McDonald Chipenzi
Listening to Minister of Justice, Given Lubinda, and those MPs including my former lecturer Prof Geoffrey Lungwangwa who debated Bill 10 yesterday in parliament, there was misconception and misinformation spread that contentious issues in Bill 10 have been removed and now okay.
But what where the Contention if not the desire by the executive to change the current constitution and infuse in new or oblete privisions in the current constitution..
Why the commendations to govt for being prevented from mutilating the Constitution and call it as a listening one and therefore the Bill is good to go but where?
We all know that those articles being refeered to like the retiree clause, the qualifications of elective office clause, Bank of Zambia clause, the FIC clause, debt contraction clause, chieftaincy clause among others that were poised to be mutilated through Bill 10 are already in our CURRENT Constitution.
Govt just wanted to temper with them to appease themselves by removing them from the current Constitution or dilute their impact on governance.
So why go ahead with a Bill whose content is already provided for in the current constitution and u have changed your mind to change the current content in the Constitution?
Which new things is Bill 10 introducing not in the current Constitution for the executive to insist its way into parliament since, on one hand it is agreeing that the current provisions in the Constitution must be as they are, but on another hand pushing unknown amendments?
All the minister has done and the Committee recommendations have proposed is that the current constitution should remain as it is in the face of hostility to the proposed amendments.
And since the scavenged clauses like deputy ministers, bloated cabinet among have been rejected by both the pro and anti bill campaigners.
Therefore, Bill 10 must not be entertained. It is OTIOSE now with the clear signal from both Cabinet and Select Committee to leave the current Constitution provisions as they are.
I submit