then other details in the Constitution become irrelevant. It’s better to go back to the bushes and join the pygmies instead of pretending we’re educated.

    1

    1
  33. I agree Zambia is really a failed project as of now. There is a lot of potential but nobody in leadership is willing to try and build a truly Zambian enterprise by properly empowering locals to have capacity to build this enterprise preferring the easy way out giving everything to foreigners to do things for us. Now we have almost everything being owned and/or run by foreigners including mere retail business. Can you imagine the amount of money that goes out of the country to create big business and employment opportunities in other countries instead of reinvesting in our country and improving the lot of Zambians? Now we can’t even respect our own laws!
    The only thing we appear capable of doing is to try and out do each other in self destruction! We really are cannibals as Archbishop…

    1

    0
  34. President Elias Chipimo Junior Please help me,
    Arising from the analysis you have given help me resolve my case. I retired from the civil the service on the 30th of October 2016, after working for 32 years. According to the 2016 newly amended Zambia Constitution under article 148 if I am not mistaken I was entitled to remain on the payroll till my full benefits were paid by my employers in the case the Zambian Government.
    But this law never worked in my case since just after one month I was removed from the payroll. The argument was that though my final working day was 30th October, 2016 my actual retirement age of 55 was attained on the 11th of November 2014. I was told the law that applied then did not allow me to remain on the payroll as the old Constitution did not have this…

    1

    0
  35. There is no Rule of Law in Zambia , when we talk of corruption in Zambia , this is what we mean . the church , Govt , NGOs, 75 % are corrupt . only God Lord The Almighty is Perfect . But Lungu should realise that there is time for every thing . Chiluba wanted second term, people rejected it , the problem is when people are quiet you would not know what they are thinking . Zambians are not cowards neither are they Dull . we know leadership is sweet but even sweetness could turn into something very bitter at times . uukwebele imfwayakwanoko, muanshi

    0

    0
  36. This provision. As a result I was removed from the pay roll. Now Arising from the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the law regarding the Presidential terms should I also revisit my case. The Civil Servants and Allied Workers Union of Zambia who were handling my case failed to resolve this issue with the Public Service Management Division. Mr. Sichinsambwe who was handling my case what do you say now as regards the way the Supreme court has interpreted this law. Country men and women should I revisit this issue and sue the state. My Contact 0977351554

    1

    0
  37. Oh my, I like Elias and know him personally but this opinion is not what I would have expected as his learned best for not just law but common sense.

    A new amendment to a constitution does not prejudice an incumbent or disadvantage them for the past. As an example, if today marijuana was legalized in Zambia it means everyone convicted of it in the past and serving time in Prison currently would have to have they’re sentence scrapped and those serving in prison released.

    1

    1
  38. Example of how change in constitution should not leave the past disadvantaged.

    Except from an American Newspaper….

    In the weeks following the legalization of cannabis in California, San Francisco’s district attorney expunged thousands of felony convictions related to cannabis possession. Cities such as Seattle and San Diego have also moved to clear away records of marijuana possession.

    Also the judgment was on a constitutional matter regarding what constitutes a presidential term of office not eligibility for anyone to stand. That’s why that judgment impacts RB positively as well because he can now stand for another term if not two

    1

    2
  39. Just to add my voice to this debate. Elias has analyzed this case very well from the legal point as he understands. If people have contrary views it will dwell well if they can also offer their interpretations. You can see that the constitution is one document but different legal minds are interpreting differently. The debate will help in future when the constitution is being amended to remove the lacunas from the document. So let us debate more and more.

    2

    1
  40. Constitution of Zambia, 1991 (as amended up to Act No. 18 of 1996)

    PART IV: THE EXECUTIVE

    (11)
    The person who has held office as President shall not, within the period referred to in clause (10), perform any functions of the office of President under this Constitution or any other law.

    35. (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (4) every President shall hold office for a period of five years.

    (2)
    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution or any other law a person who has twice been elected as President shall not be eligible for re-election to that office.

    0

    1
  41. By Peter Sinkamba

    When the debate on eligibility commenced last year, I held a view that President Lungu was eligible to contest the next elections.

    As was reported in the Lusaka Times issue of 15th January, 2017, my key arguments were anchored on the following point:

    (1) 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

    (2) 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

    (3) President Lungu only served for 18 months and did not therefore complete a “term”Under Article 106(1) of the…

    3

    1
  42. ……….Under Article 106(1) of the constitution, as a term of office lasts 5 years.

    This is almost exactly what the Constitutional Court has stated too in its judgment. So I feel somewhat vindicated.

    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. Such an argument is flawed in the sense that if one resigns or dies during the first term of office, then that person cannot be said to have “held office” of the President, for he would not have held office until the next person is sworn-in. For example, it would be grossly erroneous, under lexical semantics, to argue that the Late President Michael Sata NEVER “held Office” of President simply because he did not serve until the next person…

    2

    1
  43. ……..Michael Sata NEVER “held Office” of President simply because he did not serve until the next person (Mr. Lungu) was sworn-in as President. It could also be grossly erroneous to argue that the Late President Levy Mwanawasa NEVER “held Office” of President simply because he died before the next person (Mr. Rupiah Banda) was sworn-in as President.

    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 in 2015 and 2016. He remains the same person sworn-in in 2015 and 2016 until 2021.

    2

    1
  44. I think that the Constitutional Court decision is sound because it is premised on “serving term of office” rather than “the swearing-in of next person” or indeed “number of times that someone has acted in office of the president regardless the number of days”.

    The latter, which is premised on the number of time that someone has acted in the office of the president, is so flawed that people like Vice President Inonge Wina and Defence Minister Davies Chama who have acted in the office of the president for two or more times would automatically be ineligible to contest presidency, even if the period in which they acted is cumulatively for less than 10 days!!!!!!

    It places persons like Hon Mwanakatwe on the line of ineligibility if given one more chance to act a president.

    Such a law…

    2

    1
  45. …………Such a law would definitely be fundamentally wrong.

    President Lungu is eligible to contest in 2021, A response to Elias Chipimo Jnr

    This is an excerpt from Peter Sinkamba’s article which I agree with compared to Elias’s opinion.

    Sinkamba makes sense that’s why I respect his comments he is an intelligent individual though I don’t even know what his qualifications are, he always makes sense

    2

    1
    • Peter Sinkamba is the most level headed politician among these new players. He gave us a concise one page disposition. Elias Chipimo Jr. is trying to add on to Zambia’s well versed constitution. Neither add or subtract to great words, where have I read that in another wonderful book? One that tells the story of a child of Africa that became the greatest teacher ever.

      1

      0
  46. In common sense and natural justice, the constitutional court made the right and correct decision. Those against this decision should also have advocated for ECL to serve a full 5 years when he was elected as president in 2015 i.e. 2015 to 2020.

    Wishing to take advantage of legal technicalities will not help our country move forward.

    2

    1
  47. kikikikiki i now understand at first thought people just wanted to be cleared over eligibility by inter/pr now that its done all am seen is upnd coming out crying why is the fear jay jay and you friends ,2021 tefintu day in day out u call lungu lazy now lets see who is claver in 2021

    1

    0
    • Lungu is not winning!! He is a coward! If he is so confident, let democracy prevail! he will only win by suppressing the masses!

      0

      2
  48. I have read the entire article twice and was looking for grey areas that could have compelled the CC arrive at the decision they did. I think Elias has articulated the issue very well and as a country that want to be governed by the rule of law, it is important that the courts interpret these matters correctly. We may find ourselves as a country applying laws according the the political barometer. If technically what the CC did is sound, then we must respect that. If the learned friends like Elias find it wanting, we must deal with it. The trouble is that we have personalised the matter and labelled it as ECL against the rest. The CC is for ALL and not for selected few in power or opposition. So let’s enjoy the debate. For those who are prejudiced with sides, tough luck! But please…

    1

    1
  49. Before I find time to read all that gibberish from Hon Elias Chipimo, let me state that it is he who cannot read and understand the law. Has he ever practised law by the way? It seems our opposition politicians are all dull and uninspiring.
    Let me give this a dimension. The law is clear, serving for a year and half does not constitute a term. And if you argue that there are two definitions then the one which favours the incumbent prevails, why? Because elligibility of ECL does not disadvantage Trib.al Hacks or any other cowards, whereas if the ruling was that ECL is ineligible then you disadvantage ECL and the law does not operate like that.
    The law follows the doctrine of “Good order”, and not some trib.al whims led by one Trib.al Hacks who has been battered so much in elections and…

    2

    0
  50. ….The law follows the doctrine of “Good order”, and not some trib.al whims led by one Trib.al Hacks who has been battered so much in elections and court battles and God knows where else that he has stopped thinking.
    And the disease has caught on to Chipimo, Kambwili etc who are such bums that they have accepted unwittingly to mimic everything that Trib.al Hacks does. Anyway Chimbwili is also trib.al as Trib.al Hacks knows.

    1

    0
  51. You can tell that there is something the matter with this article just by counting the number of trib.al gibberish by trib.al Jay Gay. I have counted no less than 18 posts by this trib.al son of Trib.al Hacks who denies that he is trib.al but acts trib.al. How on earth can Jay Gay “reason” like Triba.l Hacks if he is not trib.al?

    1

    0
  52. Sadly the culture of looking to another as an authority on what can be read by oneself and independently verified as Reason and common sense is lacking. This is also reflected in how blindly people follow Pastors without counterchecking for themselves what the Bible actually says. Because of this, many are plundered and oppressed by false preachers that distort Gods Word for personal gain. Learn to read and interpret the Constitution for yourselves and study and don’t just read the Bible for yourselves. Then run away from politicians, Churches and Pastors who demonstrate what is Contrary to the image example of Jesus Christ as an expectation of God. Don’t let politicians, Lawyers and Pastors decieve you because you think they know better than you. Use your God given mental faculties to…

    1

    0
  53. Did I hear someone say Lungu served under the old constitution? No wonder he’ll keep on bashing you because you have no principles. …twisting facts all the time.

    0

    0

Comments are closed.