Abstract
The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act 2 of 2016, provides for, inter alia, the establishment of a Constitutional Court with original and final jurisdiction in constitutional litigation. Simply put, this means that the Court is a court of first instance and of last resort in Constitutional matters. There can be no appeal from its decisions. However, within months of the Court’s creation, it was embroiled in controversy in respect of the presidential election petition of 2016, resulting in the court being severely criticised as being incompetent and corrupt and in perpetrating a monstrous miscarriage of justice. This article interrogates two of the Court’s most controversial decisions and draws on the rich experience in respect of constitutional interpretation in comparable jurisdictions. The main thrust of this article is that courts should be impartial and should uphold the solemn oath of dispensing justice to all in a manner that protects and promotes the values and principles embedded in the Constitution. Given the huge disappointment with the Court’s performance to date, a lot remains to be done in restoring the confidence of the citizenry in the courts as bulwarks or sentinels of individual liberties.