By Chinoyi Chipulu
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has expressed concern with the fluctuating decisions of the Constitutional Court.
LAZ has, however, urged citizens to respect the decision of the Constitutional Court.
In a statement, LAZ president Lungisani Zulu stated that the judicial authority of the country which was derived from the people was reposed in the courts of law, who had a final say on all matters of legal interpretation.
He stated that it was the duty of the Constitutional Court to settle disputes relating to interpretation of the constitution.
“We express concern about the potential risks of fluctuating decisions of an apex Court, which can invariably undermine public confidence in the Judiciary. LAZ firmly believes that the decision of the
Constitutional Court must be respected by all citizens,” he stated.
He stated that citizens had a duty to respect the court’s decision as the foundation of democracy lay in the respect citizens showed for institutions of governance.
“Under Part 8 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016, the Supreme law of the land given unto ourselves as citizens, judicial authority of the Republic which is derived from the people of Zambia is reposed in the courts of law, who have a final say on all matters of legal interpretation. Having discharged its duty, in the eligibility case of Michelo Chizombe vs Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Others, all citizens have a corresponding duty to respect the court decision,” he stated.
Zulu stated that the Judiciary should ensure that judicial power was exercised in a just and fair manner to foster accountability and preserve the public confidence that was essential to the integrity of the Judiciary.
“LAZ has closely monitored the developments surrounding the eligibility case. We acknowledge the significant public interest generated by this case, including the Judgment delivered yesterday by the Court. By its Judgment, the Constitutional Court determined that Lungu, the 1st Respondent is ineligible to contest any future elections having served two terms as President,” he stated.
Zulu also stated that the court’s decision marked a departure from its earlier decision on the matter specifically in the cases of Daniel Pule and others vs Attorney General and Others, Bampi Aubrey Kapalasa and Another vs. The Attorney General and Legal Resources Foundation vs. Edgar Lungu and the Attorney General.
