HH Suspends 3 Constitutional Court Judges: Power Grab or Judicial Accountability?

HH Suspends 3 Constitutional Court Judges: Power Grab or Judicial Accountability?

In a move that has sparked national debate, President Hakainde Hichilema suspended three Constitutional Court judges Justice Anne Sitali, Justice Mungeni Mulenga, and Justice Palan Mulonda on September 23, 2024. The suspension, based on a report from the Judicial Service Commission and authorized under Article 144(3) of the Zambian Constitution, raises key questions about the balance of power, judicial independence, and the future of Zambia’s political landscape.

This unprecedented action has drawn contrasting reactions. While some view it as a positive step toward ensuring judicial accountability, others see it as an alarming power grab, particularly with the 2026 elections on the horizon.

The timing of the suspensions has led many to speculate about its underlying political motivations. Critics argue that Hichilema’s decision to suspend the three judges is part of a broader strategy to consolidate control over all arms of government, potentially paving the way for political maneuvering ahead of the 2026 elections. The judges in question were involved in key rulings that favored former President Edgar Lungu, including a controversial decision that allowed him to run for a third term in 2016 despite widespread opposition.

One critical voice argued, “This is what we should fight against. A president shouldn’t appoint or fire judges when we have a Judicial Commission. We joke a lot in this country. IG, Chief Justice, electoral commissioners, judges, DEC, DPP, etc., should be jobs based on applications, not likes and politics. This is nonsense.”

This perspective reflects a deep concern about the concentration of power in the Zambian presidency. Many fear that Hichilema’s actions signal an erosion of judicial independence, undermining the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. Critics warn that this could lead to a judiciary filled with loyalists who may be more inclined to rule in favor of the president and his party.

On the other hand, Hichilema’s supporters argue that the suspensions are a long-overdue response to judicial misconduct. They point to specific rulings, such as the decision to allow ministers to remain in office after the dissolution of parliament in 2016, which was later criticized for being unconstitutional. These actions, they argue, reflect a pattern of corruption and incompetence that has eroded trust in the judiciary.

One supporter expressed this view strongly, stating, “Well done, Mr. President. How can judges fail to interpret the Constitution? That is gross incompetence. Kindly revoke the suspensions and fire them ASAP.”

For these individuals, Hichilema’s actions represent a necessary clean-up of a judiciary that had become too closely aligned with the previous Patriotic Front (PF) administration. From their perspective, the suspended judges were more interested in serving political interests than upholding the law.

While the suspensions have triggered heated debate, they also raise an important question about judicial accountability. Zambia’s Constitution gives the president the authority to suspend judges, but only based on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. This mechanism was put in place to ensure that judges could be held accountable for misconduct, while also protecting them from arbitrary dismissal.

In this case, the involvement of the Judicial Service Commission provides some legitimacy to the suspensions. It suggests that the decision was not made solely on political grounds but rather in response to concerns about the judges’ conduct. As one commentator noted, “He is the president of the Republic of Zambia with all instruments of power in his hands. HH to 2090.” For those who support the president, this is a necessary use of his constitutional powers to restore integrity to the judiciary.

At the center of this controversy is the Judicial Service Commission, a body tasked with overseeing the conduct of judges and ensuring they adhere to ethical standards. The commission’s recommendation to suspend the three judges suggests that there were serious concerns about their behavior. However, critics argue that the commission itself may be influenced by the executive branch, raising doubts about its independence.

Some Zambians believe the current system, in which the president appoints and suspends judges, is flawed and open to manipulation. One commentator proposed, “Concerned about the concentration of power in Zambia’s presidency. Wish we could elect our Chief Justices, judges, and judicial officials instead of appointing them. This would promote accountability and independence in the judiciary.”

This viewpoint advocates for a more democratic process in the selection of judges, one that would protect judicial independence and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the president.

The proximity of the suspensions to the 2026 elections has fueled speculation that this move is politically motivated. Some fear that Hichilema is preparing to replace the suspended judges with individuals loyal to his administration, potentially paving the way for legal decisions that favor his re-election bid. The concern is that this could undermine the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on the executive branch, particularly in the event of election disputes.

Opponents argue that this is an attempt to reshape the judiciary in Hichilema’s image, ensuring that future legal challenges—especially those involving former President Lungu—are decided in his favor. As one critic noted, “He just wants judges who will do his bidding. Instead of focusing on reducing the cost of living, his preoccupation is wanting to fix ECL (Edgar Lungu).”

This fear is not unfounded. The three judges in question played pivotal roles in the legal battles surrounding Lungu’s third-term bid, and their suspension could be seen as part of a larger strategy to neutralize any potential opposition to Hichilema’s political ambitions.

Beyond the immediate political implications, this controversy highlights the need for broader judicial reforms in Zambia. Many have called for a more transparent and democratic system for appointing judges, one that would protect judicial independence and ensure that judges are accountable to the public, not the executive branch.

The idea of electing judges, rather than appointing them, has gained traction among some Zambians who see it as a way to prevent political interference in the judiciary. As one citizen put it, “Let’s strive for a more balanced distribution of power!” This reflects a growing desire for reforms that would reduce the concentration of power in the presidency and promote greater accountability in Zambia’s democratic institutions.

The suspension of Constitutional Court judges Justice Anne Sitali, Justice Mungeni Mulenga, and Justice Palan Mulonda has exposed deep divisions within Zambian society. For some, this is a long-overdue move to hold corrupt judges accountable and restore trust in the judiciary. For others, it is a dangerous power grab that threatens the independence of the courts and undermines Zambia’s democratic institutions.

As Zambia approaches the 2026 elections, the implications of this decision will continue to reverberate throughout the country. The challenge for Hichilema will be to demonstrate that this move was made in the interest of justice, not political expediency. Only time will tell whether this was a step toward greater judicial accountability or a slide into authoritarianism.

Ultimately, the suspensions highlight the need for a more transparent and accountable judicial system—one that serves the Zambian people, not political interests.

by Kantu Mutuna.