‘SHOWDOWN’ AT PARLEY, AS BILL 7 COMMITTEE THREATENS TO REJECT LAZ’s SUBMISSIONS
A HEATED moment arose yesterday when the Law Association of Zambia appeared before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Bill 7, chaired by Imanga Wamunyima.
The dispute was caused by LAZ President Lungisani Zulu’s refusal to read certain sections of the association’s submissions, as he insisted that the entire process surrounding the Bill was illegal, adding that government and the National Assembly must comply with the Constitutional Court ruling nullifying the process.
The Select Committee, however, pushed back, telling the association that if it insisted on not reading the written submissions addressing the substantive issues in the Bill, the Committee would decide whether or not to accept the submissions.
This was despite Zulu’s explanation that the attachment in the association’s letter, which the Committee viewed as addressing substantive issues in Bill 7, was drafted before to the Constitutional Court ruling and should therefore not be mistaken for submissions to the current Bill.
The issue quickly escalated into a dramatic stand-off, with the Committee Chairman threatening to dismiss LAZ’s entire submissions and attempting to end the interaction. The proceedings were only saved when committee member Gary Nkombo intervened, requesting a short adjournment at the expense of the issue looking like a “showdown”.
Appearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Bill 7, Thursday, Zulu opened his presentation by stating that the association was saddened to appear before the Committee, as the current process represents a serious threat to the national principles and values espoused in Article 8 of the Constitution.
“Chair, whenever we come before you at the invitation of the National Assembly, we are always excited because coming before you represents an opportunity to contribute to the reform of law. But unfortunately, today we come before you not excited but very saddened. We are saddened because the current process, Chair, is a representation of a serious threat to the national principles and values that the Constitution espouses in Article 8 of our Constitution. Under those salient provisions, Chair, democracy and constitutionalism are the pillars that make Zambia a democracy. We are saddened because we sit here when the supreme law of the land has been interpreted and the proceedings that we are doing today have been impugned by the Constitutional Court in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila,” he said.
“We feel saddened because, according to the Constitution, any act, any omission that is contrary to the Constitution is itself illegal. As lawyers, Chair, you may wish to know that we begin our journey as lawyers by taking an oath to defend, to preserve and protect the Constitution. I want to stress that we feel duty-bound to represent the people of this country in defending the Constitution of the land. Why do I say so? Chair, in the aforementioned case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila, the court, which is given final jurisdiction on matters of interpretation of the law, especially the supreme law of the land, did make a specific finding that the initiation of Bill 7, which at that time was contained in a Ministerial position, flouted a number of provisions”.
Wamunyima then guided that LAZ’s engagement with the Select Committee should be focused on the objects of the Bill being scrutinised.
“Order witness, just for guidance, we as the Select Committee are aware of your position as LAZ on the process. However, you take note that the letter with management wishes you to interact with us within the scope of our mandate, which is to scrutinise the submission of the public within the objects of the Bill. While we sympathise with your position as LAZ and many other different positions, the National Assembly and this committee in particular enjoy separation of powers. So we are aware of the process in the Judiciary engagements with the Executive. However, your engagement as LAZ with us as the Select Committee and with the Legislature should be focused or narrowed down to the objects of the Bill that we are scrutinising,” he guided.
Zulu, in response, indicated that LAZ was duty-bound to highlight its concerns to the Committee.
“Chair, thank you for your guidance. What I’m speaking to is what is indicated in our written submission to the National Assembly letter dated December 8, 2025. As a body of lawyers with the mandate under section 4 of the Law Association of Zambia Act, we are duty-bound, Chair, to highlight to your committee some of the concerns. I take note of your guidance, and indeed the concerns we have, which are documented in the letter of the said December 8, 2025, is a plea to you and the committee that in light of the Constitutional challenges posed by the judgement of the courts of law, you are duty-bound as custodians of the constitution to also do your part to highlight even to the Executive and everyone that is ventilating on this process the need to observe and comply with all pronouncements of the courts of law. The consequences of not doing so for the country are dire,” he responded.
“We as an association have been approached many times by different stakeholders who worry about what it means if indeed the Executive could decide to proceed in any way it wants because it doesn’t like a judgement. What happens to mining investments and bilateral agreements if the basis of not complying is because you don’t like the judgement? Our plea, Chair, is that in light of the Constitutional Court declaration that the underpinning process was a nullity, in light of the state’s unwillingness, the Executive’s unwillingness to proceed with this process, we implore you through this committee to please impress upon everyone to follow the guidance of the courts of law… Ours, Chair, is a plea, please through you and your committee, help to defend the Constitution”.
Asked by the Chair to proceed to make substantive submissions to Bill 7, Zulu insisted the association’s submission was just a caution.
“Our submission is to just caution in light of these serious fundamental failures to comply. It will be remiss of us to begin to deliberate on a Bill which, as we sit currently now, has been found to have been initiated in breach of the Constitution. We are hard-pressed to justify why we must contribute to ignoring express provisions of the Constitutional Court, notwithstanding whether we like them or we don’t. And we are trying to enjoin you as the Select Committee to help voice this concern, I thank you,” Zulu insisted.
However, Wamunyima pointed out that Zulu only read out pages one to five of the LAZ written submission and asked what should be done about the information attached from pages 6 to 9, where the association made submissions that the Committee regarded as substantive to Bill 7.
Zulu responded, saying, “that’s an attachment, Chair. What we have submitted is what is from page one to five of our written submission. For historical context, we did attach [pages six to nine]”.
Asked to clarify whether the information in the attachment titled “The Law Association of Zambia Detailed Response to the Outline of the Prominent Key Issues Requiring Constitutional Amendment and Proposed Road Map” is LAZ’s submission or not, Zulu said, “the submission was to the process as it was commenced, so what we are saying is when the process commenced, we did highlight to government and ultimately and eventually the courts found that what was done [was illegal]”.
Further asked if LAZ was then withdrawing the attachment, Zulu responded in the negative, adding that “we submitted it as an attachment for the committee to appreciate where we are coming from”.
Committee Member Gary Nkombo then requested Zulu to read the information contained in the said attachment.
“We risk having an impasse if we continue like this. While we understand what you have just submitted about the process, we would plead to you that we will take full notice of what you have highlighted to the committee and to the nation because the nation is listening now. Now the mandate of this committee, notwithstanding the breaches that you have highlighted here, sits in receiving the detailed response to each particular clause. And so our request is first to give you comfort that what we will generate as a report will include your concerns,” he said.
“Nothing will be left out, but the primary menu for this committee is your response to each of these clauses, notwithstanding the fact that you seem to disapprove, based on the court judgement, of the process. We would humbly request that you walk us through this attachment, and then we will add it to these many submissions that other witnesses for and against this process have made. That will be my earnest request to you”.
In response, Zulu explained that the detailed response merely demonstrated LAZ’s commitment to the constitutional making process.
He insisted that government and the National Assembly should comply fully with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
“Chair, maybe I need to clarify where we are sitting. The submissions I have made under page five and our written submission is very clear. It is that LAZ respectfully urges government and the National Assembly to comply fully with the judgement. The point I’m making, Chair, is, our plea to you and to government is to comply with the judgement. We have always been willing to engage with the National Assembly on any Bill that comes before you, and it is for that reason that we even have a detailed response to the process as it then was before it was challenged in courts of law. Our written detailed response is a commitment that we have always been willing to contribute and we were ready, and that is why we are showing you, Chair, that this is the detailed response,” he explained.
Further pressed by the Chair to read the attachment or withdraw it, Zulu insisted on not withdrawing the attachment.
“I want to be very categorical, we are not withdrawing any of the attachments; there are two attachments to our written submission. The first attachment is dated March 28, 2025. This is not responding to Bill No. 7 that is currently before Parliament. This is responding to concerns, as then they were, of the Minister of Justice to demonstrate our commitment to contribute to the process. Immediately the courts nullified the Bill, we were stopped from contributing to speaking to the specifics of the Bill, but what we have attached is our written position about concerns we had at the time when the Bill had not even been drafted or brought before the House,” Zulu insisted.
The response prompted the Chairperson to attempt to dismiss the submission and end the interaction before Nkombo requested to speak.
“Witnesses, with that said, this committee does not accept your submission. We do not accept your submission because you have submitted what you are not ready to submit. You are coming to this committee on the pretext of submitting, and you arrive and do not submit. Therefore, we would like to thank you for appearing before this committee. Yes, Honourable Nkombo, we need to end this interaction and attend to witnesses who have come to submit, not to plead,” Wamunyima said.
Nkombo then requested for a two-minute adjournment rather than a close of proceedings, which the Chairman granted.
“At the expense of this looking like a showdown, I would earnestly request and ask for members’ support that we adjourn for two minutes before we get to a final settlement. Because clearly we have a challenge. I’m requesting you, Chair, that you accommodate my thought that we adjourn for just two minutes and for the benefit of the Republic, and also urge ourselves to subdue our emotions on this matter,” requested Nkombo.
After the adjournment, Chairperson Wamunyima then told Zulu that his submissions were taken note of and the Committee was happy to take them as written submissions.
“We have taken note of your submission, and we’ve also taken note that the background submission that you made constitutes matters which you yourselves have taken to court, therefore outside the mandate for this committee to really proceed and discuss because that will be sub judice to our proceedings. However, we have also taken note that you made substantive submissions to the Bill which is the purpose of this meeting, so that being said, we as the committee would like to state that we thank you for coming here. Unless you insist that this submission that you made where you are addressing the substantive issues of the Bill, this particular submission, you still insist that you will not submit it, then we are happy to close the meeting and accept your submission in its written form,” Wamunyima said.
Zulu then gave more context to his submissions, adding that the letter from the National Assembly did allow LAZ to outline the ramifications of Bill 7.
“Chair, I thank you so much again for context. The letter written to us from the Clerk of the National Assembly is dated December 3, 2025, and it required us to submit a detailed memorandum clearly outlining the ramifications of the proposed piece of legislation. In highlighting the ramifications of the proposed legislation, which is Bill No 7 of 2025, dated May 23, 2025, we are highlighting that the ramifications of that piece of legislation include a breach of the very Constitution it is hoping to amend. So we are highlighting the ramifications,” said Zulu.
Interrupting Zulu, Wamunyima told him that even though he did not read the submissions commenting on the objects of the Bill, it would be up to the Committee to accept the written submissions or not.
“Order witnesses, there has been no judgement which has set out the constitutional breach of Bill No 7. Bill No. 7 is a proposed law, it has not been interpreted by the courts. So, while we recognise your concerns which you have taken to court yourself, this particular assembly is not the forum where we can get recourse on process. Therefore, that being said, we thank you for appearing before this committee, and we would like to take this opportunity to lift that immunity that we gave you. And this written submission that you commented on the objects of the Bill, having not been read, it will be up to the committee to accept it or not,” said Wamunyima.
News Diggers