Zambia finds itself at a turning point. The Constitutional Court’s ruling that struck down the process behind Bill 7 did more than invalidate a single legislative proposal. It exposed a widening gap between constitutional obligation and political will.
At the centre of the issue sits a simple question that now confronts Parliament: how does a democratic institution proceed when the law has stripped its subject matter of any legal existence. The court did not leave room for interpretation. It held that the procedure used to originate Bill 7 failed the basic constitutional threshold.
A bill that begins through an unlawful process cannot grow into a legitimate amendment proposal. It cannot be debated, altered or voted on. It is an empty frame.
Read Full Article on Lusaka Times
[paywall]
Professor Cephas Lumina drew on Lord Denning’s principle to capture this reality, noting that nothing can stand if placed on an unlawful base. In constitutional terms, Bill 7 is not merely defective. It is absent.
Yet the Select Committee on Constitutional Review remains engaged, operating under Standing Order 113, which presupposes a lawfully referred bill. That assumption no longer survives the court’s ruling. Any report or recommendation produced under these circumstances carries the weight of a document written about something that is not before the House.
Parliament risks placing itself in conflict with Articles 1 and 128, which bind all arms of state to decisions of the Constitutional Court. The situation has been complicated further by the Technical Committee’s reappearance after its mandate ended on December 1. Parliamentary proceedings are currently shadowed by litigation in the Law Association of Zambia case.
In such a context, a re-engagement by the Technical Committee is more than a procedural irregularity. It raises questions about respect for the judicial process and the limits of delegated authority. Presenting views on a bill already declared void introduces further uncertainty into an already unstable framework.
Political actors have sharpened their criticisms. Sakwiba Sikota’s description of Bill 7 as something long expired may appear harsh, yet it reflects a growing view among national stakeholders that the process has lost legitimacy. Traditional leaders asked for restraint.
The Church and civil society sought more time. Linguistic limitations prevented many citizens from engaging with the content. These concerns were not peripheral.
They went to the heart of constitutional participation and public ownership. The Constitution demands more than technical compliance. It demands fidelity to procedure, respect for the rule of law and attention to the voices of those governed.
A legislative process cannot be rescued once its foundation has been removed by judicial declaration. Attempts to accelerate scrutiny or adjust Standing Orders do not cure the absence of legality. They only deepen the uncertainty.
Parliament now carries the responsibility of restoring confidence in the constitutional order. That responsibility begins with accepting the court’s ruling in full. The Select Committee cannot produce authority where none exists.
The Technical Committee cannot revive a mandate that has ended. The amendment process cannot continue on ground the court has ruled invalid. There remains a viable path forward.
It requires stepping back and rebuilding the process from the beginning. It requires translated materials, wide participation and a lawful foundation. It requires an approach that treats constitutional amendment not as a political race but as a national duty that demands clarity, patience and respect for institutional boundaries.
The crisis surrounding Bill 7 is not a story of political defeat. It is a test of Zambia’s commitment to constitutional culture. The country now waits to see whether its leaders will choose the path that upholds the law and protects the integrity of the democratic process.
[/paywall]
