When judges become politicians: The case of Judge C.C. Zulu

When judges become politicians: The case of Judge C.C. Zulu

By Dr Lawrence Mwelwa

IS THE judiciary in Zambia now complicit in destroying one of the country’s largest opposition parties? When Miles Sampa, backed by state machinery, convened the infamous convention of 24th October 2023, it was a naked violation of the Patriotic Front (PF) Constitution.

That act was not only unconstitutional but also destructive to internal democracy. Yet when the matter was rightly taken to court, the case never proceeded. Why? Was it incompetence, or was it the long arm of political interference pulling the strings behind closed doors?

If the law is clear that parties in a civil dispute can reconcile, record a settlement, and obtain a consent judgment that is binding and final, why then is Judge Chinyama Zulu holding back her hand from signing? Is it the role of a judge to frustrate justice or to affirm it?

The essence of judicial duty is simple: when the parties agree, the court must respect their autonomy, so long as their agreement is lawful. Anything less is dereliction of duty. Why then is this case being turned into a theatre of manipulation?

Is the Chief Justice of Zambia aware that one of her judges is now being accused of misconduct in full public view? What does it say about the state of judicial discipline if such allegations of deliberate obstruction are ignored? The Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) exists precisely for this reason — to hold judges accountable when they betray their oath.

Can citizens, or indeed PF members, now approach this Commission to demand accountability from Judge Zulu? The Constitution of Zambia promises independence of the judiciary, but is this independence being used to protect justice or to shield political expediency?

Are judges not lawyers first, members of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), sworn to uphold the law without fear or favour? If so, what philosophy of law is guiding this conduct? For centuries, jurists have insisted that the role of a judge is to give life to the law, to protect citizens against arbitrary power. Lon Fuller spoke of the “inner morality of law” — consistency, fairness, clarity, fidelity. Ronald Dworkin spoke of judges as “Hercules,” weaving principles of justice into hard cases. Is Judge Zulu weaving justice or choking it with political threads?

What impression is the court giving to the nation when it withholds a consent judgment that has already resolved a dispute? To the ordinary citizen, it appears that the courts are not neutral arbiters but political referees in borrowed wigs. To the struggling democracy, it signals that the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of convenience. If justice is the cornerstone of democracy, then Zambia’s democracy is trembling under the weight of judicial compromise.

Should PF members, in the face of such injustice, rise up in countrywide protest? When judges turn their benches into fortresses of political manipulation, what recourse do the people have but to raise their voices? Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Silence in the face of judicial betrayal is complicity. If a court can be used to strangle an opposition party today, what will stop it from suffocating any other citizen tomorrow?

The judiciary must ask itself: is it serving the people, or is it serving power? Is it building confidence in the rule of law, or is it eroding it brick by brick? Justice delayed has always been justice denied, but in this case, justice is being actively suffocated. And the longer Judge Zulu refuses to perform her simple duty, the louder the question becomes — whose justice is she serving, and whose democracy is she destroying?