Maravi

Sata asks Judicial Service Commission to explain Chief Justice Sakala’s contract

Sata asks Judicial Service Commission to explain Chief Justice Sakala’s contract
Written by George Chellah
Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:30:16 PM

PATRIOTIC Front (PF) leader Michael Sata yesterday demanded that the Judicial Service Commission states the role it played in the awarding of contracts to Chief Justice Ernest Sakala and justice Peter Chitengi.

In a letter dated July 17, 2009 to the secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, which was also copied to President Rupiah Banda, Chief Justice Sakala and Attorney General Mumba Malila, Sata stated that he would like to know what role the commission played in the awarding of the contracts.

"The Post newspaper edition dated Wednesday 15th July 2009 carried an article on the front page entitled "Chief Justice Sakala must go - Sangwa". The said article was referring to a letter by Messrs. Simeza Sangwa and Associates questioning the constitutionality of awarding contracts to the Chief Justice and some judges of the Supreme Court without ratification by Parliament by the President of the Republic of Zambia," Sata stated. "Firstly, I would like to know what role your commission has played in the award of the said contracts to these judges. If the commission were consulted by the President, why did Parliament not ratify the contracts to allow the people's representatives to question the candidates on their competence or otherwise to continue serving our people in such public positions?

"Secondly, it is my understanding that the fact that the contracts in question were not ratified by Parliament means that the process was incomplete and the appointments unconstitutional. If this is so, what is the position of the Chief Justice who purports to swear a President into office after elections when he is not supposed to be in office himself? What about the oath of office which the President took himself?"

He stated that it was clear that the country was faced with a constitutional problem of unprecedented measure since independence.

"We cannot, therefore, gloss over these matters as a matter of convenience when the nation is spending colossal sums of money on a new constitution. The citizens need clear answers from all concerned and I demand that these answers be provided without delay," stated Sata.

The Judicial Service Commission is chaired by the Chief Justice with Registrar of the High Court Mwamba Chanda as the secretary.

According to a letter to Malila dated July 13, 2009, which was also copied to President Rupiah Banda, the Chief Justice, the deputy chief justice, justice Chitengi and the Speaker of the National Assembly among others, Simeza, Sangwa and Associates stated that Justice Sakala and justice Chitengi had already passed the retirement age of 65.

The law firm stated that the duo was not qualified to hold office and that they were holding their offices illegally.

"On 29th April, 2009, we lodged the above-stated appeal and because of its urgent nature it was heard in Ndola on 2nd June 2009, by a bench consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Peter Chitengi and Madam Justice Chibomba. We understand that madam Justice Chibomba is acting judge of the Supreme Court in line with the provisions of Article 93(5) of the Constitution. On 9th July 2009, what was described as the "judgment" of the court was read by the Chief Justice and our clients' appeal was rejected," read the firm's letter in part. "It has now come to our clients' attention that at the time of hearing the appeal on 2nd June 2009, both the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Chitengi had already passed the retirement age of sixty-five stipulated in Article 98(1) of the Constitution, hence not qualified to hold the office of judge of the Supreme Court, consequently not competent to hear and determine this appeal or any other appeal case.

"Article 98(1), omitting the parts not relevant to the issues at hand, reads: Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person holding the office of a judge of the Supreme Court- shall vacate that office on attaining the age of sixty-five years: We are aware of the proviso to Article 98(1), which omitting the parts not relevant, reads: provided that the President- (a) may permit- a judge of the Supreme Court, who has attained that age to continue in office for such period as may be necessary to enable him to deliver judgment or to do any other thing in relation to proceedings that were commenced before him before he attained that age; (b) may appoint- a judge of the Supreme Court, who has attained the age of sixty-five years, for such further period, not exceeding seven years, as the President may determine."

They stated that these provisions did not allow their lordships to hear and determine the appeal or any other appeal after reaching the retirement age.

Simeza, Sangwa and Associates stated that: "If your interpretation of the constitutional and statutory provisions we have referred to is different from ours, we have instructions from our clients to move the High Court so that the issues we have raised can be adjudicated upon. However, if you share our interpretation of the said provisions, we would like to know what you propose to do to correct the constitutional and statutory violations we have outlined above. We would be grateful to hear from you within seven days from date hereof. If we do not, we have instructions to move the High Court."

Labels: ERNEST SAKALA, JUDICIARY, SATA

posted by MrK @ 8:30 PM