CONCOURT to hear Judges Case Without Interim Order

7
203 views

The Constitutional Court on Wednesday passed a ruling to deny petitioners a conservatory order to preserve the status quo on the number of Judges as a temporal relief before the main petition can be heard.

The court stated that it could not award a conservatory order to preserve the status quo because the petitioners did not state in their Petition which Articles of the Constitution on appointments were contravened.

This is in a case where two citizens, Isaac Mwanza, a Governance Activist and Maurice Makalu, a Culture Change Consultant, have petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) contravened Articles 173(1)(i)(j), 220(1), 141(1)(d) and 8(d) of the Constitution of Zambia, in its process of selecting names for recommendation to the President to appoint.

In an interview with Mr. Makalu, the petitioners stated that they have been taken aback by such a ruling because the Petition clearly specifies the Articles that are alleged to have been violated by the JSC.

Mr. Makalu has since indicated that serious consideration is being given to appeal this misdirected ruling to the full bench of the Constitutional Court and his lawyers have his instructions to do so.

He further said the Court has given direction on the schedule of making submissions of arguments and responses such that everything being equal, the full petition will be heard by the full bench towards end of April or in May, 2023.

7 COMMENTS

  1. These are pharisees. How can they say there’s no part of the constitution quoted to be contravened when these were actually quoted? We’re in trouble.

    • It’s one judge who made that ruling, Madam Justice Judy Mulongoti, in case u hv already forgotten wht u hv just read. The petitioners are now seeking to apply to the full bench of the Constitutional Court.

  2. How can they be all the same when we have been seeing minority judgments from that bench? Learn to judge people fairly.

    2
    1
  3. Concourt always has allegiance to the one ruling and this case is going nowhere. It used to happen under PF and now it’s happening under upnd.

Comments are closed.