The inalienable premise of political acceptability or correctedness is that there is a difference between what is legal and what is legitimate.
Dora Siliya does not have any legitimacy to ascend back into political office simply because her political acceptableness is non-existent. This is despite the fact that Judge Musonda eloquently argued that Siliya is absolved of the misrepresentation of breach of the constitution. There is no denying the fact that legally she is a free person.
But it should be undoubted that being legally absolved of a misrepresented breach of the constitution, does not absolve one of his or her political unacceptedness. It is a folly of the incumbent president, Rupiah Banda, to re-appoint a person who in the political perceptions of the majority of Zambians has no moral legitimacy to hold political office again.
In any case, I consistently argued that the Tribunal did misrepresent the interpretation of the Attorney General's legal advice, but this is not to say I absolved her of any perceived wrong doings. For instance, I find it had to have trust in a public individual that can transact publicly in her car and at a filling station!
Her suitability for public office was brought in question, not simply by her ignoring the AGs advice, but by the manner in which she conducted public affairs. And this, I had hoped the president and his advisors would understand. But, it is clear it is futile to believe our leaders will understand that legal decisions are seldom in line with political legitimacy or acceptability.
It really amazes me what African leaders think. A tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment