By Patson Chilemba
Simeza and Sangwa Associates has written the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the constitutionality of the current and imminent recruitment process for judges of the superior courts on grounds that they do not comply with the constitutional requirements of transparency, merit, inclusivity, accountability, independence and impartiality.
In a letter addressed to the Service chairperson dated September 21, 2025, Simeza and Sangwa argued that the terms they referred to were set out in Articles 1,2, 118(2), 140, 173, 216, 219-220, 259 and 267 of the constitution (as amended by Act No.2 of 2016), and with the broader constitutional architecture governing judicial appointments.
“We enclose, for your ease of reference, a copy of a Petition to be filed before the Constitutional Court. The petition challenges the constitutionality of the current and imminent recruitment processes for the of the superior courts on grounds that they do not comply with constitutional requirements of transparency, merit, inclusivity, accountability, independence and impartiality,” Simeza and Sangwa stated.
They stated that the petition addressed matters including the March/April 2025 advertisement for 20 judicial posts issued under the repealed Superior Courts (Number of Judges) Act, 2016, which remain pending, with interview dates not publicly disclosed but widely reported to commence Monday, 22 September 2025.
Other matters the petition addressed included the newly crafted positions under the Superior Courts (Number of Judges) Act No.12 of 2025n(effective 19 August 2025), for which no constitutionally compliant, transparent process had yet been initiated.
They identified that the Supreme Court was said to be operating with only five judges, a state of affairs that undermined and risked infringing litigants enjoyment of the right to a fair hearing within reasonable time and the principles of justice without delay and judicial independence.
They argued that the absence of public disclosure of interview schedules, shortlists and evaluation criteria for March/April processes was inconsistent with Article 173, 216 and 259 covering merit, transparency, professionalism, impartiality and inclusivity.
They further argued that the failure to transparently commence recruitment for positions created by Act No. 12 of 2025 frustrated the clear legislative purpose of strengthening judicial capacity and addressing backlogs.
They argued that the petition sought to seek declarations, interim injunctive relief and mandatory orders to ensure that any recruitment to the superior courts proceeds strictly in accordance with the constitution and that no appointments are made through opaque or unconstitutional processes.
They urged the commission against proceeding to conduct the recruitments, or take steps to fill vacancies in the superior courts until the Constitutional Court has determined the petition.
