Court News, 5th December, 2025
Constitutional Lawyer and Patriotic Front Presidential Candidate Makebi Zulu has launched a fresh and fiery legal assault against the Government, accusing the Minister of Justice and the Executive of resurrecting a Bill that the Constitutional Court already pronounced “legally dead”.
In a petition filed before the Constitutional Court today 5th December 2025, Hon. Zulu argues that the Government’s attempt to reinstate and push forward the controversial Bill No. 7 of 2025 is nothing short of a direct constitutional breach, a violation of the rule of law, and open defiance of the Court’s own landmark judgment delivered in the Munir Zulu & Celestine Mukandila v Attorney General case.
According to the petition, the nationwide consultations conducted by the Technical Committee on Constitutional Amendments were rushed, inadequate, and designed merely to create an illusion of public participation.
The Committee completed its consultations and drafting work in just 34 days, a timeframe the petitioner describes as “patently unreasonable” and incapable of meeting the constitutional threshold of wide and effective public consultation.
Hon. Zulu says the Government acted in bad faith by attempting to retrospectively “fix” the fatal defects of Bill No. 7 through this hurried process despite the court’s clear instruction that any new attempt at constitutional amendment must begin de novo: from scratch.
The petition further alleges that the Minister of Justice went back to Parliament on 2nd December 2025 seeking reinstatement of Bill No. 7, prompting the Deputy Speaker to direct the relevant committee to begin scrutinising the Bill—even before any new Bill was properly gazetted.
Crucially, Hon. Zulu states that no gazette notice exists for any new draft Bill, meaning that the Government is attempting to revive a legislative instrument that the court already nullified.
“By reinstating a dead Bill,” the petition reads, “the Respondent is circumventing Article 79 of the Constitution and corrupting the lawful process of constitutional amendment.”
Among the key remedies sought, Hon. Zulu wants the Constitutional Court to:
• Declare Bill No. 7 of 2025 null and void, with no legal force whatsoever.
• Declare the Technical Committee’s consultations insufficient and unconstitutional.
• Issue an Order of Stay restraining Parliament, the Speaker, and any public officer from debating, reintroducing or considering Bill No. 7.
• Compel Government to restart the entire process genuine consultation, drafting, gazetting, and a new Bill if constitutional amendments are still desired.
This case sets the stage for a potentially explosive constitutional confrontation. At the heart of the petition is a central question:
Can the Executive and Parliament revive a Bill already declared unconstitutional by the Court?
Hon. Zulu further argues the answer is a decisive no, insisting that the Government is attempting to “render the Court’s binding judgment nugatory.”
With constitutional reform debates intensifying nationwide, this petition may halt the process entirely and once again put the spotlight on the UPND administration’s commitment to the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court is expected to determine whether the Government acted outside its powers and whether it must abandon Bill No. 7 permanently.
So what if the govt has worked on the illegality that the con court observed. Can’t the same bill be reintroduced after following the criteria
The aplication is misconceived and a misdirection. The Parliament had deferred the Bill 7 and after wide consultation through the Technical Committee, resumed with the same deferred Bill 7 which is now at Committee stage. The ConCourt will dismiss apllication.
Kindly explain something regarding the constitutional court ruling. Where in the ruling was it mentioned that the Bill was null and void.
What I remember is that bill 7 was halted until the issues of wide consultation was adhered to. This matter was settled and hence now makes this Bill 7 valid. The only logical thing to do after the correcting of the process is to take it back to parliament. Is there anything difficult about this. Why do you keep reading things that are not mentioned in the judgement I don’t understand this mindset.
looking for a stage to create personal visibility to the public. first it was by representing everyone pf thug facing criminal charges.
then representing the lungu family as their spokesperson. later as the choice of the late lungu to leadership the pf.
and now, jumping on the bill 7 draft bill challenge by dragging process to court.
ummh, very calculated moves for publicity and public sympathy
He is bringing and moving on the same failed route he took on the case of ECL in the South African court where every step taken has been thrown out and because being clever fuuulu, Edgar is now 6 months in the morgue. He has even run away living Lungu and esther alone but kwena and now trying to delay the Constitution amendment bill 7. But now even the courts knows these piefuz.
Bill 7 will go through. Period.