MUNIR PETITIONS CONCOURT OVER CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS
LUMEZI Member of Parliament, Munir Zulu, has petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking to halt the process of amending the Constitution until consultations are made with every Zambian.
Zulu, together with Celetine Mukandila, a Legal Practitioner and National Youth Chairperson of the Tonse Alliance, filed that President Hakainde Hichilema cannot proceed with his remarks on the constitutional amendments without consulting everyone.
Suing in his capacity as MP, Zulu has named the Attorney General as the respondent in the petition.
Zulu argued that on March 8, 2025, during a ceremony commemorating International Women’s Day, President Hichilema issued remarks claiming there was a consensus among all stakeholders representing the general interests of Zambians to amend the Constitution.
Zulu added that Minister of Justice, Princess Kansune, also followed suit, reiterating the President’s remarks and revealing that a draft of the proposed amendments had been prepared and would soon be tabled in the National Assembly for deliberation and passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill into law.
“On March 26, 2025, the said Princess Kasune did in fact issue a ministerial statement to the National Assembly on the proposed constitutional amendments, mainly repeating what the President and other government officials have been drumming up to the effect that the Constitution should and must be amended,” read the file.
The petitioner submitted that the ministerial statement included a proposed consultative roadmap, which contradicted the legitimate expectations of many Zambians, whom the Petitioners represent.
“Since independence in 1964, Zambians have been accorded an opportunity to participate in wide and not hurried consultative processes aimed at garnering consensus, as opposed to the current roadmap,” they submitted.
The petitioner alleges that the constitutional review process undertaken by the respondent directly contravenes Articles 1(2), 8, 9, 61, 90, 91, 92, and 79 of the Constitution, which uphold the requirement for a consultative and inclusive constitutional review process.
Zulu and Mukandila, therefore, seek the interpretation of whether Article 128, as read together with Article 2 of the Constitution, limits the powers of the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of a Bill or action taken to amend the Constitution until after the said Bill or action materializes into an actual constitutional amendment.
They also seek an interpretation of whether Article 128, as read with Article 2 of the Constitution, allows the Constitutional Court to wait until the Constitution is altered before it assumes jurisdiction to prevent that change.
Credit: By Lucy Phiri
Kalemba