Dear Editor,
WHEN he was elected to finish the unfinished and unexpired tenure of the late President Michael Sata, President Edgar Lungu was almost the victim of a “constitutional coup” as some people wanted to use the subjective interpretation of the Constitution to prematurely cut short his tenure.
Even at the height of the stale eligibility debate which has been put to rest, we consistently stood our ground that the eligibility of President Lungu was no longer a legal or Constitutional debate but a political issue.
The political lenses of some people who were intimidated by the candidature of President Lungu had taken advantage of their high esteem to recruit the gullible Zambians into believing that he was not eligible to seek a second term of office.
At face value, we had thought the eligibility debate was in good faith until it became clear that it was a political shortcut to eliminate competition on the political front.
We later abandoned the debate as it was meant to divert our determination to discuss pressing national issues.
It was a stale debate as the Constitutional Court had authoritatively given a terse and eloquent interpretation with regard to the construction of the tenure of office for the President especially Mr Lungu whose tenure had straddled with two Constitutional regimes.
President Lungu’s competitors were scared to see his name on the ballot paper but it is not in dispute that they will now face him.
Anyway, we respect their freedoms to enhance their understanding of the Constitution and the case of Joseph Busenga and Another v. Attorney General has given authoritative interpretation. It is ostensibly clear President Lungu is a popular candidate who is in good standing with the electorates and this is calculated to avoid facing him on the ballot.
A few weeks ago, State Counsel John Sangwa alleged that it was treasonable for President Lungu to seek the second term of office, we wonder how the learned and astitute legal brain could usurp the role of Parliament to criminalise seeking office as treason.
Is Mr Sangwa still standing his ground and will he say the ConCourt had committed treasonable office by maintaining that President Lungu is serving his first term of office?
All we can say is that obeying the provisions of the Constitution and the judgement of the ConCourt is not treasonable at all, it is instead Mr Lungu’s patriotic duty to offer himself for service.
Mr Sangwa should desist from misleading unsuspecting Zambians.
The ConCourt has conclusively pronounced itself on the eligibility of President Lungu, ours is to commend the due process and the institutions of Governance. The judiciary has done its work and the matter has now been brought to rest.
MARVIN CHANDA MBERI,
Lusaka.
Author
