By John Sangwa
These are Constitutional Judges qualifications,,
MRS JUSTICE ANNE MWEWA SITALI
Hon. Mrs Justice Anne Mwewa-Sitali as Judge of the Constitutional. The Nominee was admitted to the Bar 1987, and practised law initially as Legal Aid Counsel from 1987 until 1988. The Nominee then joined the Attorney General’s Chambers in 1989, where the Nominee served in various capacities until 2001, when the Nominee took up the position of Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel. If the years spent at Legal Aid are taken into account, the Nominee may be said to have practised law for a period of 14 years (from 1987 to 2001), which is still below the period specified in Article 141 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, DURING THE PERIOD IN ISSUE THE NOMINEE DID NOT PROSECUTE OR DEFEND ANY CASE IN THE AREA OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
The Nominee did not disclose in the CV, the cases prosecuted or defended in the area of constitutional law or human rights. Even the perusal of the Zambia Law Reports for the period revealed no constitutional law or human rights law case that was prosecuted or defended by the Nominee.
The Nominee lacks both the fifteen years’ experience as a legal practitioner and specialized training or experience in human rights or constitutional law.
The Nominee does not, therefore, qualify for appointment as Judge of the Constitutional Court.
HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE MUGENI SIWALE-MULENGA: DEPUTY PRESIDENT
The Nominee was admitted to the Bar in 1995, having graduated from the School of Law of the University of Zambia, in 1994.The Nominee holds a Master of Laws Degree, which is neither in constitutional law nor human rights law. Soon after admission to the Bar, the Nominee joined the Attorney General’s Chambers where the Nominee occupied the position of State Advocate and later as Senior State Advocate. The Nominee practiced law for a period of two years in the Civil Litigation and Debt Collection Department from 1995 to 1997. There is no evidence that during this period the Nominee prosecuted or defended any case, in the area of constitutional law or human rights law. Between 1997 and 2000, the Nominee served in the Attorney General’s Chambers in the International Law and Agreements Department. The Nominee’s work involved negotiating local and multilateral agreements on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Zambia. For the period of nine years, from 2000 to 2009, the Nominee was the Secretary to the National Water and Supply and Sanitation Council (NWASCO), where the Nominees’ responsibilities did not involve any court work, but providing secretarial and legal advisory services to the Council.
For a brief period, 2009 to 2010, the Nominee served as Acting Director of NWASCO. The Nominee has only practiced law for a period of two years whilst in the Attorney General’s Chambers, a period which is way short of what is stipulated in Article 141 of the Constitution.
The Nominee has no special training or experience in human rights law or constitutional law. The Nominee is therefore not a suitable candidate for appointment as Judge, let alone as Deputy President of the Constitutional Court.
PROFESSOR MULELA MARGARET MUNALULA
The Nominee was admitted to the Bar in 1982.
According to the CV, the Nominee’s court experience is limited to two years spent as Resident Magistrate, though the exact period is not specified in the CV. Thereafter the Nominee spent six years as a Senior Legal Officer in the employ of Development Bank of Zambia and Lima Bank and the Nominee’s responsibilities were limited to drafting loan agreements and security documents. Thereafter the Nominee has taught law for the past 26 years. There is also no evidence of the Nominee having any experience in constitutional law or human rights law. The Nominee has never practiced law. There is no basis for appointing the Nominee to the Constitutional Court.
LADY JUSTICE HILDAH CHIBOMBA – PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
According to the CV, the Nominee was admitted to the Bar in 1982. For a period of four years (1982-1986), the Nominee served as a Resident Magistrate at Kitwe and Lusaka. Between 1986 and 1989, the Nominee served as a Senior Resident Magistrate. The Nominee’s only stint as a legal practitioner started when the Nominee joined the Ministry of Justice and this was only for a period of four years. Between 1989 and 1990, the Nominee served as Assistant Senior State Advocate, in Civil Litigation.
Between 1990 and 1993, the Nominee rose to the position of and served as Senior State Advocate. This marked the end of the Nominee’s career as a legal practitioner. Perusal of the Zambia Law Reports for the period revealed no case that was prosecuted or defended by the Nominee. Thereafter, for a period of four years from 1993 to 1997, the Nominee assumed the position of Principal State Advocate in charge of International Law and Agreements Department, in the Ministry of Justice, which position did not include court work. The Nominee joined the Judiciary as a Judge of the High Court on 1st October 1997 and in 2009, the Nominee was appointed Judge of the Supreme Court. The Nominee only practiced law for a period of four years, which is far less than the fifteen year period stipulated in Article 141 of the Constitution.
There is equally nothing in the Nominee’s CV, which shows that the Nominee has specialized training or experience in human rights law or constitutional law. Similarly, there is nothing in the Nominee’s CV, which shows that during the time the Nominee practiced law, the Nominee dealt with any case, which arose in the area of constitutional law or human rights. The Nominee does not qualify for appointment as President or Judge of the Constitutional Court.
AMBASSADOR PALAN MULONDA
The Nominee was admitted to the Bar in 1995, and joined the Ministry of Justice in 1996, where he served as Assistant Senior State Advocate involved in Civil Litigation and International Legal Agreements until 2000. Between 2000 and 2003, the Nominee served a Deputy Director responsible for Human Rights and Treaties in the Attorney General’s Chambers.
According to the Nominee’s CV, the Nominee IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN A PARTNER IN THE LAW FIRM CALLED PALAN & GEORGE BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006.
Thereafter the Nominee joined the School of Law of the University of Zambia where he is said to have lectured and tutored in Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. Between 2009 and 2012, the Nominee served as Director of the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education (ZIALE). The Nominee has been Zambia’s Ambassador to the United States since 2012. The Nominee does not mention any case that he has prosecuted in the area of constitutional law or human rights law whilst at the Attorney General’s Chambers or while he served as a Partner in the firm of Palan & George.
The Nominee lacks both the requisite number of years as a legal practitioner as well as experience in constitutional law and human rights law matter.
Sangwa is fast tracking to stand and win elections in 2021.
The most dangerous stumbling block, the direct cause of Zambia’s past and present ills, the most evident risk to the future of our nation are the powers of appointment vested in the office of the president.
You can appoint and change people with all sorts of CVs, but you will find that it is not the individual at fault, it is our system. Let us change the system to one where individuals are picked on merit and swear allegiance to the people of Zambia, not to a selfish individual temporarily occupying the office of the president.
SC, JS, keep it up we are with you have all our support as the Patriots not PF, its time to name and shame mediocrity that has locked our national systems , push on , this is the truth let challenge this instead of blocking you to do work in their so called courts
Ouchhhh When I read this just shook my head. But all the Judges need to do is to come out and state their qualifications for the positions and also as stated and required by the constitution for them to hold the positions and sit in offices and shame our new loud mouth zezevula Sangwa Kikikiki
vuvuzela I meant lolololo. been away too long
The RULE OF LAW is the Foundation of any nation that wishes to prosper!
The Reason why IMF will not give us a bailout is because there is no rule of law currently in Zambia!
Our debts were easily cancelled during the HIPC days because of Levy Mwanawasa’s commitment to the Rule of Law! Now, the Revelations about the appointment of unqualified justices to the Constitutional Court is a very serious assault on our Rule of Law! How did a Lawyer President get it so wrong? How did Parliament ratify such an anomaly? We need a Tribunal to investigate this and come up with recommendations to prevent future recurrences of this serious failure of Institutions of governance to uphold The Rule of Law!
John ‘soulwe uwali’ Sangwa is the only person in Zambia out of 17 millios zedians who qualifies to be appointed a concourt judge…..lets have a a 1 man bench!
This is a rubber rouser, all of these misfits are not qualified? What a shame, indeed this is lungu,’s concourt, a ash intimidation, well done Sangwa.
This is truly the African problem at play. When facts are presented that reveal anomaly or irregularity we call the questioner disrespectful or insulting. The simple question here is “What does Article 141 say?” And then “Are these judges meeting those requirements in 141?” No one even called them out in derogatory terms. To not be qualified is NOT an insult. It is statement that can be defended or acknowledged. Mwila got 6 points after years of not having a qualification is NOT an insult. It is a statement of fact.
What remedies do we now have us citizens to rectify this pls educate us enough of this how do u get justice from such
Don’t vote PF ever again, that’s the only remedy.
Does one need to have a degree in constitutional law to be in the constitutional court or to understand constitutional issues? General Godfrey Miyanda used to capably defend himself in court without ever having set foot in law school. How different is John Sangwa’s attitude from that of Lubinda Haabazoka who was roundly denounced for suggesting that only trained economists were qualified to comment on economic matters? Some of the most thoughtful and intelligent analyses of the current eligibility debate I have read to date haven’t been written by lawyers. John Nash (mathematician – 1994) and Daniel Kahneman (psychologist-2002) received Nobel Prizes in Economics without anyone accusing them of being impostors! Me thinks lawyers like Sangwa and his ilk are taking their professional…
There are qualifications stipulated in the Law and that is what you follow. That’s why there are CVs bwana. Habazooka’s was a personal opinion whereas Sangwa’s argument is backed by the Law, therein lies the difference. Just because someone is a brilliant at squeezing books doesn’t mean he can make a surgeon.
In case you missed it, there was specifications attached to the advert for those who wished to be considered as ConCourt judges! How the spelled out prerequisites to qualify for a seat on the ConCourt bench were adulterated by scaling down the credentials to end up with a bunch of unqualified judges is baffling! The best that can happen is that the freeloaders leave the bench out of conscience voluntarily or the parliamentary judicial committee tables the matter in the house and make heads roll!
understand constitutional issues? General Godfrey Miyanda, used to capably defend himself in court without ever having set foot in law school. How different is John Sangwa’s attitude from that of Lubinda Haabazoka who was roundly denounced for suggesting that only trained economists were qualified to comment on economic matters? Some of the most thoughtful and intelligent analyses of the current eligibility debate I have read to date haven’t been written by lawyers. John Nash (mathematician – 1994) and Daniel Kahneman (psychologist-2002) received Nobel Prizes in Economics without anyone accusing them of being impostors! Lawyers like Sangwa and his ilk are taking this professional tribalism too far!
…I meant squeezing boils (ifipute)…
Does one need to have a degree in constitutional law to be in the constitutional court or to understand constitutional issues? General Godfrey Miyanda, used to capably defend himself in court without ever having set foot in law school. How different is John Sangwa’s attitude from that of Lubinda Haabazoka who was roundly denounced for suggesting that only trained economists were qualified to comment on economic matters? Some of the most thoughtful and intelligent analyses of the current eligibility debate I have read to date haven’t been written by lawyers. John Nash (mathematician – 1994) and Daniel Kahneman (psychologist-2002) received Nobel Prizes in Economics without anyone accusing them of being impostors! Lawyers like Sangwa and his ilk are taking this professional tribalism too…
The truth can be denied, insulted, rejected but it still remains the truth. Only a lie can be applied to deny the truth. The same way u need a lie to cover up a lie, the truth can only be defended by the truth. A truth doesn’t stop being true because a lie is popular; it remains the truth. U can deny the truth but u can’t kill it.
Lawyers like Sangwa and his ilk are taking their professional tribalism too far!
No wonder they could not hear the petition in 2016 there are not qualified.
Let war against the truth now start. Let Tutwa Ngulube fight the truth. Remember only a lie can fight with the truth.
Educate me on this one. Did parliament ratify their appointments? Is so how was that possible?
Have you seen the
qualifications of our mps.
The constitutional requirements were not followed by the President the time he’s appointing the concourt justices. They are many other lawyers in Zambia who meet the requirements stated in the constitution, but because the President didn’t get the best of advice, this blunder happened. What’s even worse is no one, not a single person living or otherwise has come to defend the president’s mistake using the same constitution that Sangwa is pointing out wasn’t followed, they’ve all only chosen to attack Sangwa instead.
Zambia has more than enough lawyers qualified who to meet the requirements outlined in the constitution.
If we want the best things for the country, only the best, most passionate and suitably qualified will help us get there.
STRINGER
Would you accept for any of your children to be tought science by a teacher qualified in civics ?
With all this corruption in Zambia , a good starting point in combating corruption is to abide by , and meeting the laid down criteria and qualifications for the job at hand.
This is a very straight forward matter. Facts are there as pressnted by John Sangwa. If he is wrong, prove him so instead of insulting him. He is on firm ground. The legal provision is very clear. The problem with PF supporters is that they reason with their mouth instead of their mind. What should be appreciated is that qualifications were put there for a purpose and good reason. You cannot give 60 seater bus to a mini bus driver or you can give a taxi driver to driver 30 tonne truck. May be these are the comparisons that the PF surrogates need for them to understand. It is not the judges are hated. The appointments were wrong. The poor ConCourt judgements so far have proved it. I fail to understand the reasoning of the PF surrogates. Let us learn to put the interests of the country…
Let us learn to put the interests of the country first before partisan or personal interests. Nkashi chaba shani mwe bantu? Ninshi yashupa ukumfwa? Findo fikateshe? Chisungu?
We told you , Sata only kept lungu because of his ability to bribe and corrupt every system around him. Lungu operates in Gray areas of the law.
Even if I don’t know of lungus previous life as a lawyer before he joined politics , I can bet $1000 that most of lungus work involved protecting criminals and helping criminal beat the system. He just that type of person , the go to lawyer for crooks.
His character is totally not someone to follow rule of law and entrust our resources with…
YOU CAN NOT HIDE WE WILL TRACK YOU VERY SOON LIKE THAT 15 YEAR BOY ON FB MMMMMM
Why did the judges choose to answer a question that was not asked by the petitioners? No insults , let’s just hv a conversation.
The answer is in their CVs.. Very unqualified characters!!
I have invented and a climate smart water technology and an efficient climate smart renewable energy generation technology without having a degree or even a certificate in Electrical,Mechanical, Civil or Environmental engineering. I have published a classic paper in a reputable international engineering journal. Yet according to the Engineering Institution of Zambia ACT No. 17 of 2010, I am not an engineer, neither I am allowed to “practice” engineering, yet my gadgets works and some very developed countries in Europe and Asia wants to buy them or license them. Bill Gates doesn’t have a degree, not even a certificate in computer related studies, yet he runs the world’s most dominant computer tech giant in the world. It’s also interesting to note that most of the world’s richest people…
Even your “Reverend” title is questionable. You don’t reason like a reverend, you sound more like a cadre.
It’s also very interesting to note that; the majority of the world’s richest people don’t have degrees in economics or any financial related formal qualifications. The world’s greatest statesmen or women are those with no scholarship status or vast experience in political science or public administration. Majority of the best preachers are not the renowned theological scholars. I am a clergy and scientist by training yet, I am an exceptional inventor, writer and holistic excellent leader. Wisdom and genuise is not a preserve of great scholarship and experience. We have to frame our laws and treat people with this reality.
ERNEST BWALYA, those comparisons are irrelevant in so doing you just trying to justify a wrong. Sangwa is talking about position that have qualifications put in place in order to be filled and not that saying am not qualified in such a d such a field but I am doing something successful in line with that field. Every job advert has certain qualifications that a person must meet in order to be given that job, those that don’t meet the qualifications are not even called for interviews. Now apart from keeping illegal ministers in office, refusing to hand power to the speaker during the petition period, swindling a poor widow, disrespecting a ruling made by the same judges he appointed in regard to illegal ministers, and now appointing unqualified judges as constitutional judges wow this a…
They should resign please.Let us not be used.Zambia is bgger than all of us.We can’t allow this president to drible Zambians.We want PF but not this failed president.He can’t even manage the kwacha.He can’t even manage bunga.What kind of president is this.He should not stand.Let us gorganise ourselves PF and find a sell-able candidate
We ain’t got time for this nonsense. Some of us are busy working for the zambian people and proving to them why we remain the only peoples party. Upnd think that samgwa will win them the election hahaha. Come 2021 you will all kiss the ring on my finger.kz
Contd: wow this a worrying trend for Lungu but it shows what person he is. Don’t trust PF with bill 10 otherwise we will only have ourselves to blame later on. I agree with a person above who said lungu is those lawyers you can go to when you want to defeat the law, lungu can never deliver justice and he has shown that by refusing his ministers to pay back our money. Despite all the reports bumpy auditor general, FIC, etc that show blatant corruption the man has always insisted that he wants different evidence. Lungu will always shield the wrong people, that is who he is, there is no integrity in the man that’s why people are fed up and won’t take any crocodile tears by his wife in order to be fooled. May God deliver this country from the destructive hands of the PF.
@nemwine
What a foolish question you have asked…! Didn’t you read the article at hand where the qualifications and experiences of all these judges have been outlined? The answer to your silly question is that none of these chaps qualifies to be on the concourt bench. Vizungu bamwisho
Kaizer – Concentrate on your case where that driver is claiming compensation from you for having brutally assaulted him over that RTA . Ofcourse, someone who engages in such brutish behaviour would have no time for the rule and respect of law. The rest of us do so don’t try and drag us down to that level of making everything about UPND and PF. Respect for the constitution transcends that.
Those Judges are actually more qualified academically than the stipulated one in the constitution. They all have more than 15 years vetoed experience. They were both appointed and ratified by the const itutionally mandeted body. The interpretation of practicing is what may be problematic. There could also be an issue of commencement period of a particular legislation for certain justified reasons. My question is; why were these matters not raised at ratification? The other issue is that; in law; to every rule there is an exception and to every exception there is a rule.
Those Judges are actually more qualified academically than the stipulated one in the constitution. They all have more than 15 years veried experience. They were both appointed and ratified by the constitutionaly mandeted body. The interpretation of practicing is what may be problematic. There could also be an issue of commencement period of a particular legislation for certain justified reasons. My question is; why were these matters not raised at ratification? The other issue is that; in law; to every rule there is an exception and to every exception there is a rule.
@ Ernest, these are Consitutional requirements for that job. As per constitution, a presidential candidate must have a grade 12 certificate or its equivalent. of course there are people who may have more wisdom without the grade 12 certificate but constitutonal requirements ought to be met, its that simple!
Rule of Law, remember, rule of law!
It is dangerous to have Concourt judges who have never sat behind the desk to hear any case, seeing as this is a court of final appeal that deal with the highest law of the land.
It’s the barest minimum requirements in most cases practitioners and constitutional lawyers might have worked at private firms ,for NGOs or indeed in Gov but each lawyer in his practice could have entailed working on cases as lead or in research teams preparing detailed research briefs Others may lead and present arguments in court and other panels But each one of them could have encountered and practiced some constitutional issues and in a way could have practiced and contributed to constitutional law In most cases the basic requirement is a law degree and added achievements simply add on It does not say it’s a must but may and any lawyer with a law degree and having worked in…
in such environments could have encountered and practice law and in this case constitution There firm or colleagues could have recorded in the reports but it does not mean they never practiced constitutional law at supreme court or other subordinate courts where the due process of the law “constitution” is always followed The constitutional law is what touches most the practice of our legal advisers and attorneys But nay be what should be argued here and made a point is the focus and research that those who are now appointed will do to bring additions and interpretations to new Constitutional law that is what matters most in my view Those appointed will normally in addition to…
to the basic requirements,a law degree ,may have practiced as individuals or in a firm may have individual merits in their own rights and it doesn’t mean this way only Then these people are they not ratified ?
That is what i learnt grossing over law and legal jurisdictions
That is my observations
This is what I was saying last week on how to present an argument…the media should have published this as this is information readily available. My question how did National Assembly approve all these ill qualified people. That’s another issue as well too many dullards and bootlickers in Parliament.
In all fairness, this article was done by John Sangwa Sc when the before the judges were ratified by parliament. They were nominees at the time. But someone reproduced this this year to make it look like he is saying this now. Though it may still be his belief now, the article is misleading, that’s why it does not mention when and where he said this in 2020. This was in 2016 and he submitted to parliament these arguments.
And some dull cadre like Tayali and Tutwa will still want to argue in the face of this information because they think with their stomachs!
Its not a must they may but those with legal degrees and additional practice in firms and at high court will always come across constitutional issues on which they may show judgement So its not to say constitutional proper but those appointed to constitutional law must focus and research to add to their already incidences of constitutional law to research and interpret to guide Its not limited to the elections only but all constitutional issues also
You may not have practiced constitutional law as per say but could be directly addressing issues of constitutions as a legal attorney If that is then its very difficult to appoint people of the professional with that narrow…
narrow approach to appointments but SC may have some valid observations but not necessary to invalided those appointments NO as you have missed the basic qualifications requirements You may have ………………..is the catch word there
WHAT MATTERS IS THE SIZE OF TONGUE WITH WHICH YOU LICK THE SHOES OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOT IVO VA MA 15 YEARS OR MA EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW. ARE THERE HUMAN RIGHTS WORTH WRITING HOME ABOUT?
Enerst Bwalya you have missed the point entirely and your examples are bogus. The point is there are qualification criteria for constitutional court judges and those employed as such need to have those qualifications. Bill Gates was at Harvard University and employeds the best qualified software engineers with Ph.ds. Don’t try to bamboozle us here and pretend to want to take us in a wrong direction from the main discussion.
It doesn’t matter when this article was written. The fact of the matter is that there are some valid concerns in the article that need to be challenged if they are not truths. The beautiful thing about truth is that it is similar to a lion let loose in the wild. It doesn’t need to be defended.
These so called constitutional justices are way below par. They are a bunch of biased bootlickers without constitutional backbone.
@STRINGER you have messed up yourself even though you sound intelligent. The point is 15 years experience is not same as 4 or 13 years. Your examples of those guys who won Nobel prize in economics are totally irrelevant. Those guys used principles of maths to test hypotheses in economics. A PhD holder in biology can’t teach civil engineering just like a land lawyer is not qualified to pretend as a constitutional lawyer. This is the reason we are a shambles as a country; I’ll qualified imposters are running the show in many places in your country.
Everyone is missing the point here. It is Lungu who doesnt qualify to be president.
But these Constitutional lawyers have diverse experiences and hands on constitutional issues in their practice to provide research and interpretations and then they are not a BOOK in themselves they have support staff who bring a cadre of constitutional experiences in their law practice They may not be a qualification in themselves NO but have met the basic minimum to lead others and experienced enough to be SC having experienced law and incidences of constitution wherever they have worked
Understanding the progress of our legal formations and restructuring will also be helpful to see the pathways To forgive also is Human and moveon
He whom the Gods find deserving to destroy, they first make mad.
Where is Sangwa’s damnation coming from? His ego upon the humble people of Zambia and their President.
Indeed the constitution is more than human rights which the fool only sees with his ego when reading the constitution like the devil does when reading the bible. Take a leaf from South Africa’s Constitution Court which appoints lay persons to be Judges. And take wisdom from the Parliament debates on the ratification of the Judges
Only judges that have authoritarian traits would feel angered by this. Sangwa is not disrespecting anyone by pointing out something that is so obvious: the judges don’t meet minimum qualifications. What is insulting about that unless the constitution court judges want to misuse law to protect themselves? Protect themselves from the truth?
Quite a disturbing reading. If you are not disturbed that the most unqualified individual to hold the office of the presidency, anywhere in the world, appointed the most unqualified bunch of individuals to the constitutional court, you must have your head checked. The most appealing and immediate cure is to remove PF/Lungu—-increasingly by any and all means possible— from power to avoid further broad system and institutional damage to our country. After that, work hard to entrench a merit-based system of patriots who love this country.
@stringer Gen Miyanda is a lawyer.
@naphtali minimum qualifications for the position of constitution judge do not include:”diverse experiences and hands on constitutional issues in their practice to provide research and interpretations”
According to article 140 of the constitution of Zambia, the president appoints, the judges based on the evaluation and recommendations of the Judicial Service Commission ( a body of eminent lawyers and administrators) and subject to ratification by parliament ( a representation of the entire Zambian society)
The system has enough layers of scrutiny to ensure that only the best available candidates are employed at the constitutional court.
Article 141 lists 3 aspects as qualifications;
1) Proven integrity
2) Legal Training
3) Minimum 15 years experience
All the judges in question have proven integrity and very competent legal training. The issue at hand is number 3. Legal practice means years of experience after the admission to the bar and not the court practice or…
Even in the face of evidence some people are still debating ignorantly ….the constitution is clear, what wrong with you people …no wonder we have now PF cadres going to shops quizzing shop owners why they are not selling maize meal at recommended price.
Acting like king David. When David sinned by sleeping with bathsheba a consequence which was a pregnancy resulted. In trying to avoid the truth David got Uriah back from fighting the war to make him sleep with his wife so that the pregnancy can be said to Uriah’s but that didn’t work, then David ordered Uriah to be put in front of the army so that he can be killed in order to marry bathsheba once he is dead so that the whole scenario of the pregnancy is hidden, it seemingly succeeded but without bitter repercussions. Prophet Nathan wisely narrated how David did wrong and David pronounced his own judgment without realizing Nathan was talking about him. No one can hide the truth no matter how one can try and every wrong done has consequences. You may kill, do all sort of things to…
According to article 141.1(b) of the 2016 amended constitution, to qualify as a judge in the constitution court you only need 15 years of legal practice or constitution practice or human rights. It doesn’t say 15 years of constitution legal practice.
141.2 says for specialised courts one needs relevant expertise. In this case it does not state how long it took someone to get that relevant expertise. I advise the author of the article to look at article 141 again and see the loophole that makes the current judges qualified. Its the word OR. The word or in article 141 makes constitution law as an option and not mandatory. Please don’t insult check the constitution. We really need to reveal this constitution because its becoming a source of misunderstanding amongst us.
The mandatory requirement is 15 years legal practice or 15 years constitution law practice or 15 years human rights law practice.
Ernest C. Bwalya – do you know what fifteen years’ experience as a legal practitioner and specialized training or experience in human rights or constitutional law is? Why are you interpreting? You think if someone graduates from university in year 2010 as a civil engineer works for two years as engineer stops then runs some other business does he have 10 years project experience to date as an engineer. What’s wrong with you people …even something that is self explanatory you are making up your own requirements? You think this is the religion where any moron can be a Preacher.
You may kill or do all sorts of things to suppress the truth unless you are God nothing you do will effectively hide the truth sooner or later you will be begging for mercy. There is a power in the truth that is very liberating and freeing from loads and loads of unnecessary York’s we carry for self and other people we blindly follow. Even in churches people are held under chains of poverty due to some preachers telling lies in line with false prosperity preaching, such preachers send their members on a world goose chase for riches and end up doing things that eventually land them in trouble in order to please their pastors. If the truth is told people adjust accordingly, when you have or can’t do anything to help someone better say so rather than wasting that person’s time and…
Legal practice experience means years of service after admission to the bar ( graduation from the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education and not from the University of Zambia). The legal context of practice in this article doesn’t refer, only to the specific time a lawyer, makes appearances in court and only prosecuting constitutional matters. Constitutional law is interlinked to many other laws. Further specialized training may refer to; Intensive short courses ( constitutional interpretation or human rights principles) post graduate diplomas, certificates or Masters in constitutional law or human rights. All the judges have more than these qualifications. What the Learned State Counsel J. Sangwa has listed is not the actual or all the qualifications of the Honorable Justices. The…
AK. None of them has that 15 years so please explain where Sangwa has gone wrong.
The learned State Counsel J. Sangwa in his article, has misdirected himself in proper legal interpretation and actual facts of the matter, in a bid to suit the internal logic of his unique interests. It’s very evident that all our honorable Justices on the Constitutional Court had none stop relevant legal work after admission to the bar. They have a wealthy of years of experience in; legal advice, judging cases at the High Court and some at the Supreme Court, research, teaching and writing scholarly articles etc. Study their work at the high and supreme courts, you will see a depth of knowledge and wisdom in constitutional matters among others.
@AK. Can you explain below is the article
for everyone on this platform to see.
141. (1) A person qualifies for appointment as a judge if that
person is of proven integrity and has been a legal practitioner, in
the case of the—
(a) Supreme Court, for at least fifteen years;
(b) Constitutional Court, for at least fifteen years and has
specialised training or experience in human rights or
constitutional law;
(c) Court of Appeal, for at least twelve years; or
(d) High Court, for at least ten years.
(2) A person appointed as judge to a specialised court shall have
the relevant expertise, as prescribed.
142. (1) A judge shall retire from office on attaining the age
Questions: do the current panel have at least 15 years legal practice? Do the current constitutional judges have…
Let’s take for example Hon Justice Professor Margaret Munalula PhD.
( MA ISS- The Hague, Juris Doctor- Notre Dame- IN, LLB, LLM, AHCZ).
Proffesssor Munalula was addmited to the Bar in 1982. In this 38 years of uninterrupted diverse legal work legal work, the honorable Justice has taught and supervised research work in law from undergraduate to PhD. She was dean school of law at UNZA at a time SC J. Sangwa was a mere lecturer with a Masters and under her supervision. This is one of the most brilliant legal mind known all over the world and all SC Sangwa can say is that she doesn’t qualify to sit on the respect court.
I do not understand how Parliament ratified these appointments. Either Seer 1’s juju blinded all our parliamentarians or we have dimwits in parliament. I would suggest that appointment of judges must be ratified by LAZ and not our laymen in parliament. Look at the crisis we had with the issue of Grade 12 condition. The same people that introduced and voted for the clause did not understand it at all.
I was quite confused with that flip-flopping on the presidential petition and I was at a loss to understand why our justice system was being executed in that manner. Now I fully understand. The only remedy is to disappoint those judges and appoint qualified ones. Even the auditor General’s report should have picked this anomaly though it may not be the right institution to bring it up. The whole disappointment is on parliament. We should raise minimum qualification to a diploma. It can be seen that Grade 12 certificate is far too inadequate. The results are there for everyone to see!!!
They qualify like i have explained above and looking at article 141 and 142 the interpretation is MAY no MUST HAVE this is important so as also to capture those who may have past the requirements practice and qualifications Perhaps the stricter law requirements in wording in article 141 and 142 must be amended to MAY and not in the strict sense
Practice after Ziale in individual firms ,at courts and in back office research as lawyers Involves interpretations of the law or to be specific Constitution and doesn’t simply mean years of proper constitutional law which is the case when one is appointed to constitutional court to and should be not just be in…
be in numbers of cases represented because certain layers could be think tanks and may not be seen in the front but their works could could towards constitutional law codifications and that qualifies them All years post qualifications in legal practice add to the qualifications as constitutional lawyers whether spent at courts in research or private firms because all crosses constitutional matters
But observe also Where there is often the conflict of the law and interpretation the stricter law requirements is applied but what is in the law is a matter of interpretation
Let’s also take a look at Lady Justice Hilder Chibomba, President of the Constitutional Court
The Honorable Lady Justice was addmitted to legal practice in 1982 ( 38 years ago). In these years there is 12 years at the High Court and 10 years at the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court combined ( this makes 22 years as Judge). Suffice to say that High and Supreme Courts were the mandated jurisdictions to handle cases of a constitutional nature prior to establishing the concourt. In addition to the above; there is 7 years at the Magistrate, 4 years as principal state advocate, 3 years senior state advocate, 1 year Senior State Advocate, 4 years legal advisory at Justice ministry. Being a judge and magistrate work is all part of legal practice. Practicing lawyers were agueing cases…
These unqualified people should honourably step down and refund the treasury all money’s they have drawn for illegally accepting these appointments! Ignorance of the Law is no defense! Desperation for jobs you are not qualified for always ends in shame! People of integrity refuse to take up positions if they know they don’t qualify! This issue has exposed ECL for who he truly is, a deceiver, manipulator and a Fraud! If you can’t respect the current Constitution, why do we need Bill 10?
Obtaining money by False pretenses is a criminal offense. True or false?
Illegally Occupying positions whose qualification requirements are explicitly given by the Supreme Law of the land to which all must be Subject, amounts to serious transgressions of the Law! A public officer who is under Oath to uphold and protect the Constitution should know better the consequences of willful and intentional transgressions! Where was the Attorney General when all these illegalities were taking place? Is he also unqualified?
Practicing lawyers were agueing case before her. In the midst of adjudicating cases, Lady Justice Chibomba was supervising and counseling lawyers who were practicing before her. She is therefore an experienced Officer of the Court, with more than 30 years sitting in court. Who else in Zambia has this record. More importantly and in accordance with Article 140, the Judicial Service Commission selects and recommends names to the President for possible appointments. Parliament sits to scrutinize rigorously, the President’s decision. This is one of the appointments involving the decisions of all 3 branches of government namely; Executive, Judiciary and Legislature.
In view of the foregoing arguments it’s crystal clear to safely say that; it’s ill conceived or not true for State Counsel J Sangwa to make very sweeping statement that the Judges on the Concourt don’t qualify. Could it be that the Learned SC J Sangwa is bitter due to the fact that; he was left out of the list to sit on the con court and that he lost the pertition in the con court?
@Detective thats why I said the catch word is OR. 141.1b clearly stipulates who qualifies to be judge in the constitution court.
As you have put it clearly:
Has 15 years of legal specialised training or human rights or constitution law. It does not say that 15 years of specialised training or experience should be in constitution law. Like I have said before that both the civil societies and opposition parties as elections are drawing near instead of concentrating on telling truthful reasons why PF should be voted out of power are instead wasting time on debates with no consequences.
@AK. When people talk about specialization what do they mean. In my understanding being specialized is being good at doing something that is unique to your skill or abilities and gives you an advantage over others who are not in that particular field in which you are specialized in. If am wrong please correct me.
unbelievable??? these are the people heading our highest courts. what a mockery.
Among so many qualified people why select these???
Teachers who were found to be unqualified were stopped and fished out from teaching! If qualifications are good for teachers why not for ConCourt Judges.
Imagine if the disqualified teachers appealed to the ConCourt, how will the unqualified Judges handle the case of Unqualified Teachers.
The judges have lost the moral right to speak on qualifications because they themselves are not qualified!
The verdict from the commentary contributors is that these judges do not qualify to serve as Con Court judges. Let the appointing authorities be aware of the nation feelings.
Let’s also take a look at Lady Justice Hilder Chibomba, President of the Constitutional Court
The Honorable Lady Justice was addmitted to legal practice in 1982 ( 38 years ago). In these years there is 12 years at the High Court and 10 years at the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court combined ( this makes 22 years as Judge). Suffice to say that High and Supreme Courts were the mandated jurisdictions to handle cases of a constitutional nature prior to establishing the concourt. In addition to the above; there is 7 years at the Magistrate, 4 years as principal state advocate, 3 years senior state advocate, 1 year Senior State Advocate, 4 years legal advisory at Justice ministry. Being a judge and magistrate work is all part of legal practice.
K.z wisely opted to stay out of this conversation, its way above his intellect. Even an insult or two from him won’t help with the facts presented here.
Well, shame on Zambia. How can the country has separation of powers when judges are book lickers with no track record.
They are there to eat.
Always in Zambia we are shooting ourselves in the foot because best guys are not given a chance. It has to start by electing as president a competent guy who is not insecure. Now we put mediocre leadership controlled by people there to eat.
Simple answer to the question; Why did Parliament ratify the con-court candidates?? Most parliamentarians have no sound background in terms of understanding the their own constitution and and they are simply there to advance their own interests. The crisis Zambia have is not only around the rule of law but having right people to occupy these critical institutions!!! Vote for right people in parliament and such transgressions will be avoided…I mean how do you have MPs of Lusambo’s calibre??