LAZ under siege

Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:51:30 +0000

IS THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) autonomous in discharging its functions? Is the current LAZ under siege?

The LAZ is the only regulatory legal body that is charged with the mandate to control ethical standards in the profession for the public good.

As such, it is expected that the legal body should be impartial, apolitical and not politically aligned in the manner it looks at issues affecting the nation.

Unfortunately, LAZ in its current form, has become an appendage of some political grouping and is now being manipulated by a notorious clique of individuals whose agenda is not only to foster regime change but also seek to indirectly control State power.

The unfolding events surrounding the legal body confirm assertions that it has turned itself into a mouthpiece for the opposition because it usually speaks out on matters of public interest only when it suits their politically skewed agenda.

We recall the LAZ to have acted in public interest when it joined the United Party for National Development (UPND) legal suit challenging the continued stay of the Cabinet ministers after the dissolution of Parliament three month prior to the August 11, 2016, general elections.

Alas! As the campaign period heated up, it was observed with dismay that the legal body became more aligned to the opposition UPND and took a militant stance against the ruling party.

On many occasions, the LAZ only condemned politically orchestrated violence whenever it involved the ruling party and not when UPND cadres were embroiled in the fracas.

It is because of such conduct that the LAZ has been branded as a political organisation which has abdicated its statutory functions to the opposition UPND and its allies.

This is unacceptable! Why should the LAZ only come to the party to support the interest of the opposition UPND?

Soon after the August 11 elections, political and constitutional debate erupted on the eligibility of the republican President Edgar Lungu to contest the 2021 general election considering that his re-election was his second after the January 20, 2015 presidential elections.

There are strong opposing views on the correct interpretation of the constitutional provisions which we would not want to delve into at the moment because the matter is currently before the Constitutional Court for determination.

Be that as it may, it took some opposition political parties and not the LAZ to move the Constitutional Court for the correct interpretation of the Constitution. LAZ did not think of petitioning the Constitutional Court for interpretation of the Constitution.

What is interesting to observe is that LAZ and the opposition UPND recently applied to be joined to the matter at the same time. Does it mean the UPND and its allies are pulling strings at the LAZ? Why should the current LAZ hire themselves to the opposition UPND?

Why did the LAZ fail to give guidance to the nation on the correct interpretation of the constitutional provisions?

The UPND-LAZ alliance has compromised the legal body in its objectivity to carry out its mandate.

It is abundantly clear that a group of influential private citizens are abusing the current LAZ to fight their battles.

We have a situation where the LAZ, though within its mandate, is selectively offering legal services to some of its members facing litigation.

Why has the LAZ not extended such protection to its members such as the court judges who are continually ridiculed by some embattled private media houses and UPND leaders?