CAN MPs BE SUED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT OVER  DEBATING A BILL THAT THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

CAN MPs BE SUED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT OVER  DEBATING A BILL THAT THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

By Mumbi Kalimba Kaseshya

OPINION; Honestly, in my view, the issue of whether MPs can be sued for contempt of court over debating a bill that the courts have already ruled unconstitutional is a lot more complicated than people assume. From where I stand, it’s very hard, though not totally impossible, to drag MPs into contempt proceedings. The reason is simple: our Constitution and the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act give MPs a kind of protective shield when they’re inside Parliament. What they say, how they vote, and how they participate in debates is generally off-limits to the courts.

But that immunity doesn’t stretch forever.

For me, the real question is where parliamentary privilege stops and constitutional supremacy kicks in. I strongly believe, and our courts have said this too, that Parliament cannot place itself above the Constitution. When the Constitutional Court declares a bill or legislative action unconstitutional, pushing ahead with that same process feels like openly challenging the authority of the court. And that’s exactly where contempt can come into play.

Now, in my personal view, the people most exposed here are not ordinary MPs. It’s the Speaker and the Executive, especially the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice. The Speaker, in particular, carries the responsibility of ensuring parliamentary business aligns with the Constitution and respects court orders. If Parliament continues to handle a matter that the ConCourt has already struck down, the Speaker is the closest to the line of fire.

As for taking the entire Parliament to court, that’s possible procedurally, but it doesn’t mean every MP will be punished. Courts can call Parliament to account as an institution, or summon its leaders, but historically it’s extremely rare for every MP to be personally liable.

For me, the key distinction people miss is this: contempt isn’t about the mere act of passing a law, it’s about disobeying a clear, explicit court order. If the ConCourt expressly ordered Parliament not to proceed and they went ahead anyway, then yes, contempt becomes very real. But if the Court simply declared the bill unconstitutional without issuing a specific stop order, proving contempt becomes much more difficult.

In the end, I feel this case by Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila is pushing the boundaries of how far contempt can reach in relation to Parliament. It will force the courts to balance three powerful forces: the supremacy of the Constitution, the privileges of Parliament, and the delicate separation of powers.