Why President Lungu’s threats to the judiciary mark a new phase in Zambia’s slide to authoritarianism
When Kenya’s Supreme Court judges annulled the results of the country’s presidential election this September, they attracted plaudits from across Africa for acting independently and for refusing to bow before presidential power. But Zambia’s President Edgar Lungu was not among their admirers. Instead, on 2 November, he issued a stern warning to Zambia’s own judges not to follow the example of their Kenyan counterparts. “Do not become a copycat and think that you are a hero if you plunge this country into chaos,” he warned.
These comments were directed at Zambia’s Constitutional Court (ConCourt), which is currently considering a case to determine whether the president is eligible to run for another term in office in 2021. Lungu was first elected in the 2015 presidential by-election following Michael Sata’s untimely death in office. He was then re-elected in the controversial August 2016 polls. The Constitution contains a clear two-term limit for the presidency, but Lungu’s supporters argue that his first term of just 18 months should not count towards this total.
This January, Lungu himself declared that he is eligible to stand in 2021 elections and challenged opposing voices to seek the interpretation of the ConCourt. A few days later, four small opposition parties did just that, petitioning the court for “a declaration that President Edgar Lungu is eligible to contest the 2021 Presidential election”. In response, the influential Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and the main opposition United Party for National Development (UPND), who argue that the opposition parties were proxies of Lungu, joined the case seeking a counter-declaration. The case comes up for hearing on 15 November.
“That I will not allow”
To avoid misinterpreting what Lungu said, it is worth quoting his remarks at length:
“People are saying Zambian courts should be like Kenyan courts, that they should be brave and make decisions which are in the best interests of the people, but look at what is happening in Kenya now…To my friends in the court system, I say don’t plunge us into chaos by imitating or emulating Kenya or any other court system for that matter which does not care about the interests of the people.
“I am saying this because there are people outside Africa and some within Africa who want to bring confusion in Africa. They have started with South Africa, Kenya and Zambia for a regime change. There are people out there who just want regime change because they want to take over from us as managers…That I will not allow.
“To my colleagues in the judiciary, my message is just do your work, interpret the law without fear or favour; look at the best interest of this country…Those people who don’t like peace and freedom will say ‘President Lungu is intimidating the courts of law’. I am not intimidating my colleagues in the judiciary. I am just warning you that I have information that some of you want to be adventurous. Your adventure should not plunge us into chaos, please.”
Numerous organisations and individuals have condemned Lungu’s remarks. LAZ called on the president to retract his comments. The UPND accused Lungu of outright intimidation. And the prominent US-based law professor Muna Ndulo described the statements as another example of Lungu’s wanton disregard for rule of law and further evidence of “the creeping dictatorship in Zambia”.
This condemnation is necessary, but not sufficient. Zambians also need to understand why Lungu is making such comments. Contrary to what some of his opponents have argued, the president’s implied threats were neither random nor a result of ignorance and incompetence. Lungu is highly skilled and has a proven record of undermining democratic institutions in a committed, strategic and well-defined manner. If Zambians wish to reclaim their democratic institutions and space, they will do well not to underestimate Lungu and the lengths to which he is prepared to go in his bid for absolute power. His thinly veiled threats to the ConCourt should be seen as part of his wider strategy to stay in power beyond 2021.
Pressuring the judges
President Lungu’s remarks were directed at different audiences for different objectives.
The first was the ConCourt itself. His objective is clearly to intimidate the judges, especially those who are unsure about the consequences of ruling against the presidency. Threats that a “brave” judgement would lead to chaos make it less likely that undecided judges will want to take the risk. This strategy may work; the president only needs to persuade a majority of the judges to get the ruling he wants.
Many perceive the ConCourt as being predisposed towards Lungu to begin with. Its judges were all appointed by the president – even though none of them meets the constitutional requirements to serve on the Court – and the body ruled in his favour over the challenged election results last year. Sceptics therefore suggest that Lungu may not need to work particularly hard to win over a majority.
Public confidence in the Court is already low, but the president’s comments put them in a no-win situation. If the judges do make a “brave” ruling on the 2021 issue, Lungu can accuse them – and he has already formulated the accusation in advance – of fomenting chaos. If they rule in his favour, they will be perceived by much of the public as having given in to presidential pressure. (This latter route, in which a high stakes judicial ruling is not seen to be credible, could also lead to chaos.)
Rousing supporters
The second audience Lungu was speaking to are his supporters in the governing Patriotic Front (PF). On this front, he has two objectives.
Firstly, through his comments, he was effectively encouraging his followers to exert pressure on the judges to act in “best interest of this country”. Supporters could easily mobilise to block the courts or even protest against independent-minded judges, confident that the police would not disrupt such efforts.
This strategy has been deployed before. At the height of last year’s legal challenge against Lungu’s re-election, PF supporters camped outside the ConCourt to demonstrate against its unanimous decision to extend the hearing of the petition for a week. The next day, the Court, by majority opinion, set aside its earlier judgement even in the absence of a formal appeal and disposed of the matter inconclusively.
Secondly, Lungu’s speech seems intended to prepare his supporters to act in the event of an unfavourable – and, by his argument, illegitimate – verdict. His reference to unspecified foreigners seeking regime change is meant to portray his prospective disqualification as the result of an unholy alliance between judges, the opposition and interfering outsiders. His empty rhetoric against foreign powers also helps to pre-emptively discredit possible international criticism.
This strategy is undoubtedly a trick he has picked up from authoritarian figures elsewhere in Africa. Once rightly regarded as a beacon of democracy on the continent, it is disturbing that the Zambian president’s most notable political friendships are now with the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda’s Paul Kagame.
Warding off challengers
Lungu’s third audience are his opponents within the ruling PF, particularly budding successors eyeing his position. A ruling from the ConCourt that he is ineligible for 2021 would strengthen their hand and reduce Lungu to a lame-duck president.
By declaring his presidential candidature (subject to his party’s endorsement) even before the ConCourt pronounces on the matter, Lungu is effectively warning individuals within the PF that he is going nowhere and that they will face the same fate as Chishimba Kambwili, the former Minister of Information who was recently expelled from the party for campaigning to succeed him. Privately, several prominent PF members are hoping that the ConCourt will rule against Lungu as this would open the way for their own ambitions.
What Lungu fears
As well as examining Lungu’s strategy, it is also important to understand the reasons behind his determination to remain in office. Broadly speaking, there are two reasons he is unwilling to step down any time soon.
The first is fear of prosecution. All of Zambia’s former presidents, aside those who died in office, have faced trials after leaving office and Lungu is already facing questions about the sources of his newfound wealth. Possible prosecution for corruption, embezzlement or criminal misuse of power cannot be far from his mind. The solution is to remain in power for as long as possible or until a pliant successor can be installed.
In fact, Lungu might already be thinking about trying to change the constitution to either extend the number of terms permissible or abolish term limits altogether. For this to be possible, he probably needs to stay in power until 2026 to consolidate his power push through a constitutional amendment. This, however, relies on the ConCourt ruling in his favour – hence his concerted attacks.
Lungu got his way with the court over the 2016 election challenge and one wonders what threats were made at the time of that even more crucial decision. One might fairly assume that it was because the warnings were so dire that the judges decided to not even hear the petition, let alone make a judgment. Regardless of what happened, the fact is that if a sitting president is able to both rig an election and control the ConCourt, it is hard to see how he or she can ever be voted out of office.
Lungu’s inner circle
A second reason Lungu may be so unwilling to leave office is that he is beholden to the business and political interests of certain individuals that contributed to his rise. According to well-placed PF insiders, this group is fearful of what might happen if Lungu steps down and that, in seeking another term, the president is not speaking for himself alone.
Lungu has many political and business figures around him, many of whom were marginalised under the late President Sata but have flourished under the new president. This group feels its time in the corridors of power has been too brief thus far and wants more time to accumulate through the state. They can see clearly how those they replaced are now languishing. Senior government and ruling party figures say that this circle has captured virtually all state institutions.
The term “state capture” is topical in South Africa, but applies fully to the situation in Zambia too. In fact, in Zambia, it is not only the executive that has been captured, but a whole range of institutions including the police, security services, investigative agencies, media, electoral commission and National Prosecution Authority. One could arguably add the judiciary, parliament and various other bodies to this list too. Lungu’s administration has successfully closed down the critical free press and almost succeeded in muzzling civil society. Many believe the president’s allies are behind the arrests of prominent opposition figures. Meanwhile, this group has even extended its influence over the church thanks to the president’s new powers to appoint a Minister of Religion.
Through misuse of the police, impunity and bogus prosecutions, Lungu and his associates have created a general climate of fear in Zambia and are therefore effectively in charge of everybody except for those seeking martyrdom. How far this group is willing to go to maintain this grip on power remains to be seen. Could political disappearances and murders that have blighted other African democracies be Zambia’s fate too?
The weight of history
Even in Zambia’s continuing fall from grace, Lungu’s public and overt threats against the judiciary represent a watershed moment. Previously, the president strove to stick to the legal position on democracy, constitutionalism and separation of powers. For instance, when the leader of the opposition, Hakainde Hichilema, was arrested on what appeared to be a trumped-up charge of treason this April, Lungu claimed to have nothing to do with the arrest. He claimed it would be improper for him to intervene in the independent arms of government. Laughable as these claims of non-interference were, they wrong-footed opponents who were left looking for evidence of how he had influenced these supposedly independent institutions.
Now, however, Lungu is making threats against the judiciary so thinly veiled that even the masquerade of propriety has fallen away. Words that have probably long been uttered in private, and which would explain some of Lungu’s illegal actions, are now being announced publicly.
This may be the start of a new phase. One in which the capture of state institutions and creation of a climate of fear is so complete that Lungu feels confident enough to make explicit the structure of his creeping dictatorship. One in which there are no longer any state institutions able to challenge or oppose him.
Zambia’s judges on the ConCourt 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.
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
Source:African Arguments
Another masterpiece from Sishuwa!!!
One of the characteristics of good information? It should be just right, not too much.
The main fear of LUNGU handing over power is his fear of Jail, period!!!
But at the rate they are looting, by 2021 there’ll be nothing to steal. EuroBonds will have matured.
Right now things are rough in Zambia bcoz they’ve stopped printing money, making the Kwacha look artificially strong but making the masses suffer due to shortage (Little money chasing plenty goods). Govt is not paying local suppliers or creditors.
Law is law. America’s Donald Trump has had to learn it the hard way, that firing the FBI Director was not the solution. Fortunately for our president, he can learn at least a tiny bit from Trump’s devastating experience.
One of the characteristics of good information? It should be just right, not too much.
Boring
You are dull loliwe. You have failed to comprehend what this master piece is all about.
Great analysis. But should have included a counter opinion.
Bo Sishuwa … you have just made a political statements not a statement of fact. HH said similar words against the Con Court judges, you called him a hero of democracy. So why is it dictatorial when Lungu says it. Your propaganda here lacks objectivity and depth. Analysts must always be impartial, factual.
How else would Lungu demand that the ConCourt Judges show independence and not just copy and paste what is happening in Kenya. Is what is happening in Kenya okay because its demanded by the opposition.
Please be objective an factual, do not spread propaganda. That’s for the likes of GBM, HH, Kambwili and Lungu etc
@Lombe
People write for various reasons. it does not always have to be a balanced argument.
@Hakaiinde
HH is not the CiC in Zambia. If HH said half of what Lungu said, the security forces would haul him away to safety for his own sake, if you know what I mean. The utterances of a sitting president and a common man carry different weights, implications, and potential consequences.
Well written… I completely concur with this. Lungu is looking beyond 2021. The man has always used unconventional and forceful underhand methods to grab power (when he rose to the helm within PF and when he stole the elections), and once he grabs it he works to consolidate it by intimidating his opponents and bringing the police and judges under his armpits. Right now there are very few Zambians willing to go on the streets to oppose Lungu, the way FTJ was opposed. There is no media as he successfully shut down The Post; the police are under his control and ConCourt are there to serve him and do his dirty jobs. The opposition have been weakened and HH is now scared to even mention Lungu by name. Forget about it. The only thing that can serve Zambia right now is a few brave and rogue…
The only thing that can serve Zambia right now is a few brave and rogue non-commissioned military men forcing him and their bosses out. Sishuwa has analysised it well… mark his words!
No need for behaving like rogues. just like in 1991. the Zambians people have seen this man for what he is . Hunger is order of the day in Zambia. Just take a walk in Lusaka compounds and you will see how people are grappling with hunger and poverty. These two combined will see Lungu out of power in 2021 without people having to take to the streets or doing dark coner meetings.
Very boring. Another Sammy boy who deliberately wants to distort information. Can we have an honest discussion about our constitution versus ECL. Refer to the constitution and not assumptions.
Constitution says anyone elected twice to office shall not serve a third term. How many times has the dull guy currently in statehouse been elected to the office of president? The only one who would qualify is a vice president who takes over when the incumbent dies since in that instance the VP is not elected but is there by default. The only way this little tinpot dictator can qualify for third term is if the constitution is changed or these tuma judges fakely misinterpret the constitution. So there is your constitution discussion versus that dummy ECL. 🙂
Do you understand how the constitution defines a term? Ecl by the constitution standards is now serving his first term which will expire in 2021. Forget about what the writer was ranting. That’s a lie based on his assumptions not the Republican constitution. Ecl did not appoint the conscourt judges but merely nominated them and parliament including upnd and Kambwili voted unanimously for them. Those conscourt judges if you like were endorsed by parliament. This 5tupid author is cheating you that ecl hand picked his friends to serve as judges.
Mr. Oval whatever, the key issue is the number of times one is elected to the office irrespective of the number of years in a term. Lungu has been elected twice. There is no provision that says three times only twice. Simple. If dull Lungu served his first term without being elected he would have qualified. Constitution does not operate like a party manifesto. It is clear in its terms dude. Read it. Twice elected to office chapwa. Do not try to rewrite the constitution in favor of the most visionless president to ever occupy statehouse please.
As for those judges please do not be deliberately be naive. Lungu nominated them and your hopeless party has the numbers so whether UPND voted or not would have made zero difference. That Mwingeni Mulenga disgrace was the one who ensured dull Lungu bulldozed his way to winning that convention in Kabwe. Disgraceful judge and you expect objectivity from her when everyone already knows where her loyalties lie??
@Oval fimofimo
The definition of a term you are referring to does not apply to Lungu. The current constitution and specifically the clause on the term does not state that it can be applied retrospectively.
Please remember, Lungu was sworn in for the first term under the old constitution which did not have the current definition of a term. And because it cannot be applied retrospectively, the 18 months count as a full term under the term he was elected.
Law is not for lazy thinkers!
It’s rubbish to suggest state capture by an elected President who is head of state and commander in chief. Judiciary and Legislature are part of the same Govt led by an elected President. That is why even laws passed by Parliament are assented by the President and judges are still appointed by the same President. So how can a president capture the State when all state instruments from military, judiciary and parliament are under him?
Just saw the title, checked out the writer and knew the contents. Even copying terminologies from RSA.
Too mature for you, no violence ….
Go back to school to learn critical thinking and argumentation.
#7 Go back to school to take critical thinking. It will be beneficial to you.
Don’t you know that even intellectual capacity can be misused mislead. I am sure next time HH calls a banana an orange you’ll accuse me of not educated enough for refusing to accept.
This writer just like Ndulo are too opinionated. Why ignore the fact that Lungu is now serving his first term. The constitution does not discriminate against Lungu.
Where were these guys when their God HH was castigating the judges?
If there is justice in our courts Lungu will be allowed to stand in line with the new constitution that does not discriminate against him.
@Dudelove carefully read the whole of article 106 from start to finish. I mean carefully go through Lt.
Why don’t you just qualify what I wrote with what you picked from article 106?
Sounds like a movie I watched..No wait, this happened right here in Zambia when a certain guy decided to crown himself king kafupi… Brave men of great stature fought for us.. Christon Tembo stepped down from his vice presidency to dig in deep and fight for this great country.. I cant see many such men right now..but heroes sping up when all seems lost and hopeless.
Chiluba third term bid was against the constitution because he served two terms of 5 years each ie 10 years in total. Ecl is operating under a different constitution which defines a term as 3 years upwards. Politics is not for under5s neither is it for tribalists like you nor dreamers. Just go back to school before its too late.
Why do you give yourself those ++? Is it for insults?
This matter is in the CON COURT (CC). I prefer to wait until the CC have deliberated and pronounced themselves on the matter. Whatever we say and do at the moment, may simply breed confusion and divisions. So let’s give the CC space to work and determine the matter. Is this too difficult to do?
Please tell that to that dunderhead in statehouse coz he started this by invading the space of the concourt.
Great stance. The problem with cadres is they want to interpret the law. Leave this to the courts. The worst cadre is the educated ones because they use selected language which is biased towards their opinions and parties. If everyone with little literacy level thinks they can interpret the law THEN we do not need courts and judges!
Eddie is popular and set for victory in 2021. He is a working man at the helm of a working Government. Unless HH pleads with Eddie, he will be a six time loser in 2021. Is it too hard for HH to say: BAKAMBA BA EDDIE, NALEKOKUTUMPA. BUSHE TETI MUNDEKEKO NKATEKEKO MU 2021? Eddie is a listening man.
Mbili Yakale – HH right now should be pleading to be ECL’s running mate. But because he is too pompous, 2021 will also pass him by.
What a load of sh#t!!! I would spend the whole day watching cartoon network with my kids than read rubbish that lacks substance but character assassination. Sishuwa is an opposition “USEFUL 1.D.I.OT” sponsored to plant doubt in the minds of voters so regime change can be effected. The State Capture report was done by a professional lawyer/judge with tons of experience and a full state department behind her in RSA. What came out was a report complete with tangible evidence that is credible and is in South African courts right now. Not this speculative rubbish that can’t even convince readers to finish to publication. YOU HAVE TAKEN THE ETHICS IN JOURNALISM TO THE RUBBISH HEAP, SISHUWA. This piece is pathetic!!!
@Zambian C
Against your own knowledge of ‘who’ SS is, you read the article.
Come to think of it, who is the i.di.ot?
Forgive citizen
He is a lungu die hard fanatic with no independent analytical skills ……
#13 -Present your conclusion and reasons to support your arguments instead of talking about the writer. Did you learn critical thinking?
@ Lipwa
Do you understand critical thinking? What Sishuwa has written is a good piece against Lungu but does not qualify as a critical thinking piece.
NSHILISHUWA is not sure of what he has written. So please dismiss it as a load of crap.
The problem with Zambians is that we do read or follow history especially current affairs or simply Civics as aits called at school.
ZNBC should be able clips of all Judges including the the Chief Judges when they sworn in by President Lungu;
You just listen to sentiment expressed by him, if there is any different from those expressed whilst in North Western Province and nobody has ever raise a qualm that the learned Judges were being intimidated.
Not even LAZ questioned President Lungu at the time.
Why now?
At swearing ceremonies President warns, consoles and castigates judges including all Consititution Office holders.
No fuss is raised that he is intimidating them
Please Zambians dont just hate a person be fair.
I REST MY CASE
MATEO – Quite some reminder that you have raised there. We all hear what the President said in Northwestern Province every time he is swearing in these Judicial Officers. He repeats the same message outside the swearing in ceremony, all hell breaks loose. I hope you can repeat this message over and over.
Imwe maime swraring in times differ from times served and the rot witnessed….
Dudes, are you seriously equating what Lungu said on an ongoing active case in court that directly affects him with him yapping kuma swearing in ceremony?? How are the two occasions the same?? Are you serious??
Hand up Sishuwa! What you wrote is 100% of what’s going on in Lungu’s life! This guy has everything to lose. Someone just need to plant copper in his head and save Zambia.
Why has it taken the Concourt so long to make a ruling on Lungu’s eligibility for 2021? Is it the English they cannot understand? Five(5) learned judges cannot conclude a simple ruling all this long!!!.They are in for a great test
HH Oval head – If we say that even Lupiya Banda should come back because he didn’t save the full terms. ECL was elected under a different constitution. There is no clause guiding us on what we should do for a candidate elected under a different constitution and saved less than three years. It cannot be applied in retrospect. Therefore our attention is on the times a candidate was elected.
@Why
I said the exact same thing earlier. Think of EL’s surrogates as individuals condemned to railway-line psychology. Law is dynamic.
WHY – You do not understand. RB was elected once and he served a 3 year term that qualifies to be termed a full term. He is free to come back and contest – in fact he did so but was dribbled by Nevers Mumba.
“……Lungu was first elected in the 2015 presidential by-election following Michael Sata’s untimely death in office. He was then re-elected in the controversial August 2016 polls. The Constitution contains a clear two-term limit for the presidency, but Lungu’s supporters argue that his first term of just 18 months should not count towards this total…”.
Hired dunderhead indeed! Yes of course both the old and the new Constitution clearly state two terms but the new Constitution defines a term as minimum three years in office. This hired dunderhead deliberately omits that in his argument. Now for the avoidance of doubt the old Constitution was repealed and replaced by the current (new) one. Repeal means that for the purpose of term limits the old constitution is dead and buried…
But your dunderhead was first elected under the old Constitution – and your dunderhead gave you the new Constitution, where all failed.
…… Now for the avoidance of doubt the old Constitution was repealed and replaced by the current (new) one. For the purpose of this discussion on term limits repeal means that the old constitution is dead and buried. Surely this is clear to both laymen and learned men including the Concourt. How can they rule otherwise?
And just watch how selective under5 and these under5 led Donkeys and hired dunderheads are. Yesterday was 7th November. Reuters reports from Kenya that an election petition was launched yesterday against the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta. Reuters says that the Supreme Court of Kenya has seven (7) days to determine this case. In other words the life of a petition in Kenya is exactly seven (7) days. This is a fact that under5, his Donkeys and hired dunderheads like Sishuwa and “professor” Muna Ndulo would not like you Zambians to see or hear!! But we are not dunderheads Mr Under5! Similarly in Zambia the life of under5’s petition was fourteen (14) days whether it was heard by Conciurt or is immaterial, fir how does Concourt hear a “petition” in which no evidence was proferred?…
….. This is a fact that under5, his Donkeys and hired dunderheads like Sishuwa and “professor” Muna Ndulo would not like you Zambians to see or hear!! But we are not dunderheads Mr Under5! Similarly in Zambia the life of under5’s petition was fourteen (14) days whether it was heard by Concourt or is immaterial, for how does Concourt hear a “petition” in which no evidence was proferred? I mean the Concourt judges would have to be real unmitigated dunderheads. At least we know that under5’s lawyers were not dunderheads by simply abandoning their client U5 tactfully!
The real purpose behind under5’s “petition” was to launch it and exoect the President to step down. I will not speculate what U5 planned to do next, suffice that like the real under5 cry baby that he is, U5 repeated it unconsciously on BBC Hard Talk. U5 said “..when a petition is lodged the President must vacate office”. A candidate who gets 2 votes out of 3 million launches a petition, and the President vacates office? Did you see that in Kenya? Did President Uhuru stop the Supreme Court from nullifying his election because he remained in office? The absurdity of under5’s reasoning explains his five losses so far with an impending massive SIXTH loss next time, after all the insults he has poured on other tribes! Suffice to say that under5’s current bitterness clearly arises from…
….The absurdity of under5’s reasoning explains his five losses so far with an impending massive SIXTH loss next time, after all the insults he has poured on other tribes! Suffice to say that under5’s current bitterness clearly arises from the massive failure of his strategy to force out the President and carry out his evil strategic plans. He survived treason then but ended up in it later over what Stephen Sackur and the international community pointed out to U5 politely as bizarre.
Kapena simuziba cizungu, google the word ” bizarre” and you will find out what the British meant.
Mr Terrible, point of correction, the old constitution was not repealed. It was just amended. To amend and to repeal don’t mean the same thing. In short Zambia does not have a new constitution, they just amended the same old constitution and added new provisions. So all your ranting above is misplaced and devoid of logic. How does the article relate to HH or UPND who constantly insult even when they are not involved in a topic. I am not sure you have actually read the said articles especially 106 clearly. If I am wrong then correct me and show that you actually understand them. State one subsection of the constitution which says a person who has been elected into office twice as a president can be elected for a third time.
Mr Terrible, point of correction, the old constitution was not repealed. It was just amended. To amend and to repeal don’t mean the same thing. In short Zambia does not have a new constitution, they just amended the same old constitution and added new provisions. So all your ranting above is misplaced and devoid of logic. How does the article relate to HH or UPND who you constantly insult even when they are not involved in a topic. I am not sure you have actually read the said articles especially 106 clearly. If I am wrong then correct me and show that you actually understand them. State one subsection of the constitution which says a person who has been elected into office twice as a president can be elected for a third time.
Imwe ba PF, give the opposition weaker opponent. ECL is just too strong for them
Upnd is a part of blood sackers ,can a normal person be happy of wat is happening in kenya because of selfish individuals and those stupity ,people and caws are two different things
Please let us not focus on or put the entire blame on President Lungu for the discernable wrongs being witnessed in this country.
President Lungu is just being used to further the interests and Hidden Agenda of the Zambian Intelligence, also infamously known as the Office of the President (OP).
At the core of Human Rights Violations, the undermining of Democracy and subsequent existing Political Turmoil in Zambia, is the OP.
The ultimate goal of OP’s Hidden Agenda is to indirectly and then directly seize political power in Zambia, just like has happened and still happening in Romania, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Costa Rica and other countries where their intelligence exert undue influence on their governments.
The OP has undue influence on the Zambian government and the Political…
The heading and the article makes no sense! Ia m sure it is from the People who Watch Dogs in Zambia.
Whne your agenda is hate and tribalism, everything you see is bad and you end up writing like a grade 7.
@25.1 Silent Spectator, I think you should remain silent for you know not what you are talking about. However, before I proceed, since I am not one of under5’s Donkeys or paid dunderhead who argues aimlessly, I will admit that you are right, what we have is not an entirely repealed Constitution but an amended one in many sections and Articles. But you are right only in a very narrow and also ignorant sense and I will demonstrate to you….
….. You cannot amend a Constitution or part thereof without repealing those parts. Right at the beginning of Act No. 2 of 2016 – The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment), Article 2 reads “The Constitution is AMENDED by the REPEAL of the Preamble and substitution therefore of the following….”. That means the two go together unlike your reasoning. Reading further on it goes on to state the “repeal and replacement” of Articles 62 – 78, 80 – 90, and Parts I, II, IV, and VI to XIV. Section 106 that you mention is in Part VII.
……coming to Section 106, you must read more. You don’t interpret a Constitution by quoting one word or one section or article. Like for example Article 106 (3) which you and your under5s quote “A person who has held twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President”. You have to look at the whole article and be guided by what makes sense and NOT the senseless interpretation of under5s. For example in several areas the Constitution talks about the Speaker assuming the role of President or “holding the office of President”, i.e. acting as President for sixty days before elections are held. Are you telling us that should the Speaker decide to stand as President and he wins, those sixty days in which he “held office” are equal to one term or equal to holding…
…..Are you telling us that should the Speaker decide to stand as President and he wins, those sixty days in which he “held office” are equal to one term or equal to holding office once and therefore after that he cannot stand again huh? In fact are you not abrogating his constitutional rights? Or do you think that constitutional rights are only meant for your under5? Bwana, look at the spirit of the Constitution and the meaning of everything put together. I will not say more for now for good reasons.
The problem with under.5 is that he has prof.essors and la.wyers at his disposal to advise him but they cannot do that intelligently because either he will not listen to them or more likely, they are actually hired dunderheads due to the tribal disease which is acting like a brain tumor.
…..Lusaka Times have withheld two comments before this which give an explanation of my last comments. Talk to them nicely, they may just release that important piece of contribution. You and under5 need that pice of knowledge rather parading yourselves daily as tr.ibalists and head.less dunde.rheads……kikikikiki….LT are your fellow dun.der.heads….kikikikiki
Maybe i miss read and no doubt i will be told but my understanding is the constitution says SERVED as president not that he SERVES two full terms. Then it goes onto speaking about two terms and defines terms. That is where the confusion comes into play
Well articulated, Sishuwa!
Sishuwa sishuwa. I take it you will never say anything about Edgar Lungu. So, watomba noko waifyala. Just my opinion and freedom of expression.
It’s a argument that he is trying to put up though opinionated.
My understanding is that President Lungu is eligible to stand again looking at the following
Yes Lungu served his first so called term under the old constitution but when ever there is a change a constitution it means that all current cases can only be determined under the new constitution because the old one becomes invalid and can not be used in any court to determine a matter.
And under the new constitution the drafters of the constitution said a person can not be elected more than twice to the office of President true, but they went feather to describe what should be counted as a term and what should not be counted.
Moreover the constitutional court seats because of the new constitution and such has no power to make…
continued
decisions based an old constitution,full stop .