THE SPEAKER, CHIEFS AND THE CONSTITUTION: WHO SHOULD SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE?- Dr Mwewa

THE SPEAKER, CHIEFS AND THE CONSTITUTION: WHO SHOULD SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE?

By Dr Mwewa

In Muchinga Province, the Speaker of the National Assembly assured chiefs that “Parliament is ready to resume the constitutional review process and is only waiting for the Executive to indicate.” At first hearing, this might sound like responsiveness. Yet beneath the surface lies a troubling breach of constitutional principle, one that risks eroding the very independence of the office she holds.

The Speaker is not a political actor; she is the custodian of impartiality. Her role is to preside, to regulate debate under the Standing Orders, to ensure fairness. Nowhere in Article 79 of the Constitution of Zambia is she empowered to commit Parliament to constitutional amendment.

Constitutional review is a sovereign act of the people, exercised through their elected representatives—not a joint venture between the Executive and the Chair of the House. By suggesting that the National Assembly is waiting on the Executive, she subordinates Parliament to State House. This undermines the doctrine of separation of powers and strips Parliament of its exclusive cognizance over its own processes.

Zambia has a rich tradition of constitutional reform. From the Mvunga Commission to the Mung’omba Commission, constitutional reviews were never carried in the Speaker’s handbag, but by broad-based committees established through Acts of Parliament. These commissions gathered views from citizens in villages, townships, and markets. They did not rest on the endorsements of a few. To now replace such deeply consultative structures with pronouncements from the Speaker, or with endorsements from chiefs, is not reform—it is regression.

Let us be clear: chiefs are respected custodians of our culture, but they cannot substitute for the people on constitutional matters. Many operate under economic vulnerability and political patronage, and to present their declarations as the voice of the people is to mistake silence for consent. As I have written before: “Inkoko tetiyende panshi nga takwaba utwana”—the chicken cannot walk proudly if the chicks are missing. A chief cannot speak loudly if the people’s voice is absent.

The Constitutional Court has already spoken: Bill No. 7 was unconstitutional. That verdict stands as a warning. Why then does the Speaker insist outside her mandate, risking a replay of illegality? To ignore the Court’s wisdom is to invite a constitutional crisis. To proceed without the people is to build a house on sand.

The Constitution is not a royal decree to be endorsed in palaces, nor a partisan project to be marketed by presiding officers. It is a living social contract, a covenant between the governed and those who govern. Public interest must rise from the ground up, not descend from thrones or be proclaimed from the chair of neutrality.

What is at stake is more than process—it is trust. If chiefs become shields for unpopular amendments, they will lose their sacred authority. If the Speaker becomes a participant in political contest, she will forfeit her neutrality. And if the Constitution is reshaped without the full voice of the people, it will lose its legitimacy.

As African wisdom teaches: “Imiti ikula empanga”—the young trees are the future forest. If we plant confusion in the soil of constitutionalism today, we will reap distrust tomorrow.

The path forward is clear. If Zambia is to amend her Constitution, let it be through an Act of Parliament establishing an independent, broad-based commission. Let the chiefs advise, let the Speaker preside, but let the people decide. For in a democracy, it is not the throne but the crowd, not the crown but the citizen, that gives law its soul.

Vox populi, vox Dei—the voice of the people is the voice of God. And God does not whisper only in royal chambers or parliamentary offices. He speaks in the market, in the farm, in the township, in the youth unemployed, in the mother waiting at a clinic. It is their voices, not the Speaker’s assurances, that must shape the supreme law of the land.