Judge Chisanga has sustained her ruling to stay proceedings of the tribunal which was set up by President Sata to investigate the alleged misconduct by the three suspended judges.
And the group said the Malawian Judge Lovemore Chikopa should go home until there was need for him to return to Zambia.
And AGG has demanded for the immediate resignation of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) following the judgement that found him culpable of having breached the Companies Act in the Development Bank of Zambia (DBZ) and Zambian Airways-ZA transaction as cited by the judge.
The Alliance which comprises of FODEP, ZCTU, PAZA, ZAFOD, OYV, 2410 and EFZ said in a statement that government could save a lot of tax payers’ money that it was spending on Judge Chikopa until such a time when his services were needed in Zambia.
Judge Chikopa was sworn in by President Sata last week Wednesday as chairperson for the tribunal to investigate the alleged corruption of the three suspended judges.
The group which is also against the catcalls for the removal of the Chief Justice said despite being in total support of the judicial reforms, such an approach would merely jeopardize the good intentions of government.
“We strongly feel that targeting individuals because they are not in good standing with certain powers will not be the
appropriate manner of pursuing and carrying out these reforms. Effective and sustainable judicial reforms will be realized if the whole process is carried out systematically and holistically rather than a piecemeal approach,” they said.
The group observed that there was need for President Michael Sata to reflect and stay the commencement of the tribunal until such a time when the Judicial Complaints Authority has heard the case and referred such recommendations to the relevant authority.
The alliance further noted that the hurried manner in which the President constituted the tribunal after a complaint reflects a sign of interference in the work of the judiciary.
“This is an affront to good governance and the rule of law since the case in point is still in court. We also feel that this is jeopardizing the independence and autonomy of the judiciary.”