The Constitutional Court has ruled that Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti acted within the law when she declined to declare the Matero parliamentary seat vacant, holding that only the High Court can determine whether an MP’s expulsion from a political party is valid. In its majority judgment, the Court stressed that the Constitution and the Electoral Process Act clearly distinguish political assertions from justiciable questions, and that matters relating to the vacancy of a parliamentary seat fall exclusively under the High Court’s jurisdiction, as provided in Section 96 of the Electoral Process Act. The Court noted that the second respondent, Matero MP Miles Sampa, had already filed a counterclaim in the High Court challenging his alleged expulsion from the Patriotic Front (PF).
Whether that challenge was filed within the stipulated timeframe or met legal requirements, the judges held, was an issue squarely before the High Court. “This Court cannot pre-empt that process,” the majority stated, adding that until the High Court pronounces itself, the legal status of the alleged expulsion remains unresolved. The Court further clarified that, under the Constitution, a parliamentary seat becomes vacant only upon the expiry of the review period or upon a final court determination, with “court” referring specifically to a competent court of law—in this case, the High Court.
In the absence of a final and binding ruling confirming Sampa’s expulsion, the judges held that no vacancy could ariseunder Articles 52(e) and 72. Any attempt to compel the Speaker to declare the seat vacant without such a determination would therefore be premature and constitutionally improper. It was on this basis that the Court rejected arguments that Speaker Mutti breached Article 72.
Read Full Article on Zambia Monitor
[paywall]
Instead, the majority found she had acted correctly by awaiting a judicial outcome. “In the absence of a final determination by the High Court confirming the expulsion, no vacancy has arisen,” the Court held. The petition was consequently dismissed in its entirety, reaffirming that parliamentary seats cannot be declared vacant based on disputed facts, but only on settled judicial findings.
N’gona had asked the court to compel the Speaker of the National Assembly to declare the Matero seat vacant, claiming that Mr. Sampa’s continued presence in Parliament was unconstitutional. The petition argued that the situation represented a clear breach of constitutional provisions.
With the dismissal, the legal challenge against Mr. Sampa comes to an end, allowing him to continue representing Matero in the National Assembly.
[/paywall]
