Civil society groups seek parliamentary scrutiny of Zambia-US agreements

Chapter One Foundation and LCK Foundation have argued before the Constitutional Court that bilateral agreements between Zambia and the United States on health assistance and broader economic cooperation should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability. The two organisations contend that the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Bilateral Compact qualify as international agreements under Article 63(2) of the Constitution and must receive prior approval from the National Assembly before implementation. They further argued that implementing such agreements without parliamentary oversight would be unconstitutional.

During the hearing before a seven-member bench presided over by Justice Margaret Munalula, LCK Foundation Executive Director Linda Kasonda said Article 63(2) should be interpreted broadly to include bilateral arrangements, noting that the Constitution did not provide a narrow definition of an “international agreement.” Kasonda argued that public participation was central to constitutional governance and that shielding negotiations from scrutiny undermined transparency and accountability. She maintained that Section 2 of the Ratification of International Agreements Act unlawfully limited constitutional oversight and should be declared unconstitutional. Kasonda further submitted that without access to the content of such agreements or parliamentary involvement, citizens were denied meaningful participation in decisions that bind the Republic.

He said oversight by the National Assembly strengthened accountability, separation of powers and public access to information. However, Solicitor General, Marshal Muchende, urged the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the MoU and Bilateral Compact had not yet been signed and remained at the negotiation stage. Muchende submitted that correspondence from the Ministry of Health, including a letter from Permanent Secretary Dr Kennedy Lishimpi, shows that disclosure of the documents could undermine ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Zambia and the United States.

[paywall]

He argued that the matter was not ripe for determination because no concluded agreement existed that can be subjected to legal challenge or parliamentary approval. Muchende further submitted that Article 63(2) must be read together with the Ratification of International Agreements Act and relevant principles of international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. According to Muchende, the constitutional provision applies only to binding international agreements that require ratification.

[/paywall]