By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
AT the very least, public interest refers to those intrinsic consensual values that are unique to each nation state and its progression.
Protection of life can be public interest; however, how such life is protected can be a matter of debate and multiple interpretations.
This is why public interest is at the core of most constitutions so that its interpretation, protection and advancement is contained in all arms of state and government.
Continually, the protection and advancement of this resource has been the primary concern of many nations so that constitutions are essentially guarantees to protect human life than they are representations of border lines.
The fact that public interest is essential to the constitution, makes it a matter of serious domestic interest and should be protected from non-domestic capture.
The Zambian constitution for example, has made a strong case for public interest since 1991 when power was restored to the public – thereby giving foundation to the nation’s renowned democratic credentials. Zambia did not become a copycat democracy; it needed its own tenets of liberty that were – and remain core to the culture and faith of this nation.
The republic is government by and through the constitution (as guided in Article 4 of the Laws of Zambia).
Sovereign authority, or the legal right to self-determination is a privilege of the people of Zambia and they, in turn, infer this privilege to elected officials (as stated in Article 5). Therefore, an elected official is a function of that privilege of public interest.
Those appointed by an elected official at whatever level of operation are an extension of that privileged public interest. This is why oaths of office for the republic ensure that the office bearers’ function to protect and preserve that sovereign privilege and not serve other interests.
If those interests are not definitive of the domestic public interest, any such action is then contrary to the law.
In democratic nations, people are allowed to change their minds during electoral cycles or other legal means like referenda. This is why the construct of government created the legislature (or Parliament) to be a constant and direct representation of public interest.
In the Zambian scenario, legislative power is a privilege given by the people to representatives of various constituencies across the country. Parliament cannot manufacture public interest; it is public interest that gives the notion of parliament its power. A legislative o cer, then, cannot represent interest outside of those permitted by and progressive to their constituents. Any contrary act deemed progressive must be proven so (Part V: Representation of The People and Article 61 refers).
In our system of government, public interest takes precedence at all State levels. A pertinent question could be: Can a judicial system function in isolation, where no legislative or executive systems existed? Highly doubtful. In the simplest understanding, who would they be creating laws for? Prior to 1991, the judicial system, bold and rm as it was, did not function per se in the public interest. It beheld the laws that bestowed all power in the person of the president. In fact, the reversal to multi-partism was a push from political parties and functionaries more so, than the judiciary. The judiciary responded to public interest to have democracy restored and ensured that changes to the law became a clear representation of the nation state.
From this perspective, the judiciary cannot introduce public interest to the public. It is the custodian of what the public considers to be in their best interest as re ecited in the existing laws.
It can propose interpretations of public interest as granted in the constitution without supposing an angle aloof to law.
As such, the 2016 Constitution elevated public interest to be authoritative of the judicial function. To cite the law accurately: ‘The judicial authority of the Republic derives from the people of Zambia and shall be exercised in a just manner and such exercise shall promote accountability.’
Accountability here is twofold: judicial officers are held accountable by law as are those citizens who act contrary to the law. This parity in the approach of law is essentially what dictates public interest so that the personal preference of one, cannot be camouflaged as public interest.
The law here, like in most democracies happens when the people are misled to believe that majority means correct while minority opinions must be rid of. A democratic society functions on diverse opinion, that is the principle of it.
However, the best form of democracy is often imbedded democracy which means that any kind of democracy must respect its own domestic environment.
This entails that, diverse opinions within the sovereign are inherent and natural, if not predetermined. On the other hand, imposed, doctored or even foreign agenda that do not represent domestic public interest cannot bene t from legal protection.
Those Constitutional National Values and Principles; those guaranteed rights in the Zambian constitution are (as shown, among others under Articles 8 and 9; and Part III: Protection of Fundamental Rights And Freedoms of the Individual)
Whether by default or design, the essence of a just society is about the preservation of public interest and ensuring that the public takes center stage in the decisions taken by all the three wings of government and to fail to place the citizen at the core of their activities is akin to relegation of duty and more often than not, could result in far reaching implications on the part of those in positions of leadership.
