Need for restraint and caution

The 22nd Constitutional Amendment (22A) Bill is currently before the Supreme Court (SC), facing numerous petitions and a significant challenge. The SC must examine all petitions and communicate its position to the Speaker of Parliament within three weeks. The government's decision to raise the retirement ages of serving judges has placed the SC in an unfavorable position, invoking the principle of natural justice, nemo judex in causa sua, which asserts that no person should be a judge in their own cause.

This has led to a petition for a referendum. The government's choice to prioritize this issue over other pressing matters, such as building foreign currency reserves and addressing economic concerns, has been questioned. The Opposition demands that all available SC judges hear the petitions, while the government has left four vacancies unfilled to retain experienced judges for a massive case backlog.

The Court of Appeal (CA) is similarly understaffed. The SC, CA, and other petitioners are likely to request a full bench of the SC. 22A is attracting international attention due to criticism from global associations, including the UN, Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, International Association of Judges, and LAWASIA. Zimbabwe's previous attempt to raise retirement ages for judges led to international condemnation.

Propaganda campaigns supporting and opposing 22A are intensifying, with personal attacks and social media scurrilities. Allegations undermining the judiciary's credibility have emerged, such as questioning a judicial officer's birth certificate. It is crucial to address these allegations promptly to maintain the judiciary's integrity.

The government's actions to consolidate its power may undermine the credibility of the judiciary and other democratic institutions. It is essential that all parties involved act with restraint and caution, avoiding damage to the judiciary's dignity.