Green Party leader Peter Sinkamba says the Judicial Complaints Commission has ruled that Constitutional Court judges failed to properly interpret provisions of the Constitution which relate to the timeframe for hearing a presidential petition.

But the JCC has ruled that Sinkamba failed to establish a prima facie case against the judges to warrant their removal from office.

On September 6, 2016, Sinkamba filed a complaint with the JCC seeking the removal of five ConCourt judges, Hilda Chibomba, Annie Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, Margret Munalula and Palan Mulonda from office on grounds of incompetence and gross misconduct pursuant to Articles 143 and 144 of the Constitution.

According to a statement issued by the Green Party media team yesterday, Sinkamba told journalists in Kitwe on Saturday that the JCC had finally ruled on his complaint.

“The Judicial Complaints Commission on Friday last week made a finding of fact that the five Constitutional Court Judges who presided over the 2016 Presidential Petition filed by UPND Presidential Candidate Hakainde Hichilema, and his Vice President Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba, failed to properly interpret Articles 101(5) and 103(2) of the Constitution in relation to the time-frame for hearing of Presidential Petitions. Green Party President Peter Sinkamba said this at a press briefing held in Kitwe yesterday,” read the statement.

“According to Sinkamba, the Commission also found that the bench made contradictory or flip-flop decisions on at least three occasions in relation to the lapse of the 14-day period provided under Articles 101 (5) and 103 (2) for hearing of presidential election petition. Furthermore, the Green Party leader said the Commission also found that the bench abruptly terminated the hearing of the Petition thereby contradicting its earlier commitments that it would not do so. Sinkamba said that the Commission established further that from three possible scenarios on the interpretation of 14-day timeframe for hearing of presidential petitions, the abrupt termination of the proceedings, as the bench did on 5 September, 2016 was wrong because only 10 days lapsed instead of 14.”

But Sinkamba revealed that the JCC ruled that he had failed to establist a prima facie case against the judges to warrant their removal.

“Sinkamba complained to the Commission that the bench issued contradictory orders on the timeframe to hear the petition, which bordered on breaching Rules of Constitutional Court and the Constitution of Zambia. According to Sinkamba, the flip-flop orders were not only clear manifestation of incompetence but also prejudicial or inimical to the economy of the country as well as threatened the security of the State. He feared, as a consequence, the President was likely to invoke Emergency Provisions and thereby declare the State of Emergency. Sinkamba also complained that probably in the history of Zambia, it was the first time that the entire teams of very senior lawyers representing a petitioner or petitioners walked out in protest due to the behaviour of the bench…He tendered evidence to the Commission of commentaries featured in public and private print and electronic media, where the Constitutional Court was ridiculed and contemptuously written or talked about,” the statement read.

“Despite most of his allegations being ascertained in its findings as stated above, the Commission nonetheless ruled that Sinkamba did not establish a prima facie case against the judges to warrant their removal from office. Briefing the press yesterday, Sinkamba wondered why multiple contradictory decisions which were actually proven by Commission cannot be prima facie.”

“I thought a prima facie case of professional misconduct is based on the first impression accepted as correct until proved otherwise. Now in this case, the allegations went beyond first impression stage but were actually proven correct by the Commission after a series of hearings,” the Green Party leader charged and added “I therefore cannot surmise what the Commission means by prima facie case.”

Sinkamba also wondered why the Commission appeared to be reluctant to consider multiple proven evidence of flip-flopping as proof of incompetence.

Additionally, Sinkamba wondered why the Commission held that behaviour which brings the Constitutional Court into disrepute, ridicule or contempt is not one of the grounds provided under Article 143 for the removal of judge from office when Article 266(a) of the Constitution defines “gross misconduct” as “behaviour which brings a public office into disrepute, ridicule or contempt”.

“According to Article 266 of the Constitution, the office of the judge is a public office since emoluments and expenses of that office are a charge on the Consolidated Fund. This being the case, any behaviour that brings the office of the judge into disrepute, ridicule or contempt is gross misconduct,” Sinkamba said.

The Green Party leader however commended the Commission for giving the complainants a hearing adding that “the decision was clearly a win-win kind of a decision”.

He said the State benefitted from the decision in the sense that the State “was going to be very embarrassed had the entire bench been removed from office. On-going cases before the Constitutional Court would have been thrown into disarray, and it is no wonder that the Attorney General sided with the judges throughout the proceedings,” said Sinkamba.

Sinkamba also said the judges benefitted greatly from the decision in the sense that “it would have been extremely embarrassing on their part to be removed from office for incompetence and gross misconduct,” adding “it does not auger well for the future when one is removed from office on such grounds.”

Sinkamba wondered why the judges were not suspended during the time they were being probed.

“Ethically and morally, it does not auger well for a Commissioner who is supposed to preside over the discipline of judges to be appearing before the same judges. This has potential to compromise the decisions. Also, we need to address the aspect of procedure. The Commission should not be at liberty to choose which procedure to adopt. For example, the procedure adopted by the Commission in the determination of the case of ConCourt judges was rather queer. How on earth can one prosecute a person who is not suspended? All over the world, when one is facing disciplinary charges, they are supposed to be suspended from work to facilitate unencumbered investigations. However in this case, in the morning the judges were appearing before the Commission on allegations of incompetence and gross misconduct, and in the afternoon, the judges were presiding over the other cases in court. Where then are ethics and morality?” asked Sinkamba.

“If, for example, a judge is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Commission’s decision on points of law, and wishes to appeal, the question is: appeal before which forum? How can a serving judge appear before another serving judge in judicial review proceedings and expect fair play, especially so if the litigant judge is from a superior court? We need to thoroughly think through these issues before we find ourselves cocoon at the end of the day.”