By Esther Chisola
Former president Edgar Lungu’s lawyer, Makebi Zulu says televising the judgement of his client’s eligibility will not enable people to follow through and understand the arguments that were raised.
Chief justice Mumba Malila exercised his discretion to allow state owned broadcaster (ZNBC) to televise the eligibility judgement of Lungu.
On December 10, 2024, the Constitutional Court will settle the debate on whether or not Lungu can contest for presidency for the fourth time after having been sworn into office twice.
This is in a matter where a youth activist Michelo Chizombe is questioning Lungu’s eligibility to contest future elections for presidency, after having exhausted the term limits for presidency.
For the first time in history since Zambia became a sovereign state, Court proceedings will be broadcasted live, in assent to the advocacy by Journalists and stakeholders to live-stream court proceedings.
In an interview with Daily Revelation, Zulu said the chief justice was the right person to ascertain why his client’s case was suddenly accorded an opportunity to be televised.
“I can’t answer that question, possibly the person who can is the chief justice. Cause I’m sure, if the procedure was followed, then an application was made and the chief justice authorised that. So, as to the considerations which were taken into account, to be able to decide to broadcast, I’m not preview to that. I would give a comment if I saw the reasons for the considerations to broadcast,” he said.
Asked if he thought the live broadcast particularly of his client’s case was a good move or not, he said the broadcast would have been done right at the beginning of the case.
“My view is, as regards this particular one It would have made sense if it was broadcasted live right at the beginning. But what has been happening is that people were being stopped from going to court, the court itself was barricaded and only selected people were being allowed in. That in itself was telling that possibly, they didn’t want the public to know what exactly was going on,” said Zulu. “But to only come at the end of it and say no, for the purposes of the judgement, we are going to televise it, I don’t think people will be able to follow through to be able to see what the arguments were. I’m not able to state whether or not it was the right move because I don’t know what the considerations were.”
And Lusaka lawyer Charles Changano said the idea to televise Lungu’s eligibility case was good but with a motive that is unknown.
“To me, though it may be a good idea, the motive behind it is not known. And if they wanted the public to know, why didn’t they allow the public to go while the proceedings were starting? The courts were surrounded by the police officers which means they didn’t want the public to know about it,” said Changano. “So, why bring it now? Who do they want to please? The move to televise the court proceedings is good for democracy but they should have done it from the beginning.”
