3.29 score from hupso.pl for:
eliasmunshya.org



HTML Content


Titleelias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv | law | culture | politics | theology

Length: 67, Words: 9
Description law | culture | politics | theology

Length: 35, Words: 4
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 7117
Text/HTML 32.86 %
Headings H1 1
H2 7
H3 22
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
elias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
H2
amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia
luo falls in munali: my analysis of justice musona’s ruling in mwamba v nkandu luo (2016)
amending the zambian constitution should not be done in the dark
organising the law: towards a theory of legal presumptions in the common law
zambia’s constitutional court must assume concurrent jurisdiction over the bill of rights: here is why
the philosophy of judicial reasoning: making sense of zambian constitutional court’s “14-days” ruling
the law association of zambia and the challenge of policing politico-legal speech
H3
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
top posts & pages
my recent articles
like me on facebook
follow me on twitter
read by month
goodreads
meta
follow blog via email
H4
H5
H6
strong
e. munshya, llm, mba, m.div.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv (of the alberta bar)
by e. munshya, llb, llm, mba, m.div.
the law, like life itself, is not an exact science. or perhaps we could say, the law is both a science and an art, with the art part being much more pronounced.
the first presumption is the that of innocence.
the second presumption is that a court intends to stay within its jurisdiction.
the third presumption is that of gifts and donations.
a fourth presumption is that of intention and consequences.
a fifth presumption is that of family.
there are many other presumptions:
 the author is a zambian thought leader and pentecostal minister practicing civil litigation, estate law, and administrative law at west end legal centre, in calgary, alberta, canada. in addition to seminary education, elias holds an llb from england, an llm from northwestern university in chicago, and an mba in law from wales.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
the zambian bill of rights is part of our constitution. it is the entrenched part of the constitution.
first, zambia could hold another referendum and put a simpler question to the electorate.
the second proposal is to ask that parliament passes an un-entrenched provision in the current constitution giving the constitutional court some jurisdiction over the bill of rights concurrent with the high court.
the third proposal is directed at the constitutional court itself. the court should peel away at its recent rulings and reclaim jurisdiction over the bill of rights.
the fourth proposal is that if none of the three proposals above work, then the president should appoint the current concourt judges to the lusaka high court as well.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
a decision of the constitutional court does not become legally right because it is morally superior to an alternative decision, but it becomes legally right because it has been chosen by a majority of judges to be so.
first, the law cannot objectively resolve most of our political problems.
second, an over-reliance on judges for absolute and ultimate justice is a self-defeating goal.
third, the idea that the law is blind is true only to an extent. there are several instances where the law is and should be blind, but no one in the common law tradition, world-over, has ever held the law to those blindfolded statues.
fourth, the philosophy, and practice, of law is very consistent with a liberal outlook on life and human experience.
fifth, legal legitimacy should be taken as a whole, as the whole system.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
b
i
em e. munshya, llm, mba, m.div.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv (of the alberta bar)
by e. munshya, llb, llm, mba, m.div.
the law, like life itself, is not an exact science. or perhaps we could say, the law is both a science and an art, with the art part being much more pronounced.
the first presumption is the that of innocence.
the second presumption is that a court intends to stay within its jurisdiction.
the third presumption is that of gifts and donations.
a fourth presumption is that of intention and consequences.
a fifth presumption is that of family.
there are many other presumptions:
 the author is a zambian thought leader and pentecostal minister practicing civil litigation, estate law, and administrative law at west end legal centre, in calgary, alberta, canada. in addition to seminary education, elias holds an llb from england, an llm from northwestern university in chicago, and an mba in law from wales.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
the zambian bill of rights is part of our constitution. it is the entrenched part of the constitution.
first, zambia could hold another referendum and put a simpler question to the electorate.
the second proposal is to ask that parliament passes an un-entrenched provision in the current constitution giving the constitutional court some jurisdiction over the bill of rights concurrent with the high court.
the third proposal is directed at the constitutional court itself. the court should peel away at its recent rulings and reclaim jurisdiction over the bill of rights.
the fourth proposal is that if none of the three proposals above work, then the president should appoint the current concourt judges to the lusaka high court as well.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
a decision of the constitutional court does not become legally right because it is morally superior to an alternative decision, but it becomes legally right because it has been chosen by a majority of judges to be so.
first, the law cannot objectively resolve most of our political problems.
second, an over-reliance on judges for absolute and ultimate justice is a self-defeating goal.
third, the idea that the law is blind is true only to an extent. there are several instances where the law is and should be blind, but no one in the common law tradition, world-over, has ever held the law to those blindfolded statues.
fourth, the philosophy, and practice, of law is very consistent with a liberal outlook on life and human experience.
fifth, legal legitimacy should be taken as a whole, as the whole system.
by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv
Bolds strong 26
b 0
i 0
em 26
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 33
Pliki CSS 5
Pliki javascript 28
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 197
Linki wewnętrzne 18
Linki zewnętrzne 179
Linki bez atrybutu Title 172
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f12%2f02%2famos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f06%2felias-munshya-new.jpg%3fw%3d1170&description=amos%20chanda%2c%20judges%20and%20the%20challenge%20of%20reforming%20the%20law%20association%20of%20zambia
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f11%2f25%2fluo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f06%2felias-munshya-new.jpg%3fw%3d1170&description=luo%20falls%20in%20munali%3a%20my%20analysis%20of%20justice%20musona%e2%80%99s%20ruling%20in%20mwamba%20v%20nkandu%20luo%20%20%282016%29
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f11%2f10%2famending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f07%2f13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg&description=amending%20the%20zambian%20constitution%20should%20not%20be%20done%20in%20the%20dark
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f10%2f05%2forganising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f06%2felias-munshya-new.jpg%3fw%3d1170&description=organising%20the%20law%3a%20towards%20a%20theory%20of%20legal%20presumptions%20in%20the%20common%20law
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f09%2f16%2fzambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f06%2felias-munshya-new.jpg%3fw%3d1170&description=zambia%e2%80%99s%20constitutional%20court%20must%20assume%20concurrent%20jurisdiction%20over%20the%20bill%20of%20rights%3a%20here%20is%20why
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f09%2f08%2fthe-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f06%2felias-munshya-new.jpg%3fw%3d1170&description=the%20philosophy%20of%20judicial%20reasoning%3a%20making%20sense%20of%20zambian%20constitutional%20court%27s%20%2214-days%22%20ruling
- //www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.org%2f2016%2f09%2f01%2fthe-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech%2f&media=https%3a%2f%2feliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com%2f2016%2f07%2f13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg&description=the%20law%20association%20of%20zambia%20and%20the%20challenge%20of%20policing%20politico-legal%20speech
my tweets
cancel #cancel
cancel

Linki zewnętrzne

elias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv https://eliasmunshya.org/
home https://eliasmunshya.org/
the author: elias munshya https://eliasmunshya.org/about/
older posts https://eliasmunshya.org/page/2/
amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/
leave a comment https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/#respond
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/
leave a comment https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/#respond
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
luo falls in munali: my analysis of justice musona’s ruling in mwamba v nkandu luo (2016) https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/#comments
mwamba-v-luo-and-others-2016 https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/mwamba-v-luo-and-others-2016.pdf
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/#comments
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
munali https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/munali/
amending the zambian constitution should not be done in the dark https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/
3 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/#comments
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/
3 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/#comments
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
organising the law: towards a theory of legal presumptions in the common law https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/#comments
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/#comments
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
zambia’s constitutional court must assume concurrent jurisdiction over the bill of rights: here is why https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/#comments
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/
2 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/#comments
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
the philosophy of judicial reasoning: making sense of zambian constitutional court’s “14-days” ruling https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/
6 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/#comments
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/
6 comments https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/08/the-philosophy-of-judicial-reasoning-making-sense-of-zambian-constitutional-courts-14-days-ruling/#comments
cultura and life https://eliasmunshya.org/category/cultura-and-life/
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
14 days https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/14-days/
constitutional court of zambia https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/constitutional-court-of-zambia/
edgar lungu https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/edgar-lungu/
elias munshya https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/elias-munshya/
petition https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/petition/
presidential petition https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/presidential-petition/
zambian constitutional court https://eliasmunshya.org/tag/zambian-constitutional-court/
the law association of zambia and the challenge of policing politico-legal speech https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/
https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/
leave a comment https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/#respond
tweet https://twitter.com/share
email https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/?share=email
print https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/
leave a comment https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/01/the-law-association-of-zambia-and-the-challenge-of-policing-politico-legal-speech/#respond
zambian law https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-law/
zambian political theology https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-political-theology/
zambian politics https://eliasmunshya.org/category/zambian-politics/
older posts https://eliasmunshya.org/page/2/
download zambia's new constitution (as amended) https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/01/08/download-zambias-new-constitution-as-amended/
amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/
sound at law: why speaker matibini was right to ignore the bombasa injunction https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/03/17/sound-at-law-why-speaker-matibini-was-right-to-ignore-the-bombasa-injunction/
toxic roots: why zambians of congolese origin hide their heritage https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/08/26/toxic-roots-why-zambians-of-congolese-origin-hide-their-heritage/
“the declaration of zambia as a christian nation: blessing or curse”: what gershom ndhlovu misses about pentecostals https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/02/05/the-declaration-of-zambia-as-a-christian-nation-blessing-or-curse-what-gershom-ndhlovu-misses-about-pentecostals/
amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/02/amos-chanda-judges-and-the-challenge-of-reforming-the-law-association-of-zambia/
luo falls in munali: my analysis of justice musona’s ruling in mwamba v nkandu luo (2016) https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/25/luo-falls-in-munali-my-analysis-of-justice-musonas-ruling-in-mwamba-v-nkandu-luo-2016/
amending the zambian constitution should not be done in the dark https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/10/amending-the-zambian-constitution-should-not-be-done-in-the-dark/
organising the law: towards a theory of legal presumptions in the common law https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/05/organising-the-law-towards-a-theory-of-legal-presumptions-in-the-common-law/
zambia’s constitutional court must assume concurrent jurisdiction over the bill of rights: here is why https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/16/zambias-constitutional-court-must-assume-concurrent-jurisdiction-over-the-bill-of-rights-here-is-why/
like me on facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/munshya-wa-munshya-elias/124332355527
like me on facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/munshya-wa-munshya-elias/124332355527
- http://www.eliasmunshya.org
december 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/12/
november 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/11/
october 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/10/
september 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/09/
august 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/08/
july 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/07/
june 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/06/
may 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/05/
march 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/03/
february 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/02/
january 2016 https://eliasmunshya.org/2016/01/
december 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/12/
november 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/11/
october 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/10/
september 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/09/
august 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/08/
july 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/07/
june 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/06/
may 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/05/
april 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/04/
march 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/03/
february 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/02/
january 2015 https://eliasmunshya.org/2015/01/
december 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/12/
november 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/11/
october 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/10/
september 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/09/
august 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/08/
july 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/07/
june 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/06/
may 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/05/
april 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/04/
march 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/03/
february 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/02/
january 2014 https://eliasmunshya.org/2014/01/
december 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/12/
november 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/11/
october 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/10/
september 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/09/
august 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/08/
july 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/07/
april 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/04/
march 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/03/
february 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/02/
january 2013 https://eliasmunshya.org/2013/01/
december 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/12/
november 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/11/
october 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/10/
september 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/09/
august 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/08/
july 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/07/
march 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/03/
february 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/02/
january 2012 https://eliasmunshya.org/2012/01/
november 2011 https://eliasmunshya.org/2011/11/
september 2011 https://eliasmunshya.org/2011/09/
january 2011 https://eliasmunshya.org/2011/01/
december 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/12/
october 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/10/
september 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/09/
august 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/08/
july 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/07/
june 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/06/
may 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/05/
april 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/04/
march 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/03/
february 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/02/
january 2010 https://eliasmunshya.org/2010/01/
register https://wordpress.com/start?ref=wplogin
log in https://eliasmunshya.wordpress.com/wp-login.php
entries rss https://eliasmunshya.org/feed/
comments rss https://eliasmunshya.org/comments/feed/
wordpress.com https://wordpress.com/
networkedblogs http://www.networkedblogs.com/
elias munshya http://www.networkedblogs.com/blog/elias-munshya
zambia http://www.networkedblogs.com/topic/zambia
law http://www.networkedblogs.com/topic/law
africa http://www.networkedblogs.com/topic/africa
follow my blog http://www.networkedblogs.com/blog/elias-munshya
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog
elias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv https://eliasmunshya.org/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 24
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 10
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 24
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/amos-chanda.jpg?w=236&h=329
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg?w=299&h=337
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/elias-munshya-new.jpg?w=286&h=293
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg?w=253&h=285
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg?w=257&h=289
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/400px-coat_of_arms_of_zambia.png?w=211&h=245
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg?w=279&h=314
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13524379_10154251631640528_1091952662934062325_n.jpg?w=284&h=320
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/13221148_10154213265912390_1075672051533491756_o-2.jpg?w=500
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/ireen-mambilima.jpg?w=284&h=217
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/elias-munshya-new.jpg?w=163&h=167
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/img_0392.jpg?w=211&h=317
https://eliasmunshya.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lindawebii.jpg?w=233&h=221
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://0.gravatar.com/avatar/34b34713c27cf2ab7e0a5dde93ccf696?s=96&d=identicon&r=g
https://s2.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/post-flair/sharing/images/loading.gif
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
//assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pinit_fg_en_rect_gray_20.png
https://0.gravatar.com/avatar/34b34713c27cf2ab7e0a5dde93ccf696?s=96&d=identicon&r=g
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

elias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv law | culture | politics | theology skip to content homethe author: elias munshya ← older posts amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia posted on december 2, 2016 | leave a comment e. munshya, llm, mba, m.div. amos chanda – state house spokesperson words alleged to have come out of mr. amos chanda’s mouth concerning the judiciary were concerning. in fact, they were dangerous. i cannot belabour any further on the points raised by the law association of zambia (laz). president lungu has defended his spokesman. he is saying that we all misunderstood mr. chanda. i hope that is true. but we cannot all be mistaken in what we heard mr. chanda say. it is a concern that the spokesperson for the president should be having a wide-ranging media interview that trots from one topic to another during the time that his principal is away visiting a foreign country. in our democracy, the president’s spokesperson is not supposed to be spewing government policy and giving political statements that outline the executive’s priorities. zambians did not elect mr. chanda. zambians elected mr. lungu. at most, mr. chanda is a senior civil servant implementing policies of elected politicians. this is the anomaly we have seen recently where after each cabinet meeting, it is mr. chanda who briefs the press about the resolutions of cabinet. president lungu should put a stop to this so there is a clear demarcation between the civil service and its supervisors, the elected politicians. in the zambian system of government, the spokesperson for the executive branch is not mr. chanda but ms. kampamba mulenga, the minister of information. she is the one who informs the public of government’s political agenda and priorities. and that is how it is supposed to be so that the people can freely debate political policy and hold politicians to account. mr. chanda’s comments that judges risk “kenya-styled” reforms are quite ill-informed. first, zambia is not kenya and we have a very different judicial and constitutional history. second, mr. chanda does not seem to make sense to the extent that he makes it sound like the executive is a very small player in the current structure of the judiciary. of all the presidents zambia has had since 1964, only two presidents have had tremendous imprint on the structure of the judiciary: president kaunda and president edgar lungu. in 2 years, president lungu has by far transformed the structure of the judiciary more than any president. it is under his rule that we have had an expanded judiciary with several new courts including the constitutional court and the court appeal. all this myriad of judges was appointed by president lungu embossing his image for many years to come. to suggest that the judiciary could be changed under the kenya-styled themes is being disingenuous to the tremendous influence of mr. chanda’s own boss on the current structure of our judiciary. point at the new courts and all the new judges and it leads to one appointing authority: edgar chagwa lungu doing in 2 years what took kaunda 27 years. on the rulings of the judges, mr. chanda may have some legitimate concerns. but mr. chanda should channel concerns in a way that respects our processes and not by throwing a tantrum on television (tantrum is an exaggeration; chanda is very soft spoken). clearly, the munali decision from justice musona does not look strong at law and common sense. it does not look convincing. but the only way to reverse it is by lodging an appeal and convince the constitutional court judges. it should not be by intimidation. the lusaka central petition decision is quite another matter and without delving any further so as not to sub-judice the case, it is a difficult case to overturn on appeal. let us wait and see. when a high court judge makes a mistake of law or fact, parties have the right to appeal. that is how we resolve legal problems. we do not resolve legal problems through veiled threats. i have tremendous faith in our constitutional court that it will fairly look at munali and lusaka central once the appeals come before it. having dealt with mr. chanda, we need to turn to the next challenging issue. the role of the law association of zambia when it makes statements that supporters of the ruling party find unfair. i believe laz, as a regulator, must not be taking sides in political battles. just as we are demanding that mr. chanda should be politically neutral, we also should demand that the regulator of legal practitioners in zambia be politically neutral. the regulator cannot take overt stands on the law that seem to contradict and divide the people it regulates. the solution, therefore, is to split laz into two independent branches: one for regulation and the other for a fraternal association of like-minded lawyers. currently, there is always confusion when laz takes a position whether it is in its capacity as a regulator or as an association of free-spirited lawyers. the calls that mr. chanda be well behaved as a spokesperson of the president, is the identical call for laz to make some effort to advocate before government that laz gets split to avoid confusion. laz is right in condemning mr. chanda, as an association. but it has no business taking such political stands as a regulatory body. if mr. chanda were to go to court or to sue the laz president for defamation (if she was wrong on what mr. chanda said), it would still be a laz regulated lawyer who would appear in court for mr. chanda against laz. this would be a potential conflict. there is more to say about the challenges for laz reform. i hope to look at it in detail in future. but for now, we are concerned with mr. chanda just as much as we are concerned with the continued politicization of the entity that is supposed to regulate legal practitioners in zambia. share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... leave a comment posted in zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics luo falls in munali: my analysis of justice musona’s ruling in mwamba v nkandu luo (2016) posted on november 25, 2016 | 2 comments by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv. elias munshya (of the alberta bar) justice e. l. musona on tuesday, november 22, 2016 delivered his ruling in the munali constituency parliamentary petition. it is a 56-page judgment imbued with story. good story is what makes a good case. in fact, stories win cases. a trial is a story. gathering of evidence involves story telling. unless you learn to tell a story, you cannot win in court. going through the judgment, you can see how the petitioner doreen sefuke mwamba told her story and arranged her evidence. it was quite an emotional story too and quite compelling. it also involved some hilarious features like when one of the petition witnesses testified that they saw pf cadres give soft drinks to police men, allegedly laced with some substance that caused the police officers to fall into a deep sleep immediately after taking the drinks. it is while the police slept, testified the witness, that pf cadres helped themselves to stuffing the ballot boxes-packing and unpacking them. every story needs such twists and turns. and in the mwamba v. luo and others, you have the story, you have everything. perhaps the saddest part of the evidence was when candidate mwamba testified that she feared for her life as she and other members of the upnd were being beaten on top of the campaign double decker bus in mtendere. pf cadres were shouting among themselves and encouraging each other to do what ms. mwamba understood was going to be rape. no candidate in zambia needs to live in this kind of fear. our country can do better and must do better. rape or the threat of rape has no place in our country’s political discourse. justice musona has captured the spirit of democracy in his ruling. i find it quite thrilling. he has categorically put it very eloquently that the electoral commission of zambia has the duty to ensure that it complies with the law. particularly, mr. justice musona took issues with the form gen. 12 which in many polling stations had not been signed by polling agents. he then added this important statement on page j43: “in a democratic society like zambia, no area can be a no-go-zone to other political parties. each political party is free to campaign in any area without hindrance from any rival political parties”. this statement is a direct indictment on all of us and i hope that the electoral commission of zambia will heed mr. justice musona’s thoughts here and allow for elections that are truly free and fair for all political players. justice musona did not spare the state either. he indicted the police as having been complacent in the munali unfair election stating “the state also did not show what action the state police took regarding that merciless attack by pf supporters on upnd supporters. state police, therefore, like the electoral commission of zambia, have let down the people of munali constituency”. it cannot get any uglier than this. we had better pay heed to justice musona’s rebuke. i understand that professor luo is appealing justice musona’s ruling. for all the good things this decision is to zambian electoral jurisprudence, i believe an appeal would be in order. justice musona is quite right about the violence characteristic of the munali constituency. he is right in his concern with the general lapse of the electoral commission of zambia, but i find it difficult to accept the idea that the petitioner discharged its burden sufficiently on the charges. the greatest weakness in mr. justice musona’s legal reasoning has to do with the nexus between the illegal acts and the impact on the majority of the electorate in munali. i am finding it difficult to find the connection. for now, the matter may be appealed, or maybe it has been appealed already and we wait to hear what the constitution court will say about it. whereas mr. justice musona is right about the standard of proof required in electoral petitions, i do not see how he uses this standard considering the evidence before him. for example, how does he connect the acts of the violent cadres on the double decker bus with the candidate or her agent? the law does not punish the candidate for the acts of violence perpetrated by cadres, candidates are held accountable for the acts the candidates do or acts that are done with their knowledge or approval or approval of their electoral agents. i think that may be the question the appellant court must answer. for now, we notice the good with justice musona’s judgment, but we also face the challenge of how he came to the decision. no matter how the constitutional court looks at, we will all have to agree with justice musona that, “each political party is free to campaign in any area without hindrance from any rival political parties.” the ruling can be downloaded here:mwamba-v-luo-and-others-2016 ___________________________________________________________ elias munshya is a civil litigator and administrative law practitioner in alberta, canada. share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... 2 comments posted in zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics tagged munali amending the zambian constitution should not be done in the dark posted on november 10, 2016 | 3 comments by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv (of the alberta bar) the 2016 amendments of the 1991 constitution of zambia need revision. i would be the last person to dispute that fact. from language that is ambiguous to plainly ridiculous provisions, constitution 2016 need to be reformed. wanting to change the constitution is one thing, however, and the process used is quite another. president lungu and his patriotic front must come clean and let the people of zambia know which provisions of the constitution are up for revision. this cannot be done in the dark. the zambian parliament must not move to amend the constitution in a deceitful or cantankerous manner. should parliamentarians try to do this and amend the constitution in the dark, they will hear from the million angry voices of our people. it is the people that are the true guardians of democracy and all institutions of this great nation are reposed and deposited in the people themselves. it would be ridiculous for parliament to attempt to amend the constitution without some form of public disclosure and discourse. no matter how inconvenient, discourse must be had on the way forward. the other thing that the pf must do is to speak to the upnd and other opposition parties so that they can come up with some form of consensus about amending some provisions. president lungu should not lead the country as if it comprises only his dununa reverse supporters. zambia is a republic with diverse opinions and formations. the chief executive of this nation must try to find a way to bring all sorts of people to the table. if ba hichilema and bo gbm will not meet with the president, at least mr. lungu should make effort to speak to opposition parliamentarians to forge a compromise on this issue of reforming our constitution. going it alone is ridiculously arrogant and the ruling party must guard itself in that way. we must commend some opposition parliamentarians who are already holding the pf ruling party to account in parliament concerning these amendments. they must keep up the good work. the zambian constitution should not be easily amended. a constitution that can be changed and amended overnight is not worth the paper it is written on. by trying to rush through constitutional amendments, the pf are undermining a very important principle of constitutional vitality: the fact that the constitution cannot and should not be routinely amended. it does not matter that the pf have a majority in parliament. a majority in parliament is no reason enough to bulldoze their way with constitutional amendments. my suggestions above will ensure that the pf takes the time to reflect with the people of zambia directly and to involve all parliamentarians in amending the constitution that truly needs some amendments. which provisions then need reform? the pf want to bring back deputy ministers. this is unacceptable. we already have 30 ministers and 10 additional provincial ministers, there is no need for any more ministers. zambia is supposed to be exercising some level of shrewdness and not go on a huge spending spree on more deputy ministers. if his excellency lungu comes across this article, i ask him not to give in to the temptation of over bloating cabinet and ministers. we have enough ministers. pf is also trying to amend the 50+1 provision. there is some sense in doing that. but this provision must not be amended without some discourse with all stakeholders. parliament also needs to look at the constitutional court and give it statutory jurisdiction over the bill of rights. if it has to wait for the referendum, parliament can simply give high court jurisdiction to constitutional court judges as well so that they can have the jurisdiction over the bill of rights. parliament needs to look at the ambiguous provisions of what happens during presidential petitions. another area that might need reform is local government. so far we are getting conflicting interpretation about the executive status of mayors. parliament needs to look at this very closely. the most important of the suggestions i have provided above is that the pf and president lungu must begin some form of dialogue. in discourse we trust and must trust as a true democracy. _________________________________________________________________ share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... 3 comments posted in zambian political theology, zambian politics organising the law: towards a theory of legal presumptions in the common law posted on october 5, 2016 | 2 comments by e. munshya, llb, llm, mba, m.div. of the alberta bar the law, like life itself, is not an exact science. or perhaps we could say, the law is both a science and an art, with the art part being much more pronounced. since time immemorial, the desire for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth has consumed the common law legal tradition throughout the world. however, for the law to arrive at the truth, it must work under some well-founded presumptions. a presumption is a truth assumed by the law, unless it is rebutted by other facts to a requisite standard of proof. legal presumptions are necessary so that the law is predictable. without legal presumptions, the common law legal tradition would be much more complex and hazardous than it already is. the law uses presumptions to arrive at truth, for truth is impossible without basic foundations upon which truth could be built. presumptions are the building blocks of truth. legal presumptions are the troughs that guide the rivers of justice. legal presumptions do help organise the law and the society in which it functions. without legal presumptions, we will be like beasts unguided by the restraints of law. presumptions are not the truth per se, but a guide towards the truth. there are too many presumptions at law and they would not fit this article today. but let me hasten to mention a few. the first presumption is the that of innocence. in criminal law, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal. the law here does not state that an accused is innocent, but rather that they are “presumed” innocent. the law creates and imputes upon all people, including the accused, a blanket of innocence. it is from innocence that a case can then be built against the accused until they are convicted. bizarrely, even when you catch a thief piddling into your house at midnight, the law still presumes that they are innocent until a competent and impartial tribunal rules otherwise. the second presumption is that a court intends to stay within its jurisdiction. in the zambian system of justice, we have several courts. broadly, these courts can be divided into courts with common law powers (courts which are courts because they are courts!), statutory courts (deriving almost all of their powers from statute or the constitution), customary courts (courts under customary laws), and statutory tribunals (such as a tax or revenue tribunal). navigating through the maze of jurisdiction is one of the finest distinction of legal practice. recent events in zambia show us how ambiguous and confusing the question of jurisdiction can get. after the august 11 2016 elections, we learnt a lesson or two about which court has primary jurisdiction over the bill of rights. both mr. hichilema and mr. mwamba have taken their jurisdictional argument from the constitutional court to the high court. we are watching closely how those matters will be resolved. but for now, as an organisational tool, there is a presumption that a court hearing a matter intends to stay within its jurisdiction. if for example, a tax tribunal entertained a matter it has no jurisdiction over, a higher court reviewing the acts of the tribunal will have to overrule that tribunal on the basis that it had no powers so to act. when a higher court rules on that question it will be effecting this important presumption: a court is presumed to stay within its jurisdiction. the third presumption is that of gifts and donations. the law presumes that people do not intend to give gifts but to buy a bargain. if someone gives you k10,000.00 and says to you, “here is the money for you to buy a car or to buy a house”, the law presumes that the money you are given is not a gift, but is given to you in exchange for something or a bargain. a person who gives another person something is presumed to be wanting something from that other person in return. the receiver of the gift must in turn rebut that presumption if it is called into question. this theory is far much broader though, and i hope in trying to simplify it, i am not sacrificing the broader complexities of the gifts, the giver, and the given. a fourth presumption is that of intention and consequences. here is how it is stated: a person is presumed to intend the consequences of their actions. if you act in a certain way, the law presumes that you intended the consequences of that action. that presumption may be open to a rebuttal, but at least at the very basic and organisational level, you are presumed to intend the consequences deriving from your actions. a few months ago, a zambian at an airport in south africa, rather naively and jokingly told a nosy customs agent that he was entering south africa with a bomb in his luggage. the airport went into lockdown and the zambian was arrested. if your actions cause panic, the law will presume that you intended to cause panic even if a joke is what is was on your mind! a fifth presumption is that of family. a child born out of a married couple living together is presumed to be the natural child of the husband. the law does not leave this matter to further proof. this is how bizarre it can get. let us assume for a very strange reason an african, black married couple have a child that looks biracial, the law presumes that the man married to the mother is the natural father, even if he could as well not factually be the father. practical facts and legal facts could be at odds sometimes. the law does not ask questions unless that presumption is certainly rebutted by positive evidence. a husband cannot refuse paternity of a child simply because a child looks like the neighbour! unless rebutted, the law presumes that “you are the father”. there are many other presumptions: a presumption of death: a person who disappears for specific number of years is presumed dead. there is also the presumption of birth: a child found wandering on zambian soil without relatives is presumed to have been born in zambia, even if factually they could as well have been born in lilongwe or lubumbashi. there is also the presumption of power: a person with statutory powers is presumed to intend to stay within that power. i will end here for now. _________________________________________________________________ the author is a zambian thought leader and pentecostal minister practicing civil litigation, estate law, and administrative law at west end legal centre, in calgary, alberta, canada. in addition to seminary education, elias holds an llb from england, an llm from northwestern university in chicago, and an mba in law from wales. share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... 2 comments posted in zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics zambia’s constitutional court must assume concurrent jurisdiction over the bill of rights: here is why posted on september 16, 2016 | 2 comments by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv where should zambians go to enforce the bill of rights? should it be the constitutional court (concourt)? or the high court? or can zambians go to both? why can’t both the high court and the constitutional court have concurrent jurisdiction? the rulings coming from the concourt seems to suggest that they do not want to have anything to do with the bill of rights. they are reading the current constitution too strictly. honestly, we cannot have a divided jurisdiction where someone who has a constitutional question that engages the bill of rights will have to go to the high court instead of receiving help from one court. i believe though that the concourt should assume jurisdiction over the bill of rights. it is the right thing to do. the zambian bill of rights is part of our constitution. it is the entrenched part of the constitution. constitutional entrenchment is some kind of legal fiction, basically, stating that of all the constitutional provisions, the bill of rights is more deeply buried and much more difficult to amend. whereas parliament can amend all the other parts of the constitution, a referendum is needed to change or amend the bill of rights. a referendum is needed so that there is direct input of the electorate into the entrenchment of the bill of rights. the bill of rights assures citizens of fundamental human rights such as the freedom of assembly, association and conscience. it also safeguards several fundamental rights such as the right to be heard and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure. e. munshya when at the beginning of the year 2016, president edgar lungu signed the 2016 amendments to the 1991 constitution into law, he could not sign the new bill of rights into law as it needed the referendum. well, on august 11, 2016 when the referendum was held, the new bill of rights was rejected as it did not meet the required threshold. this led to the failure of the referendum question. a new bill of rights was not entrenched leading to a situation where we have a new constitution (i am using “new” here even if it is just an amendment), with an old bill of rights. while zambia has an amended constitution in almost all areas, one area that has remained unchanged is its bill of rights. constitution 2016, however, established the constitutional court to be the highest court over constitutional matters. in some respects, such as a presidential petition, the concourt has original and final jurisdiction. the proposed bill of rights, which was rejected on august 11, 2016, provided that the constitutional court would have jurisdiction over the bill of rights. however, after the failure of the referendum, the current bill of rights provides that those aggrieved may enforce the bill of rights only in the high court. it is absurd to have a constitutional court that has no jurisdiction over the bill of rights. we must find a way to resolve this absurdity. i propose the following. first, zambia could hold another referendum and put a simpler question to the electorate. instead of amending the whole bill of rights, it could be possible to simply ask the electorate to vote on giving the concourt jurisdiction over the bill of rights. this step would be quite expensive and after the recent elections, our people are quite tired of campaigns and voting. this route might prove difficult. the second proposal is to ask that parliament passes an un-entrenched provision in the current constitution giving the constitutional court some jurisdiction over the bill of rights concurrent with the high court. this should not be controversial as parliament does enjoy some level of sovereignty as the law maker and law giver in our democracy. while the entrenched provisions of our bill of rights are clear that parliament cannot unilaterally amend the bill of rights, the law should recognise parliament’s ability to help our courts enforce the bill of rights. by giving the concourt jurisdiction over the bill of rights, parliament is enforcing the law and showing strong fidelity to the rule of law. the third proposal is directed at the constitutional court itself. the court should peel away at its recent rulings and reclaim jurisdiction over the bill of rights. it is absurd that we should have a constitutional court which is refusing jurisdiction over helping citizens enforce their fundamental rights. the bill of rights is part of the constitution, and the concourt has jurisdiction over the entire constitution. this entire constitution, i must submit, includes the bill of rights in spite of what the bill of rights says about jurisdiction. what happened during the presidential petition where mr. hichilema and mr. mwamba had to engage the high court to enforce their rights under the bill of rights should have been avoided had the concourt accepted jurisdiction over the question. what is even more bizarre though is high court judge chitabo’s ruling that he too could not accept jurisdiction over mr. hichilema’s fundamental rights as his case had already been handled by a court higher than his! judge chitabo played ping-pong and the constitutional court must stop this high court-concourt ping-pong by assuming and accepting some jurisdiction over the bill of rights. the fourth proposal is that if none of the three proposals above work, then the president should appoint the current concourt judges to the lusaka high court as well. in that case, they will be able to have both high court and constitutional court jurisdiction. if we continue under the legal fiction that the bill of rights should be enforced in the high court only, the concourt judges can circumvent that limitation by sitting as high court judges. in that situation we will have a win-win situation. those with bill of rights grievances can still go to the high court, but those with constitutional issues that trigger the bill of rights can still be heard by concourt judges who also have concurrent high court jurisdiction by virtue of parliamentary appointment. constitutional court judges are best suited to handle the bill of rights. they should forthwith assume jurisdiction without fail. _________________________________________________________________ a zambian holding three law degrees from england and chicago, usa, elias munshya is a  seminary trained pentecostal minister practicing law in alberta, canada. share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... 2 comments posted in zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics the philosophy of judicial reasoning: making sense of zambian constitutional court’s “14-days” ruling posted on september 8, 2016 | 6 comments by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv of the alberta bar the decision of the constitutional court to not hear mr. hichilema and mr. mwamba’s presidential electoral petition is really not about which of the several views expressed by the judges is “right” or “wrong”. both the minority and the majority in the case may have been right. judicial decision making is sometimes not about how judges choose the correct decision from an incorrect one, but how they choose between two competing decisions that could both be necessarily correct. a decision of the constitutional court does not become legally right because it is morally superior to an alternative decision, but it becomes legally right because it has been chosen by a majority of judges to be so. judges do not objectively decide and select the inherently correct decision between competing decisions, rather the decision they make becomes legally right making their choice the law. legally right or legally correct decisions become correct because judges say so and not because the decisions themselves are objectively or inherently correct. to put it in other words, some legal questions do not have the objectively right or wrong answer. the question of 14 days does not rise or fall on what is right or what is wrong, but rather on the decision of the majority judges at a particular time. from the “14 days” decision of both the majority and the minority judges, it is clear that the decision could have gone either way. the 3-2 decision was very close and the chibomba-munalula minority may have carried the day had one more judge from the sitali-mulenga-mulonda majority agreed with them. how do we make sense of this? first, the law cannot objectively resolve most of our political problems. we need political solutions to political problems. the idea that we can always run to the court to resolve our political disputes is practically untenable. it takes more than the courts of law to make democracy work. for example, justice munalula in her minority opinion states that the concourt needed to hear the petition to provide some healing for the nation. the truth is there is no ruling from the concourt that would bring healing to the nation. healing is not a product of legal shenanigans, it is a product of political will and action. the court cannot through evidence help heal a nation, in fact, it could lead to more difficulties. second, an over-reliance on judges for absolute and ultimate justice is a self-defeating goal. human experience should make you realise that judges could rule against your position, not because it is a wrong position, but rather due to several other considerations. maturity helps you deal with such disappointments. third, the idea that the law is blind is true only to an extent. there are several instances where the law is and should be blind, but no one in the common law tradition, world-over, has ever held the law to those blindfolded statues. the law may as well have feelings, eyes, and a big mouth. the law grows according to the magnanimity of those who lose under its breath, and win under its wind. right from the likely tribal split of the constitutional court itself should give you an idea that the court is not an objectively moral compass that churns out court rulings like a blindfolded woman. it is a little more complex than that. fourth, the philosophy, and practice, of law is very consistent with a liberal outlook on life and human experience. the law could lead to conclusions that are unfair to a party, as long as the outcome is part of the reasonable conclusion. this does not justify unfairness; it only shows the fragility of our unbridled faith in having the justice system resolve all of our problems. how can the law resolve the problems mr. hichilema is alleging? particularly the more academic and philosophical ones? fifth, legal legitimacy should be taken as a whole, as the whole system. immediately we begin analyzing the integrity of a judicial system on the basis of one or two court rulings, we lose the true picture of our judicial structure. judges may have ruled differently on the 14 days issue, but they ruled unanimously on the question of cabinet ministers not to stay in office beyond the life of parliament. zambia’s constitutional court cannot just be judged by the 14-day ruling, but by the entire intercourse of rulings it has released in its life. you cannot blame a court just because it has not lived to your expectations on mr. hichilema. it appears like we have now become a very litigious nation. i now hear that several citizens are now taking constitutional court judges to the judicial service commission. what nonsense! we cannot go on like this. this is becoming absolutely ridiculous. we must be more gracious to our judicial system and give the constitutional court some time to grow and develop. the idea that each of the parties that is aggrieved should now go the judicial service commission to have judges fired is repugnant to common sense. judicial reasoning is not an exact science. it has never been. from the english roots of zambia’s constitutional jurisprudence to the american constitutional order and back to zambia’s new constitutional court era, judicial reasoning in constitutional matters is chaotic and constantly changing. respect for the law is never about respect for the objective validity of the law, but it is always the respect for the heritage of the societies that have chosen to be guided by such legal structures. _________________________________________________________________ rev. elias munshya is a zambian theologian and lawyer practicing at west end legal centre in calgary, alberta, canada. in addition to several degrees in theology, he holds an llb from england, an llm from northwestern university in chicago and an mba (law) from wales. elias munshya of the alberta bar share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... 6 comments posted in cultura and life, zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics tagged 14 days, constitutional court of zambia, edgar lungu, elias munshya, petition, presidential petition, zambian constitutional court the law association of zambia and the challenge of policing politico-legal speech posted on september 1, 2016 | leave a comment by e. munshya, llm, mba, mdiv it is common knowledge that the law association of zambia (laz) has issued a circular reminding zambian legal practitioners that they must obtain permission from both laz and its legal practitioners committee before they comment on legal subjects in zambia. i have taken isaac m. mwanza’s (of yali) position that the laws and regulations forbidding legal practitioners from commenting on legal subjects are archaic and need reform. in an earlier article, i highlighted ways the law could be reformed particularly by splitting laz’s regulatory function from its fraternal function. as the situation stands now though, it is still law currently that legal practitioners must not comment on legal matters without clearance from laz. i have reservations over this law, but as a legal practitioner myself, i must agree with it. the law is what it is, not what we wish it should be. chief justice ireen mambilima all lawyers in zambia including politicians such as hon. tutwa ngulube (patriotic front legal advisor) and mr. lusenga mulongoti (upnd member and practicing lawyer) need clearance from laz before they comment publicly on legal subjects. that is the law. this regulation must be read strictly and it is clear that it is aimed at regulating “legal practitioners” and not all citizens in general. laz has no mandate to police zambians’ debate on any subject. laz has no legal mandate to police what citizens debate on social media. the mandate of laz is restricted to forbidding legal practitioners. citizens on social media or on muvi tv have the liberty to lead and mislead themselves on any question of law, fact or anything in between. press freedom and freedom of thought and association includes the freedom to read and misread the law, to lead and mislead self, and the liberty to debate and degrade dialogues. laz lacks the legal mandate and has no legal competence to regulate general public discourse on legal, political or constitutional matters. laz can no more regulate public attitudes to article 101, than the resident doctors association of zambia can regulate public speech on tumors and red blood cells. laz can no more regulate the zambian public’s speech on an electoral petition than the engineering institute of zambia can regulate public attitudes towards the structural integrity of findeco house. for those citizens, who intend or are already, in the process of becoming legal practitioners in zambia, it is important that they follow laz guidelines now so that it does not create an unnecessary distraction when they apply to practice. in fact, i would encourage all law students in zambia to become student members of the law association of zambia so that they begin getting used to draconian provisions that restrict freedom of thought and expression for legal practitioners. laz, its statutes and its regulations must change, however. and each one of us has the responsibility to suggest those changes. it will not be easy for laz members and legal practitioners to change; it must take the collective effort of all citizens. e. munshya of the alberta bar the legal profession by nature is very respectful of tradition and does not change easily. it is nearly impossible to change the legal profession from inside. once you take the great barristers’ oath and wear the gown, you suddenly realise that you are part of the long tradition of legal ancestors such as justice coke, lord denning, lord diplock and all the great men and women of the jurisprudential old. nevertheless, at great personal sacrifice, some in zambia must begin dramatizing for change to the profession. in my case, as a legal practitioner licensed in a different commonwealth jurisdiction where we do not have restrictions like my colleagues have in laz, it provides me some freedom to freely debate and advocate for changes in zambia without having to worry about getting into trouble with the zambian regulator. my professional ethics in alberta though still impose upon me the burden to be civil when i debate legal issues beyond the borders of our jurisdiction. so, laz is right, legal practitioners it licenses must get permission to make legal and perhaps political commentary. laz however, has no mandate to police all citizens who comment on legal subjects. laz can’t police students but it would be advisable for zambian law students and graduates to stop getting under laz’s skin. those that want to get under laz’s skin and advocate for some changes, though, will find me ready to meaningfully contribute to a worthy dialogue within limits of my professional obligations as a practitioner, albeit in alberta. linda kasonde – laz president share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... leave a comment posted in zambian law, zambian political theology, zambian politics ← older posts search for: top posts & pages download zambia's new constitution (as amended) amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia sound at law: why speaker matibini was right to ignore the bombasa injunction toxic roots: why zambians of congolese origin hide their heritage “the declaration of zambia as a christian nation: blessing or curse”: what gershom ndhlovu misses about pentecostals my recent articles amos chanda, judges and the challenge of reforming the law association of zambia luo falls in munali: my analysis of justice musona’s ruling in mwamba v nkandu luo (2016) amending the zambian constitution should not be done in the dark organising the law: towards a theory of legal presumptions in the common law zambia’s constitutional court must assume concurrent jurisdiction over the bill of rights: here is why like me on facebook like me on facebook follow me on twittermy tweets using a multi-disciplinary approach, i reflect on issues affecting zambia's development. read by month december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 july 2014 june 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 november 2012 october 2012 september 2012 august 2012 july 2012 march 2012 february 2012 january 2012 november 2011 september 2011 january 2011 december 2010 october 2010 september 2010 august 2010 july 2010 june 2010 may 2010 april 2010 march 2010 february 2010 january 2010 goodreads meta register log in entries rss comments rss wordpress.com networkedblogs blog: elias munshya topics: zambia, law, africa follow my blog follow blog via email enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. join 26,777 other followers blog at wordpress.com. elias munshya, llm, mba, mdiv blog at wordpress.com. send to email address your name your email address cancel post was not sent - check your email addresses! email check failed, please try again sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. post to cancel %d bloggers like this:


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 7156

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 8.54% (611)
and - 2.88% (206)
our - 1.97% (141)
that - 1.76% (126)
men - 1.52% (109)
court - 1.34% (96)
law - 1.33% (95)
not - 1.3% (93)
zambia - 1.27% (91)
for - 1.26% (90)
her - 1.17% (84)
constitution - 1.01% (72)
his - 0.94% (67)
right - 0.89% (64)
all - 0.84% (60)
legal - 0.81% (58)
can - 0.8% (57)
act - 0.8% (57)
end - 0.78% (56)
are - 0.77% (55)
this - 0.74% (53)
with - 0.73% (52)
have - 0.7% (50)
rights - 0.64% (46)
zambian - 0.64% (46)
one - 0.64% (46)
constitutional - 0.6% (43)
bill - 0.57% (41)
out - 0.56% (40)
mr. - 0.5% (36)
on. - 0.5% (36)
here - 0.49% (35)
but - 0.48% (34)
you - 0.48% (34)
over - 0.48% (34)
jurisdiction - 0.48% (34)
art - 0.46% (33)
from - 0.46% (33)
laz - 0.45% (32)
has - 0.45% (32)
some - 0.45% (32)
judge - 0.43% (31)
should - 0.42% (30)
like - 0.42% (30)
2016 - 0.42% (30)
must - 0.42% (30)
political - 0.39% (28)
just - 0.39% (28)
presumption - 0.38% (27)
per - 0.36% (26)
resident - 0.36% (26)
how - 0.36% (26)
judges - 0.36% (26)
part - 0.36% (26)
amend - 0.36% (26)
they - 0.35% (25)
president - 0.35% (25)
mba - 0.35% (25)
chanda - 0.35% (25)
other - 0.32% (23)
log - 0.32% (23)
parliament - 0.31% (22)
high - 0.31% (22)
comment - 0.31% (22)
ever - 0.31% (22)
justice - 0.31% (22)
elect - 0.31% (22)
post - 0.29% (21)
form - 0.28% (20)
its - 0.28% (20)
decision - 0.27% (19)
what - 0.27% (19)
ruling - 0.27% (19)
need - 0.27% (19)
munshya - 0.27% (19)
will - 0.27% (19)
man - 0.25% (18)
rights. - 0.24% (17)
any - 0.24% (17)
more - 0.24% (17)
presume - 0.24% (17)
old - 0.22% (16)
could - 0.22% (16)
cannot - 0.22% (16)
law, - 0.22% (16)
practitioner - 0.22% (16)
way - 0.21% (15)
may - 0.21% (15)
does - 0.21% (15)
musona - 0.21% (15)
was - 0.21% (15)
there - 0.21% (15)
this: - 0.21% (15)
who - 0.21% (15)
email - 0.21% (15)
lungu - 0.2% (14)
now - 0.2% (14)
association - 0.2% (14)
posted - 0.2% (14)
led - 0.2% (14)
concourt - 0.2% (14)
very - 0.2% (14)
petition - 0.2% (14)
about - 0.2% (14)
under - 0.2% (14)
change - 0.2% (14)
person - 0.2% (14)
give - 0.2% (14)
matter - 0.18% (13)
make - 0.18% (13)
question - 0.18% (13)
read - 0.18% (13)
come - 0.18% (13)
state - 0.18% (13)
presumptions - 0.18% (13)
current - 0.18% (13)
courts - 0.18% (13)
fact - 0.18% (13)
would - 0.18% (13)
2014 - 0.17% (12)
alberta - 0.17% (12)
take - 0.17% (12)
practitioners - 0.17% (12)
2015 - 0.17% (12)
comments - 0.17% (12)
people - 0.17% (12)
free - 0.17% (12)
without - 0.17% (12)
truth - 0.17% (12)
llm - 0.15% (11)
once - 0.15% (11)
new - 0.15% (11)
provision - 0.15% (11)
2010 - 0.15% (11)
reform - 0.15% (11)
your - 0.15% (11)
thing - 0.15% (11)
when - 0.15% (11)
win - 0.15% (11)
cause - 0.15% (11)
get - 0.15% (11)
look - 0.15% (11)
elias - 0.15% (11)
minister - 0.15% (11)
had - 0.15% (11)
also - 0.14% (10)
into - 0.14% (10)
though - 0.14% (10)
september - 0.14% (10)
such - 0.14% (10)
put - 0.14% (10)
common - 0.14% (10)
been - 0.14% (10)
judicial - 0.14% (10)
mwamba - 0.14% (10)
munali - 0.14% (10)
story - 0.14% (10)
too - 0.14% (10)
presumed - 0.14% (10)
police - 0.14% (10)
which - 0.14% (10)
their - 0.14% (10)
try - 0.14% (10)
lead - 0.14% (10)
did - 0.14% (10)
2013 - 0.14% (10)
munshya, - 0.14% (10)
sue - 0.13% (9)
appeal - 0.13% (9)
mba, - 0.13% (9)
case - 0.13% (9)
intend - 0.13% (9)
citizens - 0.13% (9)
llm, - 0.13% (9)
day - 0.13% (9)
blog - 0.13% (9)
november - 0.13% (9)
acts - 0.13% (9)
hear - 0.13% (9)
august - 0.13% (9)
those - 0.13% (9)
quite - 0.13% (9)
red - 0.13% (9)
public - 0.13% (9)
where - 0.13% (9)
able - 0.13% (9)
2012 - 0.13% (9)
both - 0.13% (9)
bar - 0.13% (9)
concern - 0.13% (9)
electoral - 0.13% (9)
theology - 0.13% (9)
find - 0.13% (9)
referendum - 0.11% (8)
majority - 0.11% (8)
reason - 0.11% (8)
well - 0.11% (8)
call - 0.11% (8)
say - 0.11% (8)
provisions - 0.11% (8)
regulate - 0.11% (8)
theology, - 0.11% (8)
issue - 0.11% (8)
nation - 0.11% (8)
even - 0.11% (8)
ministers - 0.11% (8)
because - 0.11% (8)
share - 0.11% (8)
resolve - 0.11% (8)
rule - 0.11% (8)
politics - 0.11% (8)
hold - 0.11% (8)
several - 0.11% (8)
than - 0.11% (8)
top - 0.1% (7)
point - 0.1% (7)
october - 0.1% (7)
tribunal - 0.1% (7)
help - 0.1% (7)
clear - 0.1% (7)
see - 0.1% (7)
jurisdiction. - 0.1% (7)
judiciary - 0.1% (7)
december - 0.1% (7)
follow - 0.1% (7)
january - 0.1% (7)
regulator - 0.1% (7)
sense - 0.1% (7)
position - 0.1% (7)
ready - 0.1% (7)
zambia, - 0.1% (7)
this:tweetemailprintlike - 0.1% (7)
only - 0.1% (7)
this:like - 0.1% (7)
loading... - 0.1% (7)
used - 0.1% (7)
action - 0.1% (7)
press - 0.1% (7)
mdiv - 0.1% (7)
correct - 0.1% (7)
luo - 0.1% (7)
time - 0.1% (7)
hichilema - 0.1% (7)
musona’s - 0.1% (7)
evidence - 0.08% (6)
each - 0.08% (6)
child - 0.08% (6)
presumes - 0.08% (6)
rulings - 0.08% (6)
good - 0.08% (6)
democracy - 0.08% (6)
july - 0.08% (6)
amended - 0.08% (6)
already - 0.08% (6)
amendments - 0.08% (6)
zambians - 0.08% (6)
fair - 0.08% (6)
discourse - 0.08% (6)
structure - 0.08% (6)
area - 0.08% (6)
another - 0.08% (6)
needs - 0.08% (6)
february - 0.08% (6)
commission - 0.08% (6)
march - 0.08% (6)
own - 0.08% (6)
objective - 0.08% (6)
life - 0.08% (6)
candidate - 0.08% (6)
assume - 0.08% (6)
two - 0.08% (6)
challenge - 0.08% (6)
enforce - 0.08% (6)
debate - 0.08% (6)
ms. - 0.08% (6)
become - 0.08% (6)
still - 0.08% (6)
parties - 0.08% (6)
she - 0.08% (6)
lawyer - 0.08% (6)
freedom - 0.08% (6)
party - 0.08% (6)
year - 0.08% (6)
system - 0.08% (6)
through - 0.08% (6)
problems - 0.08% (6)
respect - 0.08% (6)
difficult - 0.08% (6)
presidential - 0.07% (5)
having - 0.07% (5)
law. - 0.07% (5)
much - 0.07% (5)
provide - 0.07% (5)
most - 0.07% (5)
begin - 0.07% (5)
between - 0.07% (5)
spokesperson - 0.07% (5)
fact, - 0.07% (5)
tradition - 0.07% (5)
let - 0.07% (5)
work - 0.07% (5)
were - 0.07% (5)
media - 0.07% (5)
years - 0.07% (5)
ministers. - 0.07% (5)
however, - 0.07% (5)
___________________________________________________________ - 0.07% (5)
objectively - 0.07% (5)
amending - 0.07% (5)
idea - 0.07% (5)
accept - 0.07% (5)
legally - 0.07% (5)
government - 0.07% (5)
before - 0.07% (5)
want - 0.07% (5)
true - 0.07% (5)
turn - 0.07% (5)
great - 0.07% (5)
executive - 0.07% (5)
guide - 0.07% (5)
appoint - 0.07% (5)
important - 0.07% (5)
suggest - 0.07% (5)
civil - 0.07% (5)
stay - 0.07% (5)
recent - 0.07% (5)
after - 0.07% (5)
why - 0.07% (5)
court. - 0.07% (5)
posts - 0.07% (5)
gift - 0.07% (5)
zambia’s - 0.07% (5)
within - 0.07% (5)
profession - 0.07% (5)
rather - 0.07% (5)
lose - 0.07% (5)
days - 0.07% (5)
cadres - 0.07% (5)
amos - 0.07% (5)
matters - 0.07% (5)
mandate - 0.07% (5)
concurrent - 0.07% (5)
article - 0.07% (5)
wrong - 0.07% (5)
chanda, - 0.07% (5)
themselves - 0.07% (5)
leave - 0.07% (5)
rebut - 0.07% (5)
parliamentarians - 0.06% (4)
taken - 0.06% (4)
decisions - 0.06% (4)
supposed - 0.06% (4)
member - 0.06% (4)
entrenched - 0.06% (4)
consequences - 0.06% (4)
practicing - 0.06% (4)
done - 0.06% (4)
giving - 0.06% (4)
alberta, - 0.06% (4)
again - 0.06% (4)
thought - 0.06% (4)
canada. - 0.06% (4)
address - 0.06% (4)
ways - 0.06% (4)
west - 0.06% (4)
dark - 0.06% (4)
subjects - 0.06% (4)
house - 0.06% (4)
africa - 0.06% (4)
ridiculous - 0.06% (4)
agent - 0.06% (4)
itself - 0.06% (4)
particular - 0.06% (4)
student - 0.06% (4)
needed - 0.06% (4)
se, - 0.06% (4)
first - 0.06% (4)
accused - 0.06% (4)
blind - 0.06% (4)
whole - 0.06% (4)
science - 0.06% (4)
innocent - 0.06% (4)
june - 0.06% (4)
towards - 0.06% (4)
_________________________________________________________________ - 0.06% (4)
getting - 0.06% (4)
hope - 0.06% (4)
16, - 0.06% (4)
minority - 0.06% (4)
big - 0.06% (4)
situation - 0.06% (4)
using - 0.06% (4)
second - 0.06% (4)
ask - 0.06% (4)
reforming - 0.06% (4)
april - 0.06% (4)
powers - 0.06% (4)
rights, - 0.06% (4)
proposal - 0.06% (4)
heal - 0.06% (4)
long - 0.06% (4)
constitution. - 0.06% (4)
fundamental - 0.06% (4)
statutory - 0.06% (4)
regulation - 0.06% (4)
election - 0.06% (4)
now, - 0.06% (4)
many - 0.06% (4)
fall - 0.06% (4)
down - 0.06% (4)
show - 0.06% (4)
then - 0.06% (4)
unfair - 0.06% (4)
electorate - 0.06% (4)
statement - 0.06% (4)
supporters - 0.06% (4)
direct - 0.06% (4)
unless - 0.06% (4)
makes - 0.06% (4)
problems. - 0.06% (4)
cabinet - 0.06% (4)
reasoning - 0.06% (4)
taking - 0.06% (4)
politicians - 0.06% (4)
upnd - 0.06% (4)
issues - 0.06% (4)
country - 0.06% (4)
split - 0.06% (4)
campaign - 0.06% (4)
edgar - 0.06% (4)
chicago - 0.04% (3)
science. - 0.04% (3)
first, - 0.04% (3)
speech - 0.04% (3)
live - 0.04% (3)
story. - 0.04% (3)
case, - 0.04% (3)
kenya - 0.04% (3)
theory - 0.04% (3)
nation. - 0.04% (3)
judgment - 0.04% (3)
healing - 0.04% (3)
wait - 0.04% (3)
constituency - 0.04% (3)
bus - 0.04% (3)
order - 0.04% (3)
further - 0.04% (3)
while - 0.04% (3)
facts - 0.04% (3)
is. - 0.04% (3)
basic - 0.04% (3)
human - 0.04% (3)
rebutted - 0.04% (3)
perhaps - 0.04% (3)
never - 0.04% (3)
members - 0.04% (3)
going - 0.04% (3)
higher - 0.04% (3)
until - 0.04% (3)
testified - 0.04% (3)
innocence - 0.04% (3)
particularly - 0.04% (3)
concerning - 0.04% (3)
lusaka - 0.04% (3)
complex - 0.04% (3)
truth, - 0.04% (3)
(of - 0.04% (3)
close - 0.04% (3)
stands - 0.04% (3)
pentecostal - 0.04% (3)
addition - 0.04% (3)
possible - 0.04% (3)
llb - 0.04% (3)
absurd - 0.04% (3)
against - 0.04% (3)
petition, - 0.04% (3)
appear - 0.04% (3)
service - 0.04% (3)
advocate - 0.04% (3)
entire - 0.04% (3)
effort - 0.04% (3)
divide - 0.04% (3)
coming - 0.04% (3)
takes - 0.04% (3)
sign - 0.04% (3)
2016, - 0.04% (3)
always - 0.04% (3)
constitution, - 0.04% (3)
stop - 0.04% (3)
author - 0.04% (3)
found - 0.04% (3)
third - 0.04% (3)
ago, - 0.04% (3)
gifts - 0.04% (3)
buy - 0.04% (3)
given - 0.04% (3)
something - 0.04% (3)
different - 0.04% (3)
question. - 0.04% (3)
though, - 0.04% (3)
fourth - 0.04% (3)
it. - 0.04% (3)
believe - 0.04% (3)
bizarre - 0.04% (3)
making - 0.04% (3)
england - 0.04% (3)
bomb - 0.04% (3)
actions - 0.04% (3)
chanda’s - 0.04% (3)
example, - 0.04% (3)
born - 0.04% (3)
married - 0.04% (3)
laz, - 0.04% (3)
law: - 0.04% (3)
upon - 0.04% (3)
better - 0.04% (3)
process - 0.04% (3)
including - 0.04% (3)
involve - 0.04% (3)
above - 0.04% (3)
speak - 0.04% (3)
2011 - 0.04% (3)
appeal. - 0.04% (3)
ambiguous - 0.04% (3)
trying - 0.04% (3)
during - 0.04% (3)
changed - 0.04% (3)
students - 0.04% (3)
page - 0.04% (3)
restrict - 0.04% (3)
amendments. - 0.04% (3)
wordpress.com - 0.04% (3)
account - 0.04% (3)
being - 0.04% (3)
older - 0.04% (3)
changes - 0.04% (3)
guard - 0.04% (3)
know - 0.04% (3)
elected - 0.04% (3)
elections - 0.04% (3)
meet - 0.04% (3)
took - 0.04% (3)
table. - 0.04% (3)
bring - 0.04% (3)
dialogue - 0.04% (3)
opposition - 0.04% (3)
self, - 0.04% (3)
general - 0.04% (3)
seem - 0.04% (3)
laz’s - 0.04% (3)
face - 0.04% (3)
looks - 0.04% (3)
far - 0.04% (3)
agree - 0.04% (3)
proof - 0.04% (3)
standard - 0.04% (3)
simply - 0.04% (3)
comes - 0.04% (3)
held - 0.04% (3)
enter - 0.04% (3)
tremendous - 0.04% (3)
level - 0.04% (3)
rape - 0.04% (3)
lawyers - 0.04% (3)
heard - 0.04% (3)
function - 0.04% (3)
boss - 0.03% (2)
degrees - 0.03% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.03% (2)
cancel - 0.03% (2)
handle - 0.03% (2)
origin - 0.03% (2)
doing - 0.03% (2)
month - 0.03% (2)
philosophy - 0.03% (2)
facebook - 0.03% (2)
11, - 0.03% (2)
sometimes - 0.03% (2)
therefore, - 0.03% (2)
search - 0.03% (2)
check - 0.03% (2)
choose - 0.03% (2)
branch - 0.03% (2)
competing - 0.03% (2)
kaunda - 0.03% (2)
email. - 0.03% (2)
since - 0.03% (2)
fiction - 0.03% (2)
player - 0.03% (2)
provides - 0.03% (2)
aggrieved - 0.03% (2)
presidents - 0.03% (2)
matters. - 0.03% (2)
rss - 0.03% (2)
propose - 0.03% (2)
judiciary. - 0.03% (2)
prove - 0.03% (2)
politically - 0.03% (2)
giver - 0.03% (2)
overt - 0.03% (2)
includes - 0.03% (2)
kenya-styled - 0.03% (2)
engage - 0.03% (2)
chitabo - 0.03% (2)
failure - 0.03% (2)
ping-pong - 0.03% (2)
three - 0.03% (2)
sound - 0.03% (2)
← - 0.03% (2)
receive - 0.03% (2)
continue - 0.03% (2)
demand - 0.03% (2)
rejected - 0.03% (2)
zambia's - 0.03% (2)
“14 - 0.03% (2)
correct. - 0.03% (2)
tantrum - 0.03% (2)
ruled - 0.03% (2)
office - 0.03% (2)
beyond - 0.03% (2)
14-day - 0.03% (2)
mislead - 0.03% (2)
appears - 0.03% (2)
reverse - 0.03% (2)
becoming - 0.03% (2)
liberty - 0.03% (2)
grow - 0.03% (2)
practitioners. - 0.03% (2)
roots - 0.03% (2)
social - 0.03% (2)
jurisprudence - 0.03% (2)
strictly - 0.03% (2)
integrity - 0.03% (2)
currently - 0.03% (2)
regulations - 0.03% (2)
forbidding - 0.03% (2)
permission - 0.03% (2)
(laz) - 0.03% (2)
second, - 0.03% (2)
reformed - 0.03% (2)
clearance - 0.03% (2)
soft - 0.03% (2)
centre - 0.03% (2)
guided - 0.03% (2)
heritage - 0.03% (2)
subjects. - 0.03% (2)
strong - 0.03% (2)
sense. - 0.03% (2)
attitudes - 0.03% (2)
respects - 0.03% (2)
faith - 0.03% (2)
munalula - 0.03% (2)
becomes - 0.03% (2)
download - 0.03% (2)
chosen - 0.03% (2)
inherently - 0.03% (2)
freely - 0.03% (2)
rise - 0.03% (2)
mistake - 0.03% (2)
laws - 0.03% (2)
days” - 0.03% (2)
skin - 0.03% (2)
professional - 0.03% (2)
either - 0.03% (2)
old. - 0.03% (2)
solutions - 0.03% (2)
opinion - 0.03% (2)
reasonable - 0.03% (2)
create - 0.03% (2)
judges. - 0.03% (2)
moral - 0.03% (2)
concerns - 0.03% (2)
central - 0.03% (2)
extent - 0.03% (2)
blindfolded - 0.03% (2)
deal - 0.03% (2)
lord - 0.03% (2)
position, - 0.03% (2)
realise - 0.03% (2)
experience - 0.03% (2)
absolute - 0.03% (2)
product - 0.03% (2)
judges, - 0.03% (2)
uses - 0.03% (2)
fifth - 0.03% (2)
fraternal - 0.03% (2)
lungu. - 0.03% (2)
spirit - 0.03% (2)
referendum, - 0.03% (2)
ruling. - 0.03% (2)
ensure - 0.03% (2)
that. - 0.03% (2)
topic - 0.03% (2)
him - 0.03% (2)
article, - 0.03% (2)
discourse. - 0.03% (2)
polling - 0.03% (2)
signed - 0.03% (2)
deputy - 0.03% (2)
back - 0.03% (2)
agents. - 0.03% (2)
reflect - 0.03% (2)
suggestions - 0.03% (2)
enough - 0.03% (2)
might - 0.03% (2)
place - 0.03% (2)
worth - 0.03% (2)
double - 0.03% (2)
them. - 0.03% (2)
every - 0.03% (2)
truth. - 0.03% (2)
impossible - 0.03% (2)
presumptions, - 0.03% (2)
necessary - 0.03% (2)
proof. - 0.03% (2)
arrive - 0.03% (2)
decker - 0.03% (2)
threat - 0.03% (2)
understood - 0.03% (2)
exact - 0.03% (2)
kind - 0.03% (2)
chanda. - 0.03% (2)
organising - 0.03% (2)
democracy. - 0.03% (2)
trust - 0.03% (2)
provided - 0.03% (2)
parliament. - 0.03% (2)
amended. - 0.03% (2)
deep - 0.03% (2)
whereas - 0.03% (2)
dispute - 0.03% (2)
policy - 0.03% (2)
revision. - 0.03% (2)
burden - 0.03% (2)
10, - 0.03% (2)
tagged - 0.03% (2)
appealed - 0.03% (2)
priorities. - 0.03% (2)
administrative - 0.03% (2)
provisions, - 0.03% (2)
at, - 0.03% (2)
answer. - 0.03% (2)
statements - 0.03% (2)
approval - 0.03% (2)
knowledge - 0.03% (2)
required - 0.03% (2)
candidates - 0.03% (2)
connect - 0.03% (2)
violence - 0.03% (2)
wanting - 0.03% (2)
easily - 0.03% (2)
chief - 0.03% (2)
work. - 0.03% (2)
these - 0.03% (2)
holding - 0.03% (2)
way. - 0.03% (2)
society - 0.03% (2)
parties. - 0.03% (2)
least - 0.03% (2)
hindrance - 0.03% (2)
rival - 0.03% (2)
this. - 0.03% (2)
heed - 0.03% (2)
truly - 0.03% (2)
stating - 0.03% (2)
away - 0.03% (2)
“the - 0.03% (2)
front - 0.03% (2)
patriotic - 0.03% (2)
supporters. - 0.03% (2)
immediately - 0.03% (2)
innocence. - 0.03% (2)
lawyers. - 0.03% (2)
couple - 0.03% (2)
husband - 0.03% (2)
questions - 0.03% (2)
practical - 0.03% (2)
factually - 0.03% (2)
words - 0.03% (2)
zambia. - 0.03% (2)
natural - 0.03% (2)
falls - 0.03% (2)
reform. - 0.03% (2)
panic - 0.03% (2)
alleged - 0.03% (2)
munali: - 0.03% (2)
analysis - 0.03% (2)
south - 0.03% (2)
airport - 0.03% (2)
few - 0.03% (2)
deriving - 0.03% (2)
concerned - 0.03% (2)
laz. - 0.03% (2)
intended - 0.03% (2)
rights: - 0.03% (2)
entrenchment - 0.03% (2)
confusion - 0.03% (2)
instead - 0.03% (2)
anything - 0.03% (2)
m.div. - 0.03% (2)
can’t - 0.03% (2)
president, - 0.03% (2)
avoid - 0.03% (2)
regulatory - 0.03% (2)
calgary, - 0.03% (2)
wales. - 0.03% (2)
– - 0.03% (2)
chicago, - 0.03% (2)
university - 0.03% (2)
northwestern - 0.03% (2)
england, - 0.03% (2)
holds - 0.03% (2)
seminary - 0.03% (2)
action. - 0.03% (2)
certain - 0.03% (2)
drinks - 0.03% (2)
intends - 0.03% (2)
customary - 0.03% (2)
statute - 0.03% (2)
almost - 0.03% (2)
(courts - 0.03% (2)
learn - 0.03% (2)
divided - 0.03% (2)
tell - 0.03% (2)
story, - 0.03% (2)
judgment, - 0.03% (2)
practice. - 0.03% (2)
rules - 0.03% (2)
petitioner - 0.03% (2)
told - 0.03% (2)
evidence. - 0.03% (2)
built - 0.03% (2)
impartial - 0.03% (2)
competent - 0.03% (2)
politicians. - 0.03% (2)
tax - 0.03% (2)
get. - 0.03% (2)
mouth - 0.03% (2)
gives - 0.03% (2)
actions. - 0.03% (2)
nkandu - 0.03% (2)
it, - 0.03% (2)
broader - 0.03% (2)
(2016) - 0.03% (2)
car - 0.03% (2)
money - 0.03% (2)
says - 0.03% (2)
someone - 0.03% (2)
elections, - 0.03% (2)
bargain. - 0.03% (2)
act. - 0.03% (2)
basis - 0.03% (2)
over, - 0.03% (2)
organisational - 0.03% (2)
bar) - 0.03% (2)
closely - 0.03% (2)
parliamentary - 0.03% (2)
1991 - 0.03% (2)
of the - 0.75% (54)
the law - 0.7% (50)
at the - 0.6% (43)
of rights - 0.57% (41)
bill of - 0.57% (41)
that the - 0.48% (34)
constitutional court - 0.42% (30)
the bill - 0.42% (30)
the constitution - 0.41% (29)
to the - 0.32% (23)
and the - 0.29% (21)
of zambia - 0.29% (21)
in the - 0.28% (20)
mr. chanda - 0.27% (19)
jurisdiction over - 0.25% (18)
the constitutional - 0.24% (17)
high court - 0.24% (17)
on the - 0.24% (17)
in zambia - 0.24% (17)
of rights. - 0.22% (16)
over the - 0.21% (15)
not be - 0.21% (15)
justice musona - 0.2% (14)
with the - 0.2% (14)
legal practitioner - 0.2% (14)
here is - 0.2% (14)
or the - 0.2% (14)
does not - 0.18% (13)
legal practitioners - 0.17% (12)
is the - 0.17% (12)
association of - 0.15% (11)
for the - 0.15% (11)
the zambian - 0.14% (10)
the high - 0.14% (10)
there is - 0.14% (10)
elias munshya - 0.14% (10)
the concourt - 0.14% (10)
has no - 0.13% (9)
e. munshya - 0.13% (9)
of our - 0.13% (9)
that they - 0.13% (9)
law as - 0.13% (9)
that a - 0.13% (9)
llm, mba, - 0.13% (9)
is not - 0.13% (9)
have a - 0.13% (9)
it has - 0.11% (8)
from the - 0.11% (8)
munshya, llm, - 0.11% (8)
is presumed - 0.11% (8)
as the - 0.11% (8)
law association - 0.11% (8)
like this: - 0.11% (8)
court judges - 0.11% (8)
posted on - 0.1% (7)
presumed to - 0.1% (7)
we have - 0.1% (7)
this:tweetemailprintlike this:like - 0.1% (7)
2016 | - 0.1% (7)
presumption is - 0.1% (7)
should not - 0.1% (7)
this:like loading... - 0.1% (7)
e. munshya, - 0.1% (7)
zambian political - 0.1% (7)
share this:tweetemailprintlike - 0.1% (7)
president lungu - 0.1% (7)
that is - 0.1% (7)
legal presumptions - 0.1% (7)
mba, mdiv - 0.1% (7)
theology, zambian - 0.1% (7)
political theology, - 0.1% (7)
do not - 0.1% (7)
the pf - 0.1% (7)
on that - 0.1% (7)
justice musona’s - 0.1% (7)
so that - 0.1% (7)
posted in - 0.1% (7)
of legal - 0.1% (7)
zambian politics - 0.1% (7)
is that - 0.1% (7)
law is - 0.1% (7)
the people - 0.1% (7)
would be - 0.1% (7)
by the - 0.08% (6)
the truth - 0.08% (6)
the alberta - 0.08% (6)
be the - 0.08% (6)
mr. hichilema - 0.08% (6)
part of - 0.08% (6)
should be - 0.08% (6)
of law - 0.08% (6)
common law - 0.08% (6)
the current - 0.08% (6)
such as - 0.08% (6)
all the - 0.08% (6)
to have - 0.08% (6)
the court - 0.08% (6)
2 comments - 0.08% (6)
zambian law, - 0.08% (6)
the decision - 0.08% (6)
presumes that - 0.08% (6)
amend the - 0.08% (6)
the challenge - 0.08% (6)
on legal - 0.08% (6)
law, zambian - 0.08% (6)
in zambian - 0.08% (6)
alberta bar - 0.08% (6)
must be - 0.07% (5)
and not - 0.07% (5)
about the - 0.07% (5)
the common - 0.07% (5)
are the - 0.07% (5)
court to - 0.07% (5)
challenge of - 0.07% (5)
that of - 0.07% (5)
zambian constitution - 0.07% (5)
the referendum - 0.07% (5)
is right - 0.07% (5)
that it - 0.07% (5)
rights. the - 0.07% (5)
the judiciary - 0.07% (5)
could be - 0.07% (5)
and it - 0.07% (5)
a very - 0.07% (5)
enforce the - 0.07% (5)
comments by - 0.07% (5)
comments posted - 0.07% (5)
the ruling - 0.07% (5)
as well - 0.07% (5)
court jurisdiction - 0.07% (5)
a child - 0.07% (5)
we are - 0.07% (5)
look at - 0.07% (5)
this is - 0.07% (5)
they are - 0.07% (5)
idea that - 0.07% (5)
a court - 0.07% (5)
the question - 0.07% (5)
to stay - 0.07% (5)
have the - 0.07% (5)
a majority - 0.06% (4)
that are - 0.06% (4)
for now, - 0.06% (4)
to amend - 0.06% (4)
can be - 0.06% (4)
the majority - 0.06% (4)
a constitution - 0.06% (4)
alberta, canada. - 0.06% (4)
the acts - 0.06% (4)
commission of - 0.06% (4)
did not - 0.06% (4)
the dark - 0.06% (4)
you are - 0.06% (4)
amending the - 0.06% (4)
may have - 0.06% (4)
but it - 0.06% (4)
legally right - 0.06% (4)
question of - 0.06% (4)
14 days - 0.06% (4)
what is - 0.06% (4)
decision of - 0.06% (4)
we can - 0.06% (4)
in that - 0.06% (4)
because it - 0.06% (4)
one in - 0.06% (4)
the idea - 0.06% (4)
legal subjects - 0.06% (4)
in alberta - 0.06% (4)
email address - 0.06% (4)
the legal - 0.06% (4)
hichilema and - 0.06% (4)
the executive - 0.06% (4)
to you - 0.06% (4)
and an - 0.06% (4)
presumptions are - 0.06% (4)
stay within - 0.06% (4)
and mr. - 0.06% (4)
will be - 0.06% (4)
mr. justice - 0.06% (4)
a person - 0.06% (4)
presidential petition - 0.06% (4)
a zambian - 0.06% (4)
even if - 0.06% (4)
have been - 0.06% (4)
zambia’s constitutional - 0.06% (4)
court must - 0.06% (4)
to change - 0.06% (4)
of rights, - 0.06% (4)
the electoral - 0.06% (4)
the law, - 0.06% (4)
i hope - 0.06% (4)
to look - 0.06% (4)
structure of - 0.06% (4)
in our - 0.06% (4)
of reforming - 0.06% (4)
as not - 0.06% (4)
the new - 0.06% (4)
leave a - 0.06% (4)
i have - 0.06% (4)
in fact, - 0.06% (4)
is very - 0.06% (4)
needs to - 0.06% (4)
supposed to - 0.06% (4)
judges and - 0.06% (4)
that we - 0.06% (4)
is how - 0.06% (4)
to make - 0.06% (4)
to police - 0.06% (4)
one of - 0.06% (4)
court and - 0.06% (4)
law and - 0.06% (4)
the petition - 0.06% (4)
electoral commission - 0.06% (4)
must not - 0.06% (4)
of justice - 0.06% (4)
a comment - 0.06% (4)
provisions of - 0.04% (3)
the right - 0.04% (3)
not to - 0.04% (3)
parliament can - 0.04% (3)
is some - 0.04% (3)
when a - 0.04% (3)
musona’s ruling - 0.04% (3)
elias munshya, - 0.04% (3)
that presumption - 0.04% (3)
zambia is - 0.04% (3)
1, 2016 - 0.04% (3)
form of - 0.04% (3)
the other - 0.04% (3)
munali constituency - 0.04% (3)
correct decision - 0.04% (3)
comment on - 0.04% (3)
lungu should - 0.04% (3)
we must - 0.04% (3)
judicial reasoning - 0.04% (3)
way to - 0.04% (3)
in parliament - 0.04% (3)
is also - 0.04% (3)
presumption of - 0.04% (3)
respect for - 0.04% (3)
is quite - 0.04% (3)
that you - 0.04% (3)
to intend - 0.04% (3)
mr. mwamba - 0.04% (3)
the law. - 0.04% (3)
person is - 0.04% (3)
right or - 0.04% (3)
but rather - 0.04% (3)
for laz - 0.04% (3)
within its - 0.04% (3)
and its - 0.04% (3)
high court. - 0.04% (3)
i believe - 0.04% (3)
its jurisdiction. - 0.04% (3)
and that - 0.04% (3)
all of - 0.04% (3)
court has - 0.04% (3)
from an - 0.04% (3)
after the - 0.04% (3)
will have - 0.04% (3)
there are - 0.04% (3)
some form - 0.04% (3)
much more - 0.04% (3)
in his - 0.04% (3)
under the - 0.04% (3)
the consequences - 0.04% (3)
is supposed - 0.04% (3)
bar the - 0.04% (3)
of this - 0.04% (3)
but the - 0.04% (3)
ruling party - 0.04% (3)
law to - 0.04% (3)
trying to - 0.04% (3)
judges to - 0.04% (3)
than the - 0.04% (3)
to buy - 0.04% (3)
we will - 0.04% (3)
it would - 0.04% (3)
august 11 - 0.04% (3)
acts of - 0.04% (3)
is what - 0.04% (3)
difficult to - 0.04% (3)
want to - 0.04% (3)
munshya is - 0.04% (3)
the police - 0.04% (3)
like the - 0.04% (3)
have to - 0.04% (3)
laz can - 0.04% (3)
we cannot - 0.04% (3)
the good - 0.04% (3)
a constitutional - 0.04% (3)
of their - 0.04% (3)
court that - 0.04% (3)
not have - 0.04% (3)
law does - 0.04% (3)
of zambia, - 0.04% (3)
rights is - 0.04% (3)
the candidate - 0.04% (3)
pf cadres - 0.04% (3)
regulate public - 0.04% (3)
of all - 0.04% (3)
for example, - 0.04% (3)
is absurd - 0.04% (3)
practitioners in - 0.04% (3)
is important - 0.04% (3)
is part - 0.04% (3)
it will - 0.04% (3)
and other - 0.04% (3)
and we - 0.04% (3)
may be - 0.04% (3)
quite an - 0.04% (3)
to suggest - 0.04% (3)
loading... 2 - 0.04% (3)
people of - 0.04% (3)
your email - 0.04% (3)
be done - 0.04% (3)
all citizens - 0.04% (3)
amos chanda, - 0.04% (3)
reforming the - 0.04% (3)
chanda, judges - 0.04% (3)
fundamental rights - 0.04% (3)
both the - 0.04% (3)
freedom of - 0.04% (3)
giving the - 0.04% (3)
it does - 0.04% (3)
on september - 0.04% (3)
new constitution - 0.04% (3)
the state - 0.04% (3)
or can - 0.04% (3)
done in - 0.04% (3)
you can - 0.04% (3)
constitution should - 0.04% (3)
laz is - 0.04% (3)
proposal is - 0.04% (3)
edgar lungu - 0.04% (3)
the failure - 0.03% (2)
can still - 0.03% (2)
not about - 0.03% (2)
rights was - 0.03% (2)
that has - 0.03% (2)
presidential petition, - 0.03% (2)
the judges - 0.03% (2)
be heard - 0.03% (2)
freely debate - 0.03% (2)
where we - 0.03% (2)
in some - 0.03% (2)
constitutional matters. - 0.03% (2)
6 comments - 0.03% (2)
those with - 0.03% (2)
assume jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
the structure - 0.03% (2)
current constitution - 0.03% (2)
that judges - 0.03% (2)
enforce their - 0.03% (2)
some jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
that parliament - 0.03% (2)
the second - 0.03% (2)
level of - 0.03% (2)
make sense - 0.03% (2)
parliament is - 0.03% (2)
of law. - 0.03% (2)
are quite - 0.03% (2)
the third - 0.03% (2)
our people - 0.03% (2)
concourt jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
rights. it - 0.03% (2)
should have - 0.03% (2)
it could - 0.03% (2)
instead of - 0.03% (2)
first, zambia - 0.03% (2)
includes the - 0.03% (2)
rights in - 0.03% (2)
what the - 0.03% (2)
find a - 0.03% (2)
during the - 0.03% (2)
seem to - 0.03% (2)
and constitutional - 0.03% (2)
to enforce - 0.03% (2)
rights should - 0.03% (2)
could not - 0.03% (2)
current structure - 0.03% (2)
rights as - 0.03% (2)
judge chitabo - 0.03% (2)
the lusaka - 0.03% (2)
the entrenched - 0.03% (2)
court cannot - 0.03% (2)
competing decisions - 0.03% (2)
no mandate - 0.03% (2)
debate and - 0.03% (2)
freedom to - 0.03% (2)
of thought - 0.03% (2)
lead and - 0.03% (2)
liberty to - 0.03% (2)
social media - 0.03% (2)
legal practitioners. - 0.03% (2)
debate on - 0.03% (2)
legal mandate - 0.03% (2)
on any - 0.03% (2)
laz has - 0.03% (2)
more regulate - 0.03% (2)
2, 2016 - 0.03% (2)
legal subjects. - 0.03% (2)
they comment - 0.03% (2)
it should - 0.03% (2)
| leave - 0.03% (2)
clearance from - 0.03% (2)
article, i - 0.03% (2)
forbidding legal - 0.03% (2)
out of - 0.03% (2)
before they - 0.03% (2)
can no - 0.03% (2)
public attitudes - 0.03% (2)
concerning the - 0.03% (2)
laz, it - 0.03% (2)
older posts - 0.03% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.03% (2)
posts by - 0.03% (2)
← older - 0.03% (2)
my professional - 0.03% (2)
for some - 0.03% (2)
and advocate - 0.03% (2)
laz’s skin - 0.03% (2)
when i - 0.03% (2)
advocate for - 0.03% (2)
jurisdiction where - 0.03% (2)
can regulate - 0.03% (2)
a legal - 0.03% (2)
take the - 0.03% (2)
legal profession - 0.03% (2)
and legal - 0.03% (2)
law students - 0.03% (2)
i would - 0.03% (2)
integrity of - 0.03% (2)
zambia can - 0.03% (2)
an electoral - 0.03% (2)
speech on - 0.03% (2)
no more - 0.03% (2)
they must - 0.03% (2)
zambian constitutional - 0.03% (2)
right because - 0.03% (2)
policy and - 0.03% (2)
product of - 0.03% (2)
the nation. - 0.03% (2)
truth is - 0.03% (2)
to hear - 0.03% (2)
from one - 0.03% (2)
the time - 0.03% (2)
we need - 0.03% (2)
political problems. - 0.03% (2)
sense of - 0.03% (2)
how do - 0.03% (2)
very close - 0.03% (2)
lead to - 0.03% (2)
is clear - 0.03% (2)
the minority - 0.03% (2)
statements that - 0.03% (2)
mr. chanda. - 0.03% (2)
elected politicians. - 0.03% (2)
between the - 0.03% (2)
because the - 0.03% (2)
not objectively - 0.03% (2)
majority of - 0.03% (2)
becomes legally - 0.03% (2)
zambian system - 0.03% (2)
a product - 0.03% (2)
human experience - 0.03% (2)
from wales. - 0.03% (2)
just be - 0.03% (2)
in chicago - 0.03% (2)
to several - 0.03% (2)
west end - 0.03% (2)
guided by - 0.03% (2)
law, but - 0.03% (2)
science. it - 0.03% (2)
hope that - 0.03% (2)
our judicial - 0.03% (2)
judicial service - 0.03% (2)
you cannot - 0.03% (2)
the 14 - 0.03% (2)
should make - 0.03% (2)
judicial system - 0.03% (2)
can the - 0.03% (2)
faith in - 0.03% (2)
but we - 0.03% (2)
could lead - 0.03% (2)
court itself - 0.03% (2)
under its - 0.03% (2)
well have - 0.03% (2)
the spokesperson - 0.03% (2)
is true - 0.03% (2)
president should - 0.03% (2)
president edgar - 0.03% (2)
ensure that - 0.03% (2)
august 11, - 0.03% (2)
no matter - 0.03% (2)
opposition parliamentarians - 0.03% (2)
our constitution. - 0.03% (2)
to speak - 0.03% (2)
not meet - 0.03% (2)
to bring - 0.03% (2)
with some - 0.03% (2)
they can - 0.03% (2)
his ruling - 0.03% (2)
speak to - 0.03% (2)
without some - 0.03% (2)
alberta bar) - 0.03% (2)
the true - 0.03% (2)
and amend - 0.03% (2)
try to - 0.03% (2)
makes a - 0.03% (2)
cannot be - 0.03% (2)
which provisions - 0.03% (2)
patriotic front - 0.03% (2)
used is - 0.03% (2)
the process - 0.03% (2)
to account - 0.03% (2)
be changed - 0.03% (2)
constitution 2016 - 0.03% (2)
in munali: - 0.03% (2)
theory of - 0.03% (2)
towards a - 0.03% (2)
the law: - 0.03% (2)
and must - 0.03% (2)
must begin - 0.03% (2)
area that - 0.03% (2)
comment posted - 0.03% (2)
luo falls - 0.03% (2)
the referendum, - 0.03% (2)
my analysis - 0.03% (2)
and should - 0.03% (2)
and give - 0.03% (2)
to give - 0.03% (2)
deputy ministers. - 0.03% (2)
in mwamba - 0.03% (2)
some level - 0.03% (2)
v nkandu - 0.03% (2)
constitution that - 0.03% (2)
luo (2016) - 0.03% (2)
with constitutional - 0.03% (2)
(of the - 0.03% (2)
change the - 0.03% (2)
zambia need - 0.03% (2)
to regulate - 0.03% (2)
must do - 0.03% (2)
electorate in - 0.03% (2)
the upnd - 0.03% (2)
do with - 0.03% (2)
has to - 0.03% (2)
double decker - 0.03% (2)
find it - 0.03% (2)
right in - 0.03% (2)
musona is - 0.03% (2)
our country - 0.03% (2)
for all - 0.03% (2)
to find - 0.03% (2)
i find - 0.03% (2)
put it - 0.03% (2)
has the - 0.03% (2)
on all - 0.03% (2)
any rival - 0.03% (2)
hindrance from - 0.03% (2)
area without - 0.03% (2)
in any - 0.03% (2)
to campaign - 0.03% (2)
is free - 0.03% (2)
it difficult - 0.03% (2)
members of - 0.03% (2)
the 1991 - 0.03% (2)
matter how - 0.03% (2)
the 2016 - 0.03% (2)
3 comments - 0.03% (2)
story, you - 0.03% (2)
see how - 0.03% (2)
politics tagged - 0.03% (2)
the petitioner - 0.03% (2)
it also - 0.03% (2)
administrative law - 0.03% (2)
agree with - 0.03% (2)
with justice - 0.03% (2)
has been - 0.03% (2)
while the - 0.03% (2)
or approval - 0.03% (2)
or her - 0.03% (2)
he connect - 0.03% (2)
the evidence - 0.03% (2)
how he - 0.03% (2)
not see - 0.03% (2)
of proof - 0.03% (2)
right about - 0.03% (2)
say about - 0.03% (2)
in zambia. - 0.03% (2)
an exact - 0.03% (2)
1991 constitution - 0.03% (2)
he could - 0.03% (2)
in addition - 0.03% (2)
in calgary, - 0.03% (2)
at west - 0.03% (2)
pentecostal minister - 0.03% (2)
intend to - 0.03% (2)
political party - 0.03% (2)
lusaka central - 0.03% (2)
the presumption - 0.03% (2)
rebutted by - 0.03% (2)
the man - 0.03% (2)
llb from - 0.03% (2)
it can - 0.03% (2)
the natural - 0.03% (2)
married couple - 0.03% (2)
cause panic - 0.03% (2)
your actions - 0.03% (2)
he was - 0.03% (2)
resolve legal - 0.03% (2)
at least - 0.03% (2)
you intended - 0.03% (2)
problems. we - 0.03% (2)
holds an - 0.03% (2)
england, an - 0.03% (2)
other person - 0.03% (2)
thing to - 0.03% (2)
2016 amendments - 0.03% (2)
have had - 0.03% (2)
rights such - 0.03% (2)
of judges - 0.03% (2)
suggest that - 0.03% (2)
is needed - 0.03% (2)
a referendum - 0.03% (2)
the constitution, - 0.03% (2)
of mr. - 0.03% (2)
2 years - 0.03% (2)
llm from - 0.03% (2)
the rulings - 0.03% (2)
rights. they - 0.03% (2)
have concurrent - 0.03% (2)
zambians go - 0.03% (2)
chanda should - 0.03% (2)
of rights: - 0.03% (2)
assume concurrent - 0.03% (2)
not look - 0.03% (2)
common sense. - 0.03% (2)
northwestern university - 0.03% (2)
how it - 0.03% (2)
person who - 0.03% (2)
are concerned - 0.03% (2)
to arrive - 0.03% (2)
of innocence. - 0.03% (2)
and impartial - 0.03% (2)
a competent - 0.03% (2)
an accused - 0.03% (2)
to court - 0.03% (2)
this article - 0.03% (2)
laz president - 0.03% (2)
on what - 0.03% (2)
in court - 0.03% (2)
more complex - 0.03% (2)
the accused - 0.03% (2)
law legal - 0.03% (2)
is more - 0.03% (2)
legal presumptions, - 0.03% (2)
standard of - 0.03% (2)
but for - 0.03% (2)
now, we - 0.03% (2)
it must - 0.03% (2)
the truth, - 0.03% (2)
arrive at - 0.03% (2)
legal tradition - 0.03% (2)
mr. chanda, - 0.03% (2)
innocent until - 0.03% (2)
with mr. - 0.03% (2)
just as - 0.03% (2)
the money - 0.03% (2)
a bargain. - 0.03% (2)
jurisdiction. the - 0.03% (2)
need to - 0.03% (2)
a higher - 0.03% (2)
higher court - 0.03% (2)
no jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
a matter - 0.03% (2)
jurisdiction. if - 0.03% (2)
we also - 0.03% (2)
the president, - 0.03% (2)
about which - 0.03% (2)
or two - 0.03% (2)
can get. - 0.03% (2)
of jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
be politically - 0.03% (2)
through the - 0.03% (2)
are courts - 0.03% (2)
is always - 0.03% (2)
intends to - 0.03% (2)
that mr. - 0.03% (2)
born in - 0.03% (2)
bill of rights - 0.57% (41)
the bill of - 0.42% (30)
the constitutional court - 0.22% (16)
bill of rights. - 0.22% (16)
jurisdiction over the - 0.21% (15)
over the bill - 0.18% (13)
the high court - 0.13% (9)
association of zambia - 0.13% (9)
the law association - 0.11% (8)
munshya, llm, mba, - 0.11% (8)
law association of - 0.11% (8)
of the constitution - 0.1% (7)
share this:tweetemailprintlike this:like - 0.1% (7)
theology, zambian politics - 0.1% (7)
this:tweetemailprintlike this:like loading... - 0.1% (7)
zambian political theology, - 0.1% (7)
political theology, zambian - 0.1% (7)
llm, mba, mdiv - 0.1% (7)
zambian law, zambian - 0.08% (6)
is presumed to - 0.08% (6)
should not be - 0.08% (6)
e. munshya, llm, - 0.08% (6)
the alberta bar - 0.08% (6)
by e. munshya, - 0.08% (6)
of the alberta - 0.08% (6)
law, zambian political - 0.08% (6)
posted in zambian - 0.08% (6)
the law is - 0.08% (6)
the law presumes - 0.07% (5)
part of the - 0.07% (5)
comments by e. - 0.07% (5)
the common law - 0.07% (5)
there is a - 0.07% (5)
law presumes that - 0.07% (5)
the challenge of - 0.07% (5)
comments posted in - 0.07% (5)
in zambian law, - 0.07% (5)
electoral commission of - 0.06% (4)
that the pf - 0.06% (4)
the idea that - 0.06% (4)
constitutional court judges - 0.06% (4)
mr. justice musona - 0.06% (4)
commission of zambia - 0.06% (4)
that the law - 0.06% (4)
presumption is that - 0.06% (4)
to stay within - 0.06% (4)
the electoral commission - 0.06% (4)
bill of rights, - 0.06% (4)
leave a comment - 0.06% (4)
amend the constitution - 0.04% (3)
it is the - 0.04% (3)
some form of - 0.04% (3)
the zambian constitution - 0.04% (3)
the law does - 0.04% (3)
idea that the - 0.04% (3)
in the common - 0.04% (3)
be done in - 0.04% (3)
to amend the - 0.04% (3)
constitution should not - 0.04% (3)
judges and the - 0.04% (3)
constitutional court to - 0.04% (3)
needs to look - 0.04% (3)
high court judge - 0.04% (3)
is that of - 0.04% (3)
within its jurisdiction. - 0.04% (3)
mr. hichilema and - 0.04% (3)
posted on september - 0.04% (3)
of rights is - 0.04% (3)
2 comments by - 0.04% (3)
hichilema and mr. - 0.04% (3)
zambia’s constitutional court - 0.04% (3)
at the constitutional - 0.04% (3)
constitutional court must - 0.04% (3)
munshya is a - 0.04% (3)
alberta bar the - 0.04% (3)
the high court. - 0.04% (3)
decision of the - 0.04% (3)
presumed to intend - 0.04% (3)
presumes that the - 0.04% (3)
loading... 2 comments - 0.04% (3)
new bill of - 0.04% (3)
is part of - 0.04% (3)
this:like loading... 2 - 0.04% (3)
the acts of - 0.04% (3)
the question of - 0.04% (3)
| 2 comments - 0.04% (3)
it does not - 0.04% (3)
as a regulator - 0.04% (3)
legal practitioners in - 0.04% (3)
chanda, judges and - 0.04% (3)
reforming the law - 0.04% (3)
is supposed to - 0.04% (3)
justice musona’s ruling - 0.04% (3)
comment on legal - 0.04% (3)
mandate to police - 0.04% (3)
law does not - 0.04% (3)
your email address - 0.04% (3)
challenge of reforming - 0.04% (3)
respect for the - 0.04% (3)
elias munshya is - 0.04% (3)
of the constitution, - 0.03% (2)
the concourt jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
a comment posted - 0.03% (2)
rights. it is - 0.03% (2)
of all the - 0.03% (2)
rights. the bill - 0.03% (2)
giving the concourt - 0.03% (2)
posts by email. - 0.03% (2)
this:like loading... leave - 0.03% (2)
under laz’s skin - 0.03% (2)
it would be - 0.03% (2)
some jurisdiction over - 0.03% (2)
falls in munali: - 0.03% (2)
legal presumptions in - 0.03% (2)
like me on - 0.03% (2)
a theory of - 0.03% (2)
the right to - 0.03% (2)
the 2016 amendments - 0.03% (2)
the law: towards - 0.03% (2)
august 11, 2016 - 0.03% (2)
nkandu luo (2016) - 0.03% (2)
in mwamba v - 0.03% (2)
constitutional court that - 0.03% (2)
rights such as - 0.03% (2)
a referendum is - 0.03% (2)
to be the - 0.03% (2)
my analysis of - 0.03% (2)
it is absurd - 0.03% (2)
to have a - 0.03% (2)
failure of the - 0.03% (2)
of zambia so - 0.03% (2)
and advocate for - 0.03% (2)
from england, an - 0.03% (2)
a legal practitioner - 0.03% (2)
that the concourt - 0.03% (2)
there is no - 0.03% (2)
and an mba - 0.03% (2)
university in chicago - 0.03% (2)
llm from northwestern - 0.03% (2)
a product of - 0.03% (2)
holds an llb - 0.03% (2)
before they comment - 0.03% (2)
canada. in addition - 0.03% (2)
in calgary, alberta, - 0.03% (2)
constitutional court itself - 0.03% (2)
for the law - 0.03% (2)
an exact science. - 0.03% (2)
on the basis - 0.03% (2)
judges to the - 0.03% (2)
clearance from laz - 0.03% (2)
it is clear - 0.03% (2)
of rights should - 0.03% (2)
can regulate public - 0.03% (2)
do not have - 0.03% (2)
as a legal - 0.03% (2)
in fact, i - 0.03% (2)
the president should - 0.03% (2)
go to the - 0.03% (2)
high court jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
of rights. they - 0.03% (2)
zambia can regulate - 0.03% (2)
has no mandate - 0.03% (2)
regulate public attitudes - 0.03% (2)
can no more - 0.03% (2)
of thought and - 0.03% (2)
lead and mislead - 0.03% (2)
right because it - 0.03% (2)
becomes legally right - 0.03% (2)
the liberty to - 0.03% (2)
because it has - 0.03% (2)
elias munshya, llm, - 0.03% (2)
and i hope - 0.03% (2)
the current constitution - 0.03% (2)
free to campaign - 0.03% (2)
ruling in mwamba - 0.03% (2)
v nkandu luo - 0.03% (2)
the alberta bar) - 0.03% (2)
in the munali - 0.03% (2)
members of the - 0.03% (2)
double decker bus - 0.03% (2)
i find it - 0.03% (2)
that the electoral - 0.03% (2)
political party is - 0.03% (2)
in any area - 0.03% (2)
munali: my analysis - 0.03% (2)
without hindrance from - 0.03% (2)
any rival political - 0.03% (2)
i hope that - 0.03% (2)
is right in - 0.03% (2)
commission of zambia, - 0.03% (2)
it difficult to - 0.03% (2)
do with the - 0.03% (2)
the electorate in - 0.03% (2)
justice musona is - 0.03% (2)
right about the - 0.03% (2)
of justice musona’s - 0.03% (2)
luo falls in - 0.03% (2)
for the acts - 0.03% (2)
to suggest that - 0.03% (2)
2016 | leave - 0.03% (2)
president lungu should - 0.03% (2)
in the zambian - 0.03% (2)
the spokesperson for - 0.03% (2)
that is how - 0.03% (2)
we have a - 0.03% (2)
current structure of - 0.03% (2)
president lungu has - 0.03% (2)
the structure of - 0.03% (2)
constitutional court and - 0.03% (2)
and all the - 0.03% (2)
as we are - 0.03% (2)
at law and - 0.03% (2)
does not look - 0.03% (2)
is quite another - 0.03% (2)
when a high - 0.03% (2)
the ruling party - 0.03% (2)
that mr. chanda - 0.03% (2)
laz is right - 0.03% (2)
but for now, - 0.03% (2)
we are concerned - 0.03% (2)
with mr. chanda - 0.03% (2)
standard of proof - 0.03% (2)
no matter how - 0.03% (2)
from the concourt - 0.03% (2)
there is also - 0.03% (2)
has no jurisdiction - 0.03% (2)
acts of the - 0.03% (2)
is how it - 0.03% (2)
person is presumed - 0.03% (2)
to intend the - 0.03% (2)
presumed to be - 0.03% (2)
also the presumption - 0.03% (2)
been born in - 0.03% (2)
as well have - 0.03% (2)
the presumption of - 0.03% (2)
that they are - 0.03% (2)
at west end - 0.03% (2)
alberta, canada. in - 0.03% (2)
an llb from - 0.03% (2)
england, an llm - 0.03% (2)
from northwestern university - 0.03% (2)
must assume concurrent - 0.03% (2)
bill of rights: - 0.03% (2)
here is why - 0.03% (2)
to enforce the - 0.03% (2)
high court and - 0.03% (2)
the zambian system - 0.03% (2)
a competent and - 0.03% (2)
is free to - 0.03% (2)
majority in parliament - 0.03% (2)
campaign in any - 0.03% (2)
area without hindrance - 0.03% (2)
from any rival - 0.03% (2)
and administrative law - 0.03% (2)
canada. share this:tweetemailprintlike - 0.03% (2)
amending the zambian - 0.03% (2)
the 1991 constitution - 0.03% (2)
to change the - 0.03% (2)
people of zambia - 0.03% (2)
to speak to - 0.03% (2)
some level of - 0.03% (2)
to arrive at - 0.03% (2)
must not be - 0.03% (2)
that they can - 0.03% (2)
law: towards a - 0.03% (2)
theory of legal - 0.03% (2)
presumptions in the - 0.03% (2)
not an exact - 0.03% (2)
common law legal - 0.03% (2)
the law to - 0.03% (2)
legal presumptions are - 0.03% (2)
law legal tradition - 0.03% (2)
blog at wordpress.com. - 0.03% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.