The Constitutional Court of Zambia has clarified its legal reasoning behind declaring former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu eligible to contest the 2021 presidential elections while also ruling that he is ineligible to stand for any future presidential contests. This landmark judgment has sparked significant public interest and is likely to shape Zambia’s political landscape for years to come. Deputy President of the Constitutional Court, Justice Arnold Shilimi, delivered the judgment on behalf of five Constitutional Court judges, shedding light on the legal intricacies surrounding Mr. Lungu’s eligibility.
Key Provisions in the Constitution
Justice Shilimi, in his judgment, emphasized the constitutional provisions that govern presidential eligibility. He stated:
“The term of office for a President shall be five years. A President shall hold office for one term commencing from the date the President-elect is sworn into office and ending on the date the election results are announced and shall be eligible to be elected as President for a second term.”
The court underscored the significance of Article 106 (3) of the Zambian Constitution, which explicitly states that a person who has been elected President twice is ineligible to stand for election again. According to the judgment, Mr. Lungu has held the office of President on two occasions, thus fulfilling the constitutional threshold for ineligibility.
Why Was Lungu Eligible in 2021?
The court’s explanation for Mr. Lungu’s eligibility to contest the 2021 elections is rooted in the interpretation of his first term in office. Mr. Lungu assumed the presidency on January 25, 2015, following the death of President Michael Sata. He served until September 13, 2016, when he was sworn in after winning the presidential election. This brief period, initially contested, was deemed to not constitute a “full term” under earlier interpretations.
Justice Shilimi revealed that the court’s prior rulings, which allowed Mr. Lungu to contest the 2021 elections, were arrived at per incuriam, a Latin term meaning “without due regard to the law.” In legal parlance, this suggests that the earlier judgments overlooked or misapplied relevant constitutional provisions.
The deputy president of the Constitutional Court clarified:
“The term of office that ran from 25th January 2015 to 13th September 2016 constituted a term of office. This interpretation aligns with the combined reading of Sections 2 and 7 of the Presidential Transition Act and repealed Article 35 of the Constitution.”
Thus, while Mr. Lungu was deemed eligible for re-election in 2021, this new ruling retroactively acknowledges that his time in office from 2015 to 2016 constituted a full presidential term.
Why Is Lungu Ineligible for Future Elections?
The crux of the Constitutional Court’s ruling lies in the principle that the Constitution restricts any individual from holding the office of President for more than two terms, regardless of whether those terms were consecutive or not. Justice Shilimi explained that Mr. Lungu’s second term, which began in September 2016 and ended in August 2021, unequivocally marked the completion of his second tenure in office.
He stated:
“The first respondent’s term which ran from 13th September 2016 to August 2021 constituted his second term. The first respondent, Mr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, has therefore been twice elected and has twice held office. Article 106 (3) of the Constitution makes the first respondent ineligible to participate in any future elections as a presidential candidate.”
This interpretation reflects the Constitutional Court’s commitment to uphold the principle of term limits, a cornerstone of Zambia’s democratic framework.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant political and legal implications. Firstly, it conclusively removes Mr. Lungu from the pool of potential candidates for Zambia’s future presidential elections, thereby altering the dynamics within his political party, the Patriotic Front (PF). The PF will now need to identify a new leader to represent them in subsequent elections, marking the end of an era for Mr. Lungu’s leadership.
Secondly, the judgment reinforces the authority of the Constitutional Court in interpreting and enforcing constitutional provisions. By acknowledging past errors and rectifying them through this ruling, the court has demonstrated a willingness to prioritize legal correctness over political expediency.
The Role of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court, established to serve as the ultimate arbiter on constitutional matters, has played a pivotal role in clarifying ambiguities surrounding presidential eligibility. The court’s decision to revisit and vacate its earlier rulings is a testament to its evolving jurisprudence and commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Justice Shilimi remarked:
“Our combined interpretation of Sections 2 and 7 of the Act, and repealed Article 35 of the Constitution, reflects our dedication to preserving the integrity of Zambia’s democratic institutions.”
Public and Political Reactions
The judgment has elicited mixed reactions from the public and political stakeholders. Supporters of Mr. Lungu have expressed disappointment, arguing that the ruling undermines his legacy and contributions to the nation. Conversely, proponents of constitutionalism have hailed the judgment as a victory for democracy and the rule of law.
Political analysts believe this decision could pave the way for fresh leadership within the PF, potentially revitalizing the party’s prospects in future elections. However, the transition may also lead to internal power struggles as various factions vie for control.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s ruling on Edgar Lungu’s ineligibility to contest future presidential elections marks a defining moment in Zambia’s legal and political history. By providing a clear interpretation of constitutional provisions, the court has reaffirmed its role as the guardian of Zambia’s democracy. While the judgment closes the chapter on Mr. Lungu’s political aspirations, it opens new opportunities for political renewal and adherence to constitutional principles.
As the nation moves forward, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of term limits in preserving the integrity of democratic governance and preventing the concentration of power in any one individual.
