By 
The Constitutional Court on Friday heard the matter on the interpretation of Article 142(6) of the Constitution, with a full bench of seven judges convened, a composition ordinarily reserved for cases of exceptional constitutional significance, before reserving the matter for ruling.
The case, brought by former Court of Appeal Judge Dominic Yeta Sichinga, and joined by the Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association of Zambia (MAJAZ) as Second Applicant, will determine whether judges who accept part-time or ad-hoc appointments outside the Judiciary, including foreign judicial service, are required to resign from the Zambian bench.
The size of the bench was widely read by observers as a signal of the weight the Court attaches to the matter, whose outcome will bear directly on the tenure and professional mobility of every serving judge and magistrate in the country.
The Applicants fielded two former Attorneys General, Likando Kalaluka, for Justice Sichinga, and Musa Mwenye, for MAJAZ.
The Attorney General’s Chambers, by comparison, was represented by a State Advocate, with no senior member of Chambers appearing, a choice that raised eyebrows given the constitutional stakes and the seniority of opposing counsel.
Proceedings grew tense as the State Advocate repeatedly interjected during Kalaluka’s submissions, drawing rebukes from the Bench, which overruled the interruptions on at least two occasions.
The State Advocate made remarks questioning the motives of judges who attend international conferences, comments that cast aspersions on the very Bench constitutionally charged with deciding the matter.
Senior counsel present rose to apologise to the Court on the advocate’s behalf, as a member of the Bar, for the remarks. The Bench accepted the apology.
The substantive arguments before the Court turn on whether the word “office” in Article 142(6) should be read literally, capturing any appointment outside the Judiciary, however brief or honorary, or purposively, as MAJAZ has urged, to capture only appointments inconsistent with the judicial oath and the independence of the Judiciary.
The matter has been reserved for ruling, however no date has been indicated.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments