Judicial Complaints Commission Defends Sacking of Constitutional Court Judges

The Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) has maintained that Constitutional Court judges Annie Sitali, Mugeni Mulenga and Palan Mulonda were dismissed last month due to their lack of qualifications to hold judicial office.

Acting ACC Secretary Brian Gombwa submitted a witness statement to the Constitutional Court, countering claims by constitutional lawyer Tresford Chali, who has challenged the legitimacy of the Commission itself. Chali asserts that most JCC members lack the required judicial experience, rending their decisions, including the dismissal recommendations, invalid. He also claims the Commission, chaired by Vincent Malambo, failed to meet quorum when making this decision. 

In response, Gombwa stressed that commissioners Eva Jhala and Kephas Katongo Kampampa have decades of legal practice, qualifying them for their roles. Gombwa maintained that the Commission operates within its constitutional mandate to address complaints without bias, asserting that the judges were removed due to incompetence and misconduct.

Last month President Hichilema dismissed the three judges following a recommendation from the JCC on the grounds of ‘gross misconduct’. The President is constitutionally bound to follow all recommendations by the JCC.

The controversy over the decision traces back to the 2016 presidential election and a ruling by the ConCourt that allowed former President Edgar Lungu to stand for re-election in 2021 despite Article 35 of the Constitution barring anyone who has twice been elected to the presidency. The decision sparked dissent from two other Constitutional Court judges, fuelling ongoing debates over judicial integrity. Human rights activist Laura Miti argues that “the judges misbehaved spectacularly in the presidential petition in 2016” and that taking disciplinary action earlier would have prevented accusations of interference in the judiciary.

As the case unfolds, the JCC remains steadfast, defending its authority to uphold judicial standards and reject any allegations of improper motivations.