Human rights activist Brebner Changala has described the Supreme Court judgement on the setting up of a tribunal to investigate three judges as a sham of an event that would not last in the books of law.
Changala said in Lusaka that it was clear from the onset that the judgement, which was delivered by acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda was meant to protect friends of President Michael Sata and not to serve the people of Zambia, especially the majority poor.
“How does a judge get penalized while performing his judicial duties? This is now a task for our law fraternity and the concerned citizens to defend the judiciary and the young democracy. This judgement will definitely not stand in our law books for a very long time because it was a sham and not worthy the bench on which it was delivered,” he said.
Changala said judge Chibesakunda’s judgement was done to instill fear in the judiciary by the executive and the friends of President Sata.
“The judgement by Lombe Chibesakunda is like a double edged sword and it was poorly delivered. My take is that the initial judgement by the judges who are being investigated now should have been the main judgement because it was brief and based on law and fact. Judge Chibesakunda’s judge was long and meandering to justify the illegalities that President Michael Sata engaged in when he appointed the tribunal to investigate the three judges,” he said.
In an interview, Changala said two matters had been outstanding in Judge Chibesakunda’s judge and these are that article 98(3) and 91 (2) of the republican constitution were declared as stand alone articles in the constitution when they were meant to achieve one and the same purpose.
“The other part is that article 98(3) empowers the president to constitute a tribunal to investigate the judges. Article 91(2) is for judicial complaints, which allows for complaints against any sitting judge to investigate and the Chief Justice to report to the President. According to the Supreme Court majority ruling, article 98(3), empowers the President to appoint a tribunal to investigate a judge without the involvement of the Judicial Complaints Commission,” he said.
Changala said article 98(3) was meant to serve the interest of the president and his friends and allies who had lost judgements in the High Court are were aggrieved to push the President to constitute a tribunal.
“Article 91(2), which is the Judicial Complaints Authority, is for the common man who has no connections to the President to follow the laid down procedure to complain against an erring judge. These are two laws created by the Supreme Court for the privileged friends of the President and the other for the underprivileged commoners who have to follow the normal procedure,” he said.
Changala said the tribunal, which was to be chaired Malawian judge Chikopa was as a consequence of Judge Mutuna’s judgement against Post newspaper owner Fred Mmembe, Director of Public Prosecutions Mutembo Nchito and Zambian Airways.
“Whoever was involved in the line of judgement has to face the tribunal and because of Judge Chibesakunda’s ruling in the Supreme Court, what guarantee has the Zambian people got that the Development Bank of Zambia case, which is still pending in the Supreme Court, after leaving casualties along the way will be handled on the principal of law, fairness and justice to be seen because if they don’t get a deserved judgement, another tribunal will be set to discipline who might error in the way they deliver their judgement on this one matter,” he said.
He said the executive and the friends of the President had defeated the separation of powers.
Changala said the initial judgement, which was set out by Judge Nigel Mutuna on the Development Bank of Zambia case, which is pending in the Supreme Court, was done on a gazetted judicial bench.
The post Tribunal Decision a Double-Edged Sword – Changala appeared first on Zambia Reports.