Mid this year, I published an article in The Mast Newspapers and of course, several Social Media outlets entitled, “UPND Government Not Communicating Effectively.” Here’s an excerpt of part of the gist of my argument:

“With due respect, Information Minister Chushi Kasanda and her PS, my good friend Kennedy Kalunga have lamentably failed to weather the storm from the rabble-rousers masquerading as opposition political parties! Clearly, they can’t withstand mounting pressure from the likes of Antonio Mwanza, Chilufya Tayali, Emmanuel Mwamba, Raphael Nakachinda or Nixon Chilangwa. They can do better at the Ministry of Religious Affairs if at all such a ministry was to be resurrected or better still in the diplomatic service.”

In what would be seen as my prophecy coming to pass, I made the following suggestions, “Given the cantankerous and highly charged political atmosphere currently prevailing in the nation, government deserves indefatigable and fearlessness fellows ready to shoot from the hips such as a combined lethal team of Cornelius Mweetwa as Minister and Thabo Kawana as PS!”

Although it has frustratingly taken long to come; at least finally, the President has cracked the whip! Madam Kasanda and her Permanent Secretary, the soft spoken Kalunga have been given marching orders albeit long overdue. While the nation grappled with a few challenges here and there such as the offensive prices of mealie meal and fuel coupled with the energy crisis earlier in the year, madam Kasanda and Kalunga seemed lost at sea.

As narcissists and naysayers went on rampage trotting to each and every Radio and TV station as well as putting the Social Media to effective use to spew out anti-government propaganda, the duo carried on as if there weren’t burning issues begging their immediate attention. The only moment they would bother doing any damage control was when a lot of damage had already been done and the masses would have already jumped to wrong conclusions.

We expect nothing less of proactivity and vigilance from the new entrants in these critical positions. We’ve little doubt Cornelius and Thabo are equal to the tasks; they obviously possess the necessary attributes and credentials to put off or prevent any raging infernos from spreading and getting out of control to the extent of bringing the entire government into contempt and ridicule.

Now that the president has heed to our cries and taken the necessary steps to reinvigorate and revitalise the communication wing of his government, we would equally encourage him to shake-up the UPND Secretariat in Rhodespark which would in turn revive the inept UPND media team which is undoubtedly in comatose. Mr. Batuke Imenda is obviously a decent and honourable man; we have nothing against him. We understand he’s a good administrator; he can actually make a brilliant diplomat in one of the Western capitals. Unfortunately, the role of Secretary General isn’t a good fit for him…..he doesn’t strike us as someone willing to get his hands dirty by frequently making forays into the shanty compounds to whip up support for his party.

Let us not pretend, the 2026 general elections will be quite crucial as the financially well lubricated Socialist Party and the Patriotic Front, former ruling party, flex their muscles to try and unseat UPND from power. The ruling party is currently disconnected from the grassroots; the leadership must urgently identify someone with the caliber of Obvious Mwaliteta, the current UPND Lusaka provincial chairman to bring new energy and excitement to the Secretariat.

Mwaliteta is definitely a charismatic and down to earth fellow; he has no qualms palling around with the masses in the shanty compounds, and drinking or at least pretending to enjoy Chibuku or Chibwantu with them as he converses with them in Bemba or Nyanja. More over, he has got the youthful age to his advantage making it easier for him to relentlessly traverse the width and breadth of the nation mobilising support or interacting with the party structures as way of encouraging them and listening to some of their challenges.

Salute!

Prince Bill M. Kaping’a
Political/Social Analyst

The other day, a deafening uproar erupted when a strong rumour from the gossip mill wound its way on social media suggesting that a strip club was about to be opened at Lewanika Mall in Lusaka. Of course, some self-righteous individuals couldn’t waste time burning their precious calories by scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro to pontificate about morals: “How can Lusaka City Council give a green light to such a satanic practice? This is immorality of the worst kind! We’re a God fearing people; a Christian nation for that matter!”

Many of us would be shocked to learn that most of our citizens are actually regulars at strip clubs whenever they’re in Johannesburg for business. We are not by any means endorsing the idea of a strip club, but rather concerned about our hypocriticy on many issues.

What’s the proper definition of “a christian nation,” anyway? Is there really anything christian about the behaviour or conduct…..especially on the part of some of our politicians or the clergy? In Islamic states, they’ve a clear definition of who they are and indeed they stand for. For instance, actions such as cursing, fornication, murder and not honouring ones parents is haram (forbidden.) In the same breath, certain foods and drinks such as pork and alcohol are not permissible.

Sadly, immorality seem to be the order of the day in our christian nation and in certain instances priests and pastors are culprits. Some clergymen seem to have no qualms ‘feasting’ on other people’s wives while teenagers have no trouble ‘enjoying’ the forbidden fruit before marriage. Isn’t quite embarrassing that the spread of HIV/AIDS in our so called christian nation remains high compared to Islamic States? And when it comes to our politicians, the level of hypocrisy is shocking; one would attend church service on a Sunday and proceed to steal from our people on a Monday!

May we now digress and tackle another controversial topic – gay rights. Many of us consider gay people as worst sinners that don’t deserve to walk the face of the earth; we can’t even share a cup of tea with them. Ironically, we are more than happy to accept donations for our HIV/AIDS related projects from individuals who are openly gay such as Sir Elton John. Isn’t this a contradiction? If we are so clean and righteous as we want the world to know, why do we still accept his ‘dirty’ donations? A muslim would never do any business with a company that produces anything they consider to be haram such as alcohol! A few years ago for instance, a Cricketer in South Africa refused to don on a jersey emblazoned with a South African Breweries logo as his faith forbids him from doing do so.

May we now come to vulnerable people in society. If indeed we are a christian nation as we want to proclaim, do we obey what the Bible teaches about the same? James 1 vs. 27 is very clear: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

Again, the Muslims are far ahead of us on this one. Alms giving (zakat) is one of the pillars of Islam. Muslims are expected to give 2.5% of their wealth to charity. Every Friday afternoon, street kids, the blind and generally the poor would swarm businesses owned by Muslims to receive the mandatory help from them. Apart from the Catholics, who by the way didn’t endorse the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation, how many churches run hospitals, orphanages or indeed provide support to vulnerable people in society apart from depriving the very poor people of the little they have through tithes and offerings? How many rich folks or even pastors are willing to share with those that are in need? Very few indeed, and yet you still want to insist we are a christian nation. My foot!

Prince Bill M. Kaping’a
Political/Social Analyst

By Isaac Mwanza

THE Chief Justice, His Lordship Dr. Mumba Malila, SC, and his fellow former jurists have made recommendations suggesting the disbandment of the Court of Appeal and the merger of the Constitutional Court with the Supreme Court.

While I have reservations about these recommendations, I reluctantly acknowledge the merit in the proposal to consolidate the Constitutional Court into the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, it is prudent to engage in a thoughtful examination of the motivations behind the notion of dismantling the Court of Appeal and merging the Constitutional Court with the Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Malila’s statements coincide with a recent judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court concerning judicial appointments.

But the question should be, is this proposition by the Chief Justice driven by concerns that cases which must be appealed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal are not reaching their intended destination, the Supreme Court, rendering the Supreme Court unproductive?

Alternatively, are there reservations regarding the competence of judges at the Constitutional Court compared to their counterparts at the Supreme Court?

Another perspective to consider is whether this is an administrative measure aimed at redistributing the caseload, given the position of the Chief Justice within the Supreme Court.

Regarding cases transitioning from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, there are pivotal factors that deter litigants from pursuing appeals at the Supreme Court.

The process involved in appealing decisions from the Court of Appeal is intricate.

It entails the submission of an application for leave to appeal to the same Court of Appeal, which then assembles a full bench to deliberate on the merits of the application for leave to appeal.

This procedural intricacy often leads to delays, with numerous pending applications awaiting resolution.

The pursuit of justice in Zambia carries a substantial financial burden, particularly for individuals endeavouring to assert their legal rights.

As an example, workers who faced unfavourable decisions in the Industrial Relations Court, could historically appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the extended time it takes to reach a resolution at the Supreme Court level, coupled with the substantial workload and the complex legal documentation required for appeals particularly when the appeal process is initiated by unrepresented litigants, compound the problem.

This, in turn, leads to disinclination among individuals not to pursue their cases to the Supreme Court, primarily because of these protracted delays.

Furthermore, there are instructive insights to be gleaned by our chief justice and former chief justices from the procedures followed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS).

In most instances, SCOTUS does not automatically entertain appeals; instead, parties are required to submit a formal request to the Court known as a “petition for a writ of certiorari.”

It is the established practice of the Court to grant this writ, commonly referred to as “granting cert,” when at least four out of the nine Justices concur that the case warrants their consideration.

Out of the approximately 7,500 certiorari requests made annually, the Court typically grants cert to fewer than 100 to 150 cases. These are typically matters that the Court deems of significant importance, meriting its review.

Consequently, the decisions issued by the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals throughout the nation, along with the Federal Circuit Court, stand as the final rulings in a multitude of cases.

Addressing the predicament arising on our Supreme Court because of the creation of the Court of Appeal does not necessitate dissolution of the Court of Appeal but a prioritized endeavour to simplify the appellate process, particularly when seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The requirement for such applications to await review by a full bench of the Appeals Court should be revisited.

Furthermore, measures should be implemented to enhance the affordability of legal proceedings.

Concerning the proposed merger of the Constitutional Court with the Supreme Court, I am aware that members of parliament have been discussing quicker ways of amending the Constitution.

These talks may also revolve around the possibility of dissolving the Constitutional Court and integrating it into the Supreme Court structure, thereby creating two divisions: one for criminal matters and the other dedicated to constitutional issues.

Such a transformation would entail a piecemeal constitutional amendment process initiated by the executive and directly presented to parliament for approval.

This piecemeal route was vehemently opposed by the now ruling party in the last 4 years.

It is imperative, however, to differentiate between the motivations behind public support for this merge of the courts and what may be his Lordship underlying rationale.

The inclination by the public towards the merger of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court primarily stems from the belief that decisions from the Constitutional Court lack the depth of constitutional analysis exhibited by the Supreme Court in its judgments, especially given its responsibility for establishing binding precedents in constitutional matters.

Furthermore, there is a prevailing perception that the Constitutional Court has failed in holding the executive branch accountable.

This perception, rooted from what happened under the previous administration and still persists to new administration, is the suspicions that the court may continue to favour the executive, as the appointing and dis-appointing authority of judges.

Yet, a crucial question surfaces: Will this merger significantly alter the manner in which a new division at the Supreme Court level will approach constitutional cases that directly affect the executive branch, delivering judgments enriched with profound constitutional analysis?

It is conceivable that such a transformation may not yield substantive changes, apart from potentially greater detail in written judgments and rulings.

The judges presiding over both courts are still appointed through an opaque process shrouded in mystery involving the executive, which raises concerns about their impartiality.

And judges are also removed by a simple process spearheaded by some commission appointed by the executive and without the full participation of parliament that ratified the judges.

The real imperative lies in reforming the judicial appointment process to ensure that judges are not beholden to their appointing authorities and can dispense equitable and well-reasoned judgments.

In their most recent judgment in the case involving the appointment of 20 judges, it is my considered opinion that the Constitutional Court missed an opportunity to fully assert itself by refraining from articulating clear guidelines on how the principles of “merit and equal opportunity” and a “competitive process” should influence appointments of judges.

The law is written in black and white that the values and principles in Article 173(1) of the Constitution apply to appointments in the Judiciary as a State organ.

But the Court felt comfortable to transfer this responsibility, by merely recommending to Parliament with no timelines as was the case in the earlier Judgment involving financial independence, when Parliament had already delineated these guiding principles in both the constitution and the law.

Ultimately, the dissolution of the Constitutional Court may not be imperative if the court vigorously upholds constitutional values and principles for which the Court is enjoined by the Constitution to protect, and the bill of rights, which underpin all constitutional interpretation.

This adjudicative approach is what has propelled Kenyan courts to prominence in safeguarding their constitution.

However, until the appointment system undergoes reform, the public’s scepticism regarding appointed judges’ willingness to impartially adjudicate against the entities that appointed them and also possess the final authority to remove them when any misconduct is observed on the part of a judge, will persist.

Legal proceedings, even in constitutional matters, can impose a substantial financial burden on litigants. Individuals frequently expend personal resources on legal representation, rendering access to justice a costly endeavour.

While this may contribute to democracy, we get to suffer a drain in resources and also carries risks, as some perceive those who litigate against the government as adversaries, potentially affecting their personal and professional opportunities as I have come to experience over time.

Because of how petty politicians can be, persons who litigate against government are usually denied opportunities to do business with government nor work in or with government.

Moreover, there exists a potential risk of orders for costs being issued, even in constitutional matters, when cases are lost against the executive.

Pursuing legal action against the government requires significant fortitude, particularly when appearing before judges appointed by the very entities who are called upon to adjudicate against alleged unconstitutional behaviour by the executive.

These judges possess wider discretionary powers to impose legal costs, and individuals may find themselves discouraged from pursuing legal redress due to this daunting possibility.

This was evident in the case of Sinkamba and myself when we were warned of the potential for incurring costs in future while pursuing court intervention to rectify the contentious Kwacha and Kabushi parliamentary by-election, which notably involved the judiciary itself.

In conclusion, the recommendations by Chief Justice Mumba Malila should ignite a broader conversation about the state of the judiciary, judicial appointments, and access to justice in Zambia.

The matters brought forth by the Chief Justice necessitate meticulous examination, broader discourse, and well-grounded adjustments to safeguard the credibility, effectiveness, and availability of the legal system for ordinary citizens.

These suggested modifications should not be driven solely by the desire to provide our Supreme Court judges with opportunities to also participate in issuing judgments, especially when actions reaching the Supreme Court may not be necessary as can be seen from the practice in the U.S.

[For any contributions and comments, email: [email protected]]