LAZ Must Stop Acting Like a Political Lapdog & Reclaim Its Objectivity
By Magret Mwanza
The recent move by the Law Association of Zambia to rush to the Constitutional Court to challenge the Speaker of the National Assembly over a figurative speech regarding Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 is not only premature, it is dangerously political, legally questionable, and ethically reckless.
Let us be clear, the Speaker merely stated that if the sponsor of the Bill, the Minister of Justice decides to resume the legislative process, then Parliament would proceed with the subsequent stages of the Bill. That statement is conditional, hypothetical, and procedural in nature.
Yet LAZ, without first seeking clarification from Parliament or the Speaker herself, opted to interpret the statement as an active defiance of the Constitutional Court’s earlier ruling and immediately sprinted to court. This was a grave error in judgment and a disturbing misrepresentation of LAZ’s mandate.
As an institution that claims to exist to advance the rule of law and constitutionalism, LAZ had the duty and, indeed the obligation to first exhaust all avenues of administrative engagement.
A simple written query or request for formal clarification from the Office of the Speaker would have sufficed.
This would have shown maturity, diligence, and fidelity to procedure. Instead, LAZ chose the nuclear option, litigation. One wonders, was this about legal principle or political performance?
The Constitution of Zambia is clear on how amendments must be handled. Article 79 mandates consultation and publication before the first reading, and the Constitutional Court rightly ruled that the process that led to the tabling of Bill No. 7 was flawed for lack of adequate public consultation.
The President himself deferred the Bill for further dialogue, effectively pressing the pause button on the process. This is where things currently stand. So, what exactly is LAZ suing over? A theoretical threat?
It is troubling that LAZ is increasingly being seen not as a neutral guardian of constitutional order but as a willing political tool, especially for opposition parties desperate to score points against the current government.
This is not the LAZ of old that inspired public confidence and institutional respect. Today’s LAZ appears to be descending into the abyss of partisan lawfare, choosing spectacle over substance and activism over analysis.
The role of LAZ must be distinguished from that of opposition parties. LAZ must not behave like the legal wing of political organizations that have failed to win public trust at the ballot box. By prematurely litigating over parliamentary procedures, especially hypothetical ones, LAZ undermines the integrity of both Parliament and the Judiciary.
It projects a posture of legal militancy rather than sober stewardship of the Constitution.
The rule of law is not served by courtroom theatrics or symbolic lawsuits. It is served by rigorous engagement, accurate interpretation of legal texts, and respect for institutional processes.
LAZ’s decision to drag the Speaker to court without seeking clarification was not just ill-advised, it was intellectually lazy and constitutionally unmerited. It reflects an eagerness to score political points rather than a desire to uphold the supremacy of the law.
Furthermore, LAZ’s approach sets a dangerous precedent. If every statement by a Speaker, Minister, or President is taken out of context and hauled before the courts without first seeking clarification, then Zambia’s democracy will collapse into paralysis. This is not how mature legal institutions behave. This is not how democratic societies thrive.
Yes, LAZ has a right to litigate. Yes, it must defend constitutionalism. But it must also exercise wisdom, restraint, and independence. It must rise above the fray of politics and act with honour. Otherwise, it risks becoming a lapdog of opposition propaganda, barking not when the law is breached but when it is politically convenient to do so.
I won’t read your article Ms Magret Mwanza , till you reveal your real names.
Articles meant for public dissemination should have a brief introduction of the Author at the end..
Who are you?
Hiding your self by using names from other regions is deceit…It’s equivalent to fraud.
Reveal your self ba so called Magret Mwanza!
Just because you are a tribalist, it does not mean everyone from your region is like you. In your primitive tribal mind anyone outside southern province can not support someone from southern province, how primitive is that? Well, news flash, there are people like me and other bprogressive Zambians who can support anyone regardless of the region they come from as long as they make sense, unlike tribalists like you.
No pause button on bill 7. Dead and buried is what is needed. Litigation is the way. The speaker’s ruling is confusing, no need for clarification.
LAZ did a good thing. The author seem to suggest that the Speaker did not mean what she said. Position of speaker is big and does not need jokes on serious matters such as court ruling. The author has failed to interpret what the speaker meant and has also failed to state the role of LAZ. It will be dangerous for LAZ to stay mum when the constitution is being raped.