The petition against the nomination of Edgar Lungu as a candidate for election presents a watershed moment for Zambia, academic Sishuwa Sishuwa has observed.
In an interview, Dr Sishuwa observed that countries where judicial independence and presidential term limits have been ignored have slid into disorder, authoritarian rule, and dictatorship.
‘The judges on the Constitutional Court must surely feel the weight of history on their shoulders. It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Zambia’s Constitution and democracy lies in their hands’, he said.
Alongside Chapter One Foundation, the historian has filed a petition in the Constitutional Court of Zambia challenging the constitutionality of the nomination of Lungu as a candidate for election to the office of President in the forthcoming 12 August General Election.
The petitioners’ action is based on Article 52 (4) of the Constitution of Zambia, which states that ‘A person may challenge, before court or tribunal, as prescribed, the nomination of a candidate within seven days of the close of nomination and the court shall hear the case within twenty-one days of its lodgement.’
Dr Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation are represented by Lusaka lawyer John Sangwa.
Meanwhile, Lungu, the ruling Patriotic Front presidential candidate, has retained six law firms. These are Makebi Zulu Advocates, Eric Silwamba, Jalasi and Linyama Legal Practitioners, Ferd Jere and Co. belonging to Bokani Soko, Ellis & Co. (the firm where Attorney General Likando Kalaluka was partner before his appointment to public office), DH Kemp, and Central Chambers. The Attorney General has also joined the matter in opposition to the petitioners.
The matter comes up for hearing in the Constitutional Court on 8 and 9 June at 09:00hrs.
News Diggers caught up with Dr Sishuwa for an interview, and below was the full Q and A.
What is the essence of the petition?
The essence of the petition is to protect the sanctity and supremacy of the Constitution of Zambia. It is important to recall that Edgar Lungu was first elected in 2015 following Michael Sata’s untimely death in office. He was then re-elected in the controversial August 2016 polls. Zambia’s Constitution contains a clear two-term limit for the presidency, but Lungu and his supporters argue that his first term of just 18 months should not count towards this total and that he should therefore be allowed to stand for another term. What is being suggested – that Lungu can stand for a third term – is an act of violence against the Constitution. The law says one can only hold office twice.
What Lungu is trying to do is to push for a bogus interpretation of the Constitution to allow him stand for a third term. The simplest way he could have stood for a third term is to do what his friends in Uganda and Rwanda have done: remove term limits. But removing term limits would have required an amendment to the Constitution. Since his party lacked a two-thirds majority in parliament essential to making any changes to the Constitution, he has now turned to the courts. Using the courts, what Lungu is trying to do is destroy the Constitution by achieving a third term without an amendment. The essence of the petition is to ensure that this does not happen, that Lungu is limited to two terms, having twice been elected to the presidency and twice held office.
Since Zambia returned to multiparty democracy in 1991, no president has ever contested an election more than twice, and we would like to uphold that record and achievement. To allow Lungu to succeed is as good as shredding the entire Constitution. So, our petition is not an intellectual or individual pursuit; if we destroy Zambia’s Constitution, we destroy the very soul of the country. This is the gravity of the situation. We cannot sit idly and watch this act of barbarism being commissioned against the Constitution of Zambia.
What motivated you to challenge the nomination of President Lungu?
Before I answer the substance of your question, please allow me to clarify that we have not challenged the nomination of President Lungu. We have challenged the nomination of Edgar Chagwa Lungu, the presidential candidate of the Patriotic Front, for election to the office of president using the law and the facts that are specific to him. It is important to make that distinction.
To the substance of your question, my action was motivated by two considerations. The first is that of civic responsibility. The Constitution of Zambia imposes on all citizens the obligation to defend it. Article 2 (a) and (b) state that ‘Every person has the right and duty to defend this Constitution; and resist or prevent a person from overthrowing, suspending or illegally abrogating this Constitution’.
I believe that Lungu is not eligible to stand for another term of office for the reasons stated in the petition. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I support or like him as a person. It has everything to do with defending the Constitution. Allowing Lungu to stand would violate the Constitution. Other people have a contrary opinion, and I respect that. We have presented our differing positions before a competent authority for determination. The Constitution mandates the courts to do substantive justice. Whatever they decide will be the record that time will forever recognise.
The second motivation is that of moral responsibility. All Zambians of goodwill have a moral responsibility to protect term limits and prevent the return of one-man rule. Zambia has suffered before because an individual bastardised the Constitution and perpetuated themselves in power. It should terrorise every sane Zambian who has any sense of history when any person begins to act in a manner that threatens to take us back to that horrible past. As a historian, I am perhaps better placed than many to understand the significance of this point and our moral responsibility to prevent us from drifting into that dark hole.
My expertise and intimate knowledge of Zambian political history makes it impossible for me to keep quiet when I see anyone taking a path that risks dragging us down that dangerous route. I care about history and about Zambia. It worries me greatly that we have low regard for history in this country. We need to learn from it. Term limits have a history. We have the responsibility to not only understand that history but also to help preserve term limits and refuse to succumb to the vulgarities of fear.
I do think that we become accomplices to the violations of the Constitution if we do nothing when they occur. In the process, we allow a culture of impunity, undemocratic rule, authoritarianism and eventually dictatorship. It is a citizen’s responsibility and obligation to constantly be alert to violations of the Constitution.
If we do not challenge wrongs before constitutionally established institutions, we are abetting lawlessness that may eventually lead to dictatorship. It is the law that prevents us from being savages. When we stop demanding that everybody respects the Constitution and rule of law, we invite violence in our lives. So, I acted out of moral responsibility.
How do you respond to those who say you are being sponsored by the opposition or paid to do this?
Efforts to discredit and devalue my work to protect the Constitution and rule of law by falsely accusing me of being sponsored by the opposition are as sick as the heads in which they are manufactured. I do not need the opposition or ruling party to do my duty for my country. It says a lot about the collapse of our value system as a society that one cannot be seen to be acting in defence of principle or conviction unless there is a monetary or political consideration to their efforts. Well, I am different. I am sponsored by my conscience and the only weapons at my disposal are my brain, ideas, and principles.
The problem with crooks or those who long ago lost the ability to act honestly is that they judge everybody by their rotten standards. The assumption that everybody acts because they are a mercenary is just that: an assumption. There are still many Zambians who could have acted as we have done. They are just afraid of the risks.
The charges that I am being paid to do this are coming from crooks and unprincipled people who are using their own low standards. I am not paid by anybody to do this. I am moved by duty, my conscience, and the urgent desire to prevent the country sliding into anarchy because the Constitution and the rule of law are no longer respected. I do not want that to happen to a country I love dearly, but crooks think everybody is like them. I have nothing but contempt for such people because their warped thinking implies that we are a people incapable of doing anything good unless we are paid.
Are you not afraid of the risks to your life for undertaking this petition? There has also been talk that your job at the University of Zambia is on the line.
I recognise that the degree of poverty in Zambia makes it very dangerous to undertake these things, but a greater terror awaits us if we do not stand up to defend the Constitution and do the things that matter most. Failed states do not attain that dubious distinction in a day or a year. The steps towards that status are gradual, incremental, but they all coalesce around the same thing: undermining the key institutions that offer the long-term hope for democratic consolidation – elections, the Constitution, the judiciary, etc.
So, I am more afraid of what might happen to Zambia if we do not respect the Constitution than what might happen to me. They can do whatever they want to me. But the visons of mothers running with children on their backs, of countries that have descended into chaos and lawlessness because they allowed the destruction of their most important institutions, make it impossible for me to keep quiet. Those reversals do not happen overnight. They happen because good people keep quiet for far too long.
It is unwise for anybody to think that all of us have a price or are incapable of seeing the perilous nature of the current trajectory of politics in our country. Honour, duty, love for my homeland and civic responsibility are what motivate me to do these things. The threat from the accumulating destruction occurring around us is far scarier than the threat of being arrested or killed. If they killed me, they would only do that to one citizen. I am out to prevent many citizens, the whole country, from being affected.
Believe me when I say I fear no one, human or divine. I know that if I die in the struggle, others will take my place. We must hold our leaders to account, irrespective of the consequence that may come our way. It would be nice to have more people like John Sangwa, Linda Kasonde, Musa Mwenye, Laura Miti, Chama Fumba, and a few others who defend democracy, speak truth to power and campaign against the erosion of democratic institutions. But we must find comfort in the fact that we are enough. We are enough because at its core, our job is very simple. It is to be the pinhead of the needle of justice and clean governance. Our job is to give courage to those who are scared. We do not have to be too many for that; we are enough. The cowards will join eventually; they always do.
As for my university job, I have no illusions. I know that it is on the line, but my conscience is very clear. The way the university administrators behaved when a government official accused me of publishing seditious material shows that they are just cowards. They have already demonstrated that they are actively looking for ways to get rid of me because they lack the capacity to protect the rights of academics to freely produce knowledge. Their problem right now is that they cannot find anything to pin on me.
It is unheard of for a university to disown any of their academic members of staff in the heat of a debate in the public domain. It has never happened since the University of Zambia was established in 1966. If the university management cannot stand up to the authorities, they should enter the fray and differ with my ideas. Although I do not hesitate to urge my opinion on a given subject where I am informed, I retain that intellectual integrity of one who is both respectful and willing to abandon their position if its weaknesses could be shown. Intimidation will not work.
Any institution that pretends to be a university but cannot protect its intellectuals’ right to think and publish does not deserve to be called a university.
What is the expected outcome?
There are two possible outcomes. One is that we lose the petition. This outcome would mean that Lungu would be allowed to stand for another term of office. In effect, we would have destroyed the two term limits. If his party wins a majority in parliament, Lungu could change the Constitution and either extend term limits or remove them altogether. Once this happens, we are back to one-man rule and Zambia would descend into a complete state of lawlessness and a dark hole that we have never known since the achievement of independence in 1964. And there would be no recovery. All the democratic gains or achievements scored since 1991 will be reversed.
So, this petition is far more important than the actual election petition. An election petition addresses a suspected wrong committed against a fellow political competitor. The harm that will be done by allowing Lungu to stand will be against the country and cannot be undone. Everything we have struggled for since 1991 will be reduced to rubble. We would be setting a very bad precedent.
Even amidst Zambia’s continuing fall from grace, the petition against the nomination of Edgar Lungu as a candidate for election is a watershed moment for the country. Zambia’s judges on the Constitutional Court must surely feel the weight of history on their shoulders. Other countries where judicial independence and presidential term limits have been ignored have slid into disorder, authoritarian rule and dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Zambia’s democracy lies in their hands.
The alternative outcome is that we win the case. If we manage to prevent Lungu from standing for a third term, our democratic credentials, including Zambia’s standing as a constitutional democracy, would be elevated to unprecedented levels. Term limits and the supremacy of the Constitution would be upheld. The country may be poorly managed economically but, constitutionally, we would cement our standing as a democratic country.
Are you not afraid of costs in case you lose the case?
Like the respondents, I am expecting a positive outcome from court. If we lose the case, I pray that the court will not condemn us to costs because we are raising questions of a constitutional nature that are in the public interest. It is counterproductive to impose punitive costs in constitutional matters of public interest such as this one. If such punitive costs are imposed, we might as well strike out Article 2 (a) and (b) from the Constitution that imposes on every citizen the duty and right to defend it.
It would be sad if the courts decide to punish me rather than celebrating the fact that I am actively playing my civic duty. These are matters that concern every citizen of the country. I am very sure that there many Zambians out there who are very happy that some Zambians have taken this matter up to the Constitutional Court. I am optimistic that the court will follow its previous precedence where it has not made cost orders in constitutional matters of public importance such as the ones we have raised.
What can others do to support your cause?
I know that many Zambians support us, and we are very grateful for their support. And by us, I mean our lawyer John Sangwa and my co-petitioner, the Chapter One Foundation. Others can support us by attending court on the date of the hearing. This includes the media. That would make a huge difference. Such an action would highlight the significance of the matter and bring a wider eye to what is happening.
Thank you very much for the interview.
You are most welcome.
Source: News Diggers
Edgar Lungu is a crimina and who does he thinks?
Well done Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa very people of your kind in this raped country!
It’s not too late to correct our mistakes and put a, responsible president Bally who will fix everything to normalcy.
You can’t bring a criminal lawyer who spent most of his time in taverns to come and govern us, twakana!
Edgar Lungu is a serious criminal and prison awaits him.
Judges must learn from former chief Justice Matthew Ngulube who was prosecuted during Mwanawasa’s time.
We don’t corrupt judges and time is now or never!
PF is finished and dusted.
Indeed it’s a watershed moment and we’ll see what our judiciary is made of. It’s very unfortunate that the Chief Justice as the head of the judiciary won’t have an opportunity to pronounce herself on this matter. I’ve noticed that a law firm that has a history of winning cases on technicalities has also been retained. We’ve kept our fingers crossed
Edgar Lungu is a crimina and who does he thinks?
Well done Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa very people of your kind in this raped country!
It’s not too late to correct our mistakes and put a, responsible president Bally who will fix everything to normalcy.
You can’t bring a criminal lawyer who spent most of his time in taverns to come and govern us, twakana!
Edgar Lungu is a serious criminal and prison awaits him.
Judges must learn from former chief Justice Matthew Ngulube who was prosecuted during Mwanawasa’s time.
We don’t corrupt judges and time is now or never!
PF is finished!
Wasted spermatozoa ..concourt already ruled on the issue of what constitutes a term. The dull doc needs to be condemned to costs to deter others from wasting the court’s and other people’s time…u have fished a dry kapenta.
Sishuwa Sishuwa is really gifted .Zambia owes this brave Son of the Soil some credit for taking up this Civic Role.Sishuwa is fulfilling his Civic Duty to the Nation. Our Constitutional Democracy is under threat and we commend SC Sangwa and the Petitioners for defending our Republican Constitution from marauding Chilubas of this World. We hope the Petitions will be heard on their Merits and Concourt will make a Seismic Judgment. Indeed History is being written.
Educated but useless Doc a load o rub.bish. .nonsense, he deserves to b hit by at least $1,million in legal costs. Kupusa mambala
There are so many important things that you can use your education to than fighting the President. How many times as a court ruled on the same useless petition? Please use your education to create jobs for youths rather than pushing HH selfish interest.
The matter is in court.
Doc zip your mouth and learn to keep quiet and wait for judgement and most importantly your costs to deter like minded misfits from abusing the courts.
no crowds at court …..please
Lungu,!!! Luo!! Lungu!!! Luo!!! Lungu!!! Luo!!!
If lungu is allowed to stand a third time……
What would stop him resigning after 2 years , then saying he still only completed 1 term and competing again ?
Or if not him , what would stop other presidents from resigning after 2 years and claiming they did not complete a term ??
Very intelligent man and a true son of Zambia. The rest who are cowards are just adopted sons of Zambia.
Every dictatorship, every military coup and every autocratic regime on the African continent has had its cheerleaders from university dons, legal practitioners and judges. But the result has always been the same: they all ended up in disaster for countries concerned.
As long as the judiciary is not independent (all judges are appointed by the president) it’s not going to make one iota of difference. Whatever president is in power can get away with murder – Lungu has blood on his hands and nobody says anything!
My comment is under moderation by LT editors.
My comment is under moderation while downright insults aimed at unfortunate people in Zambia are allowed.
Wow wow wow! Sishuwa Sishuwa is indeed a true Zambian patriot
Dr. Sishuwa and His Honour Sangwa are two who have fallen out with the president Lungu. They went wayward to revenge the past feuds. The historian started so subtly: that there will be violence if UPND does not win the elections. When his opponents retaliated, he went for constitutionalism to justify his cause. He is a coward who accuses his employers, UNZA, of negligence and hopes to flood the court for mob support and praying to escape paying legal fees if defeated. It is self preservation not on principle.
Expect this Sishuwa boy to come out bruised. If he loses, let him not cry foul. He will not just lose this case but will lose his job with UNZA. Who petitions a President in court whilst working for a public institution like UNZA? The know-it-all Sishuwa boy should be ready to lose his job with UNZA and not cry of victimization! Let him show us a university don in an African or western country in the employ of a state university who has sued a sitting President. The boy has been tempting fate for sometime and this case will come to bite him, and bite him hard.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein.
The hate and anger the upnd and its supporters have for Edgar Lungu has distorted their thinking leading to their failure to come up with a solid strategy for the country.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein.
This ka chIkaIa doesn’t learn.ECL is standing whether you like it or not. Go tell your tribal leader that!
Well written and well said Sishuwa. These are Petitions between the Applicants and the Respondent in his Personal Capacity. In this Case: Sishuwa Sishuwa vs ECL how does the State thru the AG get involved in a purely bilateral litigation ? What is Kalaluka’ s interest in all this? ECL has a large contingent of Personal Lawyers so why is Kalaluka getting involved? Let’s hope Concourt will not allow Kalaluka to derail the Hearing by bringing in his usual Pule Preliminaries. Concourt should Hear the Petitioners Arguments and Respondent ‘s defence and come to a Verdict. Let ECL convince Concourt why ECL’s 18 months is not a Term of Office while RB’s 34 months is a Term of Office under the 1996 Amended Constitution which doesn’t have a 3 year Exemption. People of Zambia are…
A candidate for Chainama…cConcourt plz cite this educated i.d.iot for contempt. The matter is in court and Shula Shula is busy giving farting interviews…
1 } When Gordon Brown was handed power by Tony Blair on the silver plate in UK, Gordon served the last half term that which Blair had won, by virtual of inheritance.
If Brown had beaten David Cameron he ” still ” would have stood for 2 more terms or General Elections. Which in the end means he would have stood for 3 General Elections. One half term to and 2 full terms of his own.
That’s the British Way. Zambia inherited, copied and pasted that ” part ” of our Colonial Masters Constitution.
Ba Ecl.. who are you? This is what has kept Africa from development. People like you lack the capacity to ibepebdently analyse issues. If Sishuwa was of a different race you would be singing a different song. Dont call him a dull person sumply because he offers to challenge Lungu rather give your opinion if indeed you are capable of givibf one. And dont just say the concourt has already ruled on this.
2} So, what is Sichuwa and Sangwa missing apart from using this as a campaign for the other, job seeking and attention seeking.
If anything they should have started this fight in courts 4 years ago, to block Lungu because PF made it clear that Lungu was to stand in 2021. Why now in the campaign season.
3} You can fool some people but you cannot full everyone. The Zambian Constitution is available for any one to download it online and read its text, content.
Too often when you try too much to be RELEVANT, you end up being IRRELEVANT.
Sichuwa has now become Irrelevant and cheapened himself. And surely something is eating him.
4} Using the above adage from the “LAWS” we copied from our British Colonial Masters, Lungu did ” NOT SEEK” the FIRST FULL TERM in 2011. It was Sata who did that. A term in Zambia is 4yrs. Lungu was completing Sata’s term. Lungu has not done 2 full terms which equals to 8 years. He has just 6 years.
I cannot wait to see Eric Silwamba in court, teach Sichuwa and Sangwa something to remember in life. Eric is no match to Sangwa. He will school these chaps.
On the contrary, it has exposed the opposition and their sinister intentions. If those petitions had any merit, they wouldn’t have been thrown out by the court. A learned person like you, if at all you really are, should have understood this.
You should be the last person to speak on this matter. If you are so worried about Zambia, why are you hiding in a rat hole in South Africa? If you are courageous enough, come back and let’s have one to one discussion. Game?
On the contrary, the petitions will prove watershed for the opposition. It is the indication that they have nothing concrete to target the government. Therefore such petty tricks. Even a child will say that the legal battle is futile and more the petitions, more would be the humiliation for opposition and blind supporters like you.
These are the same judge who ruled against the ministers illegally holding office and ordered them to pay back the salary. You were jubilant then, but now, you are spewing venom against the same judiciary because it has ruled in favour of President Lungu and blew up your plan! And you expect people to believe that you are an impartial thinker!
The two comrades are not protecting the constitution at all, but as a pretentious vile veil.
They are bent on malice, mischief, cadreism time wasting, hooliganism, vengeance and utter fo.lly.
Pity some should settle ugly old scores in this manner.
This is selective use of the Constitution. But we can’t expect anything else from a cadre like you. Still, I will suggest you to read Article (3) and (6). Stop celebrating the falsehood that President Edgar Lungu is not eligible to contest 2021 General Elections are in fool’s paradise. The selfish opposition leader is taking them for a ride. The Constitution of Zambia is the supreme and no one can surpass it. Those day dreaming need to wake up and smell the coffee. According to Article 106 (3) and (6), a presidential term of office that ran from 25 January 2015 to 13 September 2016 can’t be considered as full term, as it is less than three years. Even the constitutional court, in its judgment has said that the Presidential term of office that ran from 25th January 2015 to 13th September…
Instead of being against the country, you should stand with it. The country would benefit a lot if you speak on the massive development happening in the country. President Lungu is ardent about development through the implementation of infrastructure projects. He is of the opinion that landlocked countries can reduce their transports costs substantially by having an improved infrastructure.
Why are you silent on the paradigm shift in agriculture sector? No word on delivery of farming inputs ahead of onset of season, alternative livelihood options to areas affected by climate change, investing in educating and training farmers, exports of blueberries and honey, increased interest by farmers to produce a variety of tree crops, fruits and vegetables for the export market and bumper harvest expected this season.
If you had been in Zambia, you would have realised that there has been massive improvement in power sector. You would have realised that there had been no load shedding since December. But for that you would either have to come back to country or get in touch with right people.
No matter how much you abuse PF from the safety of a foreign country, it would not change the ground reality that it is the most preferred party because of what President Edgar Lungu has done for the people. You only have to look at parliamentary candidates to see why. The Munali PF candidate is a northwesternerm (Mr. Samwimbila), Mandevu has young Shakafuswa, a Lenje. Kabwata has another non-Bemba in Danny Yenga. See the influence that the Luvale speaking Joe Malanji has in PF. See how many Luvale speaking peoples PF has adopted in Lukulu (Mr. Mbunji), Zambezi West (Mr. Charles Kakoma) and elsewhere. Also look at the number of new and younger candidates the PF has adopted countrywide. Compare that with the complaints coming from UPND about the imposition of long serving and ……
These petitions are only to malign image of the country and demean Constitution. You are clearly playing at the hands of anti Zambia forces and we are not dull to believe that you are doing this without any favour.
Dr. Sishuwa , get it, we do not need a hero like you instead we need reasonableness. If your intention is to clear landmines for HH to go to state house, then we do not need your understanding as an historian and we do not need the democracy you are lecturing us. The court will interpret the law for all of us. Whatever the outcome, it will never be the end of Zambia and it will not be a walk over for HH.
If you let lungu stand for a 3rd time , he will resign after 2 years the stand on the next cycle of elections and still claim he has only completed one term ……
Can a term office be split into two? is a term of office defined by the general election or by a by-election? Are we defending the constitution or we are asking the court to define a term of office?
When does a term of office start and when does it end. I think the court can put the petition aside and allow the election to go ahead. Thereafter, through our law makers, we can clarify the term of office and not the court to define for us. As of now, there is no violation of the constitution but lack of clarity on the term of office.
@Garlic we are talking Constitutional Law here and not eating Nshima. The Role of Concourt is to obey,defend and enforce the Republican Constitution. Concourt is a Product of the Constitution and the Judges swear to an Oath to God and People of Zambia to deliver Justice. It is imperative that Concourt hears these Petitions and make a Seisimic Judgment which will determine the future of our Constitutional Democracy.
Sichuwa says and I quote him from his article:
**** I believe that Lungu is not eligible to stand for another term of office for the reasons stated in the petition. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I support or like him as a person ***
Unfortunately BELIEVING is not the same as having FACTS.
{A} Zambia is a country in Africa. You don’t have to *believe it. Its just a fact.
{B} 1+1=2. You don’t have to *believe it. It’s just a fact
Sichuwa loves impressing readers with long meandering articles. He has managed to impress a few people. But if you look through the lines, too many times he shoots in his legs.
Sichuwa is behaving like Donald Trump, by keep talking lies over and over, hoping he will convince people to believe his versions of assumptions, which are not facts.
“The petition against Lungu…” IS SHERE WASTING OF TIME BY THOSE WITH NOTHING TO DO AND UTTERLY SCARE OF LUNGU HIMSELF. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE SCARED. PF HAS DONE QUITE A LOT ALONG THE LINES OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOTH UNDER SATA AND LUNGU.
If the case was closed, the constitutional court was not going to entertain the lodging in of the petition, don’t condemn people who are pursuing civilized ways of pursuing an issue as PROVIDED for by the constitution. Don’t be ignorant like @21
How can anybody be scared of Lungu when the guy is the easiest to defeat, look at the mess in the country
Going to court even 16 times is provided for under the constitution, no body is throwing stones here. People are just pursuing constitutional provisions, inflation is negative, exchange rate is mad, reserves are depleted, debt is unsustainable, civil servants are in arrears, unemployment is at its highest, and even before covid, these stats were all negative, so how can one even dream that opposition could be scared of somebody who has clearly failed
Very articulate this man! Will have to print this and frame it somewhere (so my kids’ kids can read it when Lungu completed his dictatorship takeover of this country through his self appointed ConCourt judges). What is it about Africa that motivates these people to want to rule forever? Others are just happy to rule for a term and retire as respected men and women. Perhaps we should not pretend to adopt Western democracy if we can’t practice it… lets just have chiefs.
The Petition against Lungu will be a watershed if these Petitions are fully heard and determined by Concourt. The intervention in this Petition by AG Kalaluka doesn’t inspire confidence in the Hearing. In the past the AG has always sided with ECL as a Person against Public Interests. Concourt should manage this Hearing impartially otherwise Kalaluka will turn this Hearing into a Danny Pule Circus.The writing is on the wall.
Sishuwa, there is no offence you are committing. close your ears firmly and move on with the petition whether it is dismissed or not, whether with costs or not, you are speaking for the 17 million Zambians out of the 18 million
Off target usual, argument premised on erraneous legal reasoning leads to absurd conclusions.
Brush up Doctoroid Shishuwa
Sishuwa, please add to the petition that he is campaigning whilst he has stopped others, and fish out many other things please
Most bloggers here were still in diapers or not born yet, so they don’t really understand what a one party state is and how it ruins a country. This should not be about ECL only. You might have a different bad president in future and with this allowed to pass, you would have set such a bad precedence, it will be hard to reverse, then you will surely regret
U go to court, they damn u. So wht’s the alternative?
Sishuwa 95% of the country is behind you so fear not !!!!!!
Sewerage collectors and the likes of are in the minority
the will of the people will prevail what ever the decision is ?
These Petitions are against Lungu’s Eligibility have been officially been Nominated a PF Presidential Candidate by the ECZ Returning Officer. The Petition is specific and is directed to Lungu as an Individual. The Petitioners believe that Lungu has breached Article 106 (3) of the Republican Constitution as Amended in 1996. ECL held Office Once, was elected and sworn in Once in 2015. In 2016 ECL held Office,was elected and sworn in for the second time. Therefore ECL has held Office twice and is therefore ineligible for election as President in 2021 for the third time. As a Principle Law shouldn’t be applied retroactively unless specified. In 2016 the Amended Constitution provided for a 50% +1 threshold to win the Presidential Election . In 2015 this threshold was not in the 1996…
Sishuwa Sishuwa you got my support bro…all the way we go. It’s about time Zambia’s justiciary did something constitutionally right for mother Zambia.
Sishuwa Sishuwa you got my support bro…all the way we go. It’s about time Zambia’s judiciary did something constitutionally right for mother Zambia.
What is historic is the Hearing of these Petitions against ECL’s Eligibility. The Petitions should be heard on their own Merits. When ECL was first elected and sworn in ,the Amended 1996 applied. This Constitution didn’t have a 3 year Exemption. RB who served as President for 34 months completed a substantive Term of Office. That is why RB is recognised the Fourth Republican President on full Pension Benefits. If 34 Months was not a Full Term of Office RB wouldn’t have been recognised as a former President. In Accordance with this 1996 Constitution a Term of Office could be 6 months,18 months,34 months up to 5 years. In Principle Law cannot be applied Retroactively unless specified. On this basis it is wrong to apply the Amended 2016 Constitution on Lungu’s first Term or in 2015…
I wonder why lawyers complicate matters that seem plain. That’s why the constitution needs to be as clear as possible as it’s not the preserve of lawyers but even the ordinary citizens. Going by the silence of most Zambians on this issue , one would conclude that the owners of constitution understand that Mr Lungu is eligible otherwise they would have protested like they did when FTJ attempted to go for third term. The average minds of Zambians have just probably used the simple mathematics of a number line and concluded that between 7 and 12 years , 12 years is closer to 10 years meant for two terms than 7 years. On that basis Mr Lungu qualifies to stand for the next term.
@ 42 akapS
If you let lungu stand for a 3rd time , he will resign after 2 years the stand on the next cycle of elections and still claim he has only completed one term ……
Then he will be disqualified on the basis that he resigned or cut short his own term out of free will when he was elected for the full term. The argument here is about inheriting the term that belongs to someone else.
@ David. The drafters of the 1991 realised that “Term of Office ” could be abused that is why they changed from “Term of Office ” to ” hold Office twice”. They defined “holding Office” as the Period between 2 Swearing in periods. The writers of the 1996 Amended Constitution made it water tight to ensure that it cannot be manipulated. So Once u are elected and sworn in twice u have held Office twice and cannot stand for elections 4 the Third Time. The Constitution is very clear: ECL cannot legally and Constitutionally stand for a Third Term. Period.
The Dan Pule ruling was on term of office or what constitutes a presidential term of office. But the Sishuwa petition is asking the ConCourt to rule or explain in simple terms what “HOLDING OFFICE TWICE” means. The constitution clearly says that if one has been elected twice to the office of president that means they have held office twice and can not stand again to be elected for the third time. So the question is; HAS ECL HELD OFFICE TWICE? HAS ECL BEEN ELECTED TWICE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT? WHY DO THE PHRASES ; ( HELD OFFICE TWICE or ELECTED TWICE) appear in the Constitution? What did the framers of the Constitution intend for people to understand by using those phrases? Term of office is done and dusted but what about holding office twice or being elected. Remember majority of…
INDEPENDENT OBSERVER – You must be a scholar and there is nothing independent about your posts ..you seem to be cranked up when its your fellow scholar like Field Ruwe who posts an article trying every means possible to debunk them. Why dont you save yourself time posting bullet pointed comments and write your own “unbiased” article as you have a lot of your mind.