Lungu Challenges Three Constitutional Court Judges Over Eligibility Case: Judicial Impartiality in the Crosshairs

Lungu Challenges Three Constitutional Court Judges Over Eligibility Case: Judicial Impartiality in the Crosshairs

The legal battle over former President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility to run for office has taken a dramatic turn today, as court proceedings resumed with intense scrutiny on the fairness of the Constitutional Court itself. Lungu, through his legal team, has applied for the recusal of three of the seven judges presiding over his eligibility petition, accusing them of bias in a case that could reshape Zambia’s political landscape.

The three judges in question, Constitutional Court President Margaret Munalula, Vice President Arnold Shilimi, and Judge Maria Mapani-Kawimbe, now find themselves at the center of a contentious request for recusal, with Lungu’s camp raising serious concerns about their impartiality. This comes as youth activist Michelo Chizombe seeks a declaration that Lungu was not eligible to contest the 2021 general elections.

Allegations of Bias: Lungu’s Fight for Fairness

Lungu’s legal challenge to the court’s integrity is as bold as it is controversial. His lawyer, Makebi Zulu, was instructed by the court to formally submit the application for recusal before 13:00 today, with the case resuming at 14:00. The crux of Lungu’s argument rests on accusations that the three judges have a direct or indirect bias that renders them unfit to preside over the case.

Judge Munalula, Lungu argues, has a conflict of interest as she previously participated in a 2016 case regarding his eligibility. This, Lungu claims, links her too closely to the matter at hand, especially given her involvement in a ruling perceived to favor current President Hakainde Hichilema. “This creates a perception that she is there to serve the interest of President Hichilema,” Lungu stated, highlighting the implications of her continued role in this case.

The accusations against Judge Shilimi are even more personal. Lungu alleges that Shilimi has close ties to Hichilema, having previously held key roles in businesses in which the President has interests. According to Lungu, Shilimi’s failure to declare these connections raises severe questions about his ability to remain neutral. “This is a person who was secretary/director in companies that the current President had and has an interest in,” Lungu stressed.

Finally, Lungu has targeted Judge Maria Mapani Kawimbe, citing her family connection to Victor Mapani, Managing Director of ZESCO, a government-linked entity. Lungu contends that this familial relationship undermines her impartiality. “She is a close family relation to Mr. Victor Mapani currently the Managing Director at ZESCO,” he noted, suggesting that her loyalty to Hichilema is inevitable.

Lungu has not only raised these concerns in court but has also lodged an official complaint with the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC), accusing the judges of gross misconduct and violations of the judicial Code of Conduct. “The actions of the judges are in breach of the Code of Conduct and amount to gross misconduct which the law does not permit,” he wrote in his complaint.

Constitutional Ramifications: The Looming Threat of Electoral Nullification

But today’s court session isn’t just about the recusal of three judges. Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa, who was joined to the case yesterday as a “friend of the court,” has introduced a legal bombshell that could have far-reaching consequences for Zambia’s democracy. Sangwa warned that if the court rules Lungu was not eligible to contest the 2021 election, the result could be catastrophic for Zambia’s political stability.

In a blistering submission, Sangwa argued that should the court find Lungu ineligible, it would necessarily mean the 2021 election was unconstitutional and should be nullified. “If an unqualified person took part in an election, that election is tainted and must be nullified,” Sangwa stated. He explained that Article 52 of the Constitution mandates that only qualified candidates are permitted to participate in a presidential election.

Sangwa didn’t stop there. He contended that such a ruling would not just affect Lungu but would call into question the entire 2021 election, including the legitimacy of President Hichilema’s victory. “A decision of this court in favor of the petitioner will affect not only the First Respondent but all those who took part in the presidential election of 2021,” Sangwa declared, making it clear that a ruling against Lungu could destabilize the presidency itself.

In essence, Sangwa warned, the court could be forced to nullify the election entirely, leading to political chaos and uncertainty. “This court cannot hear this petition and give the petitioner the relief sought without equally impugning the validity of the 2021 presidential election,” he added.

What’s at Stake? A Nation in the Balance

The implications of the ongoing legal battle are monumental. At its heart, this case is about more than just Edgar Lungu’s political future,it’s about the integrity of Zambia’s electoral system and the stability of its democracy. If the court rules that Lungu’s participation in the 2021 election was unconstitutional, the 2021 election itself could be voided, throwing the country into uncharted territory.

The ramifications would be profound. President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration, which has governed Zambia since August 2021, could face questions about its legitimacy. Meanwhile, Lungu’s Patriotic Front (PF), which has continued to challenge Hichilema’s government, could seize on a ruling to call for a fresh election, further polarizing an already divided electorate.

Moreover, the legal precedent set by this case could shape Zambia’s electoral process for decades to come. If the court sides with the petitioner, it would signal that the Constitutional Court is willing to scrutinize even the highest office in the land. Conversely, if the court dismisses the petition, it could be seen as a victory for judicial restraint but might leave lingering questions about transparency and fairness in Zambia’s political arena.

The Court in Session: A Nation Holds Its Breath

As of this afternoon, court proceedings are in session, with both sides preparing to make their final arguments. Lungu’s legal team will seek to convince the court of the bias and conflict of interest among the three judges, while Chizombe’s team and Sangwa will push the court to address the broader constitutional questions surrounding Lungu’s eligibility.

The stakes could not be higher. Zambia’s judiciary is now under the microscope, facing one of its most consequential rulings in recent history. The outcome could either affirm Zambia’s democratic institutions or plunge the country into political turmoil. Either way, this case will be remembered as a defining moment in Zambia’s constitutional history.

As the nation waits with bated breath, all eyes are on the Constitutional Court. What happens next will have a ripple effect across Zambia’s political and legal landscape—and the consequences will be felt for years to come.

LT