By Twink Jones Gadama
The recent ruling by the Zambian High Court to bar former President Edgar Lungu from contesting in the upcoming elections has sparked significant debate and controversy. While the court’s decision is ostensibly grounded in legal principles, a closer examination reveals a troubling deficiency in the judges’ understanding and application of the law. This analysis seeks to unpack the legal reasoning behind the court’s ruling, the implications of such a decision, and the broader context of Zambia’s constitutional framework regarding presidential eligibility.
At the heart of the High Court’s decision lies the interpretation of Zambia’s Constitution, particularly Article 106, which outlines the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates. The article states that a person may be elected as president if they are a citizen of Zambia, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of Zambia for a period of at least ten years. However, the article also stipulates that a person who has served two terms as president is ineligible to contest for the presidency again. This provision has been the focal point of the court’s ruling, as the judges have interpreted Lungu’s single term in office as a disqualification based on a broader interpretation of “terms served.”
The judges’ interpretation raises several critical questions about the legal reasoning employed in their decision. Firstly, the court appears to conflate the concept of “terms” with the notion of “presidential service.” Lungu served as president from January 2015 until August 2021, completing a full term of office. The argument that he is ineligible to run again because he has already served a term is fundamentally flawed, as the Constitution explicitly allows for a president to serve two terms. The judges’ failure to recognize this distinction suggests a lack of clarity in their understanding of the constitutional provisions governing presidential eligibility.
Moreover, the court’s ruling seems to ignore the historical context of Zambia’s constitutional amendments. The 2016 amendments to the Constitution were designed to clarify and streamline the electoral process, including provisions related to presidential eligibility. The framers of the Constitution were clear in their intent to allow for a maximum of two terms, and the interpretation that Lungu’s single term disqualifies him from future candidacy undermines this intent. The judges’ decision, therefore, not only misinterprets the law but also disregards the foundational principles upon which the Constitution was built.
Another critical aspect of the court’s ruling is its potential impact on Zambia’s democratic processes. By barring Lungu from contesting in the elections, the High Court has effectively limited the choices available to the electorate. Democracy thrives on the principle of choice, and the ability of citizens to select their leaders is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. The court’s decision, while perhaps well-intentioned, undermines this principle by removing a viable candidate from the electoral landscape. This raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the electoral process, as it sets a precedent for judicial intervention in political matters that should be left to the electorate.
Furthermore, the ruling has broader implications for the rule of law in Zambia. The judiciary is tasked with upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the law is applied fairly and consistently. However, the High Court’s decision appears to reflect a politicization of the judiciary, where legal interpretations are influenced by political considerations rather than a strict adherence to the law. This erosion of judicial independence poses a significant threat to the rule of law and could have far-reaching consequences for Zambia’s democratic institutions.
The High Court’s ruling also raises questions about the role of the judiciary in interpreting constitutional provisions. In many democratic societies, courts are seen as guardians of the Constitution, tasked with ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected and that the rule of law is upheld. However, when courts overstep their bounds and engage in judicial activism, they risk undermining the very principles they are meant to uphold. The decision to bar Lungu from contesting in the elections can be seen as an example of judicial overreach, where the court has taken it upon itself to make determinations that should be left to the political process.
In light of these concerns, it is essential for Zambians to engage in a critical examination of the judiciary’s role in the electoral process. The High Court’s decision should serve as a wake-up call for citizens to advocate for a more transparent and accountable judicial system that prioritizes the rule of law and the principles of democracy. This includes pushing for reforms that enhance the independence of the judiciary and ensure that judges are held accountable for their decisions.
Moreover, the legal community in Zambia must also reflect on the implications of the High Court’s ruling. Legal practitioners and scholars should engage in robust discussions about the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the importance of adhering to the rule of law. This dialogue is crucial for fostering a legal culture that values clarity, consistency, and fairness in the application of the law.
As Zambia approaches the upcoming elections, the implications of the High Court’s decision will undoubtedly continue to reverberate throughout the political landscape. The ruling has the potential to shape the electoral dynamics, influence voter sentiment, and ultimately impact the outcome of the elections. It is imperative for all stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organizations, and the electorate, to remain vigilant and engaged in the democratic process.
In conclusion, the Zambian High Court’s decision to bar former President Edgar Lungu from contesting in the forthcoming elections reflects a troubling deficiency in the judges’ understanding of the law. The flawed legal interpretation undermines the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the foundational tenets of the Zambian Constitution. As the nation moves forward, it is crucial for citizens to advocate for a judiciary that upholds the law with integrity and impartiality, ensuring that the democratic process remains robust and inclusive. The future of Zambia’s democracy depends on the ability of its institutions to navigate the complexities of the law while remaining true to the principles of justice and fairness.
