TRIVIALIZING IMPEACHMENT

Share this article

 

THE impeachment motion has angered many people, because it disregards the wishes of the Zambian people who voted for President Lungu.

More importantly the motion does not reflect national consensus but rather reflects the desire of UPND President Hakainde Hichilema who has made to pretense of his wish to curtail the term of the President Lungu.

This is an exercise that if ever successful, will plunge this country into serious turmoil, because it will have been attained by guile rather than the ballot box.

The UPND will be better served to examine the national demographics a little more closely to discern and ascertain the mood of the nation. It is folly to assume that the 90 percent support garnered received in the three Provinces- the stronghold,
represents consensus.

This is a grave miscalculation which, if not properly handled will bring about a conflagration that will make the Namwala xenophobia, a picnic outing. Such is the anger.

S8ubstantivel however, from the very outset the motion itself is self-defeating when it admits in clause 1.4 that “Having regard to the provision of article 113 and 114(2) of the constitution which makes the President an integral part of cabinet and which render the President collectively responsible with cabinet for the decisions of Cabinet..”

This is a self-evident truth. The people of Zambia voted President Lungu into office to run the affairs of state.  For the avoidance of any doubt as executive President he is the head of that branch of government responsible for putting decisions or laws into effect.

For this, the President and his Cabinet are accountable to the Zambian people and not the opposition. The people will decide in 2021 whether this Government has performed to mandate or not. Whether or not the opposition is satisfied cannot provide grounds for impeachment.

The impeachment motion notice is also particularly obnoxious when it introduces ethnicity as a ground for impeachment. Coming from a group that is holding a region to ransom, this reference has caused tremendous offence.

This is why the Zambian people are angry.

As Honourable Dora Siliya rightly stated, the impeachment was seen as a ploy and abuse that went against the wishes of the Zambian people.

It is inevitable to conclude that the motion has been advance for very selfish that will lead to further division and polarization in the country, given that the motion has very little chance of succeeding.

The anger stems from the immaturity and complete disregard of the gravitas and democratic tenets of the office of the President, which combines both executive and titular components.

Supposing indeed the motion was to succeed and President Lungu was impeached do the charges rise to the required level?

The appropriate law on impunity states that the President in article (9) (b) clause (7) (b), ceases to hold office and becomes amenable to prosecution without the need to lift the immunity under Article 98.

It follows therefore that charges must rise to a standard where prosecution under written law will follow. It is not enough to make vague charges which do not stand to scrutiny.

The charges must indicate that the President as an individual, by his personal conduct, failed to protect national interest or conducted himself in a manner that was prejudicial or inimical to national interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *