SPEAKER MUTTI UNDER FIRE FOR “BLIND RULING” ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL 7
…..…Tonse Alliance, legal experts slam Speaker’s defiance of Constitutional Court judgment
Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti has found herself at the center of a growing political and constitutional storm after delivering a ruling that critics have branded “misguided, reckless, and legally blind.”
At the heart of the controversy is Bill 7, a proposed amendment that the Constitutional Court has already ruled as having been birthed through unconstitutional means a decision that, in the eyes of many legal minds, should have buried the Bill once and for all.
But Speaker Mutti stunned the House and the nation when she declared that Parliament could still proceed with Bill 7, arguing that the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process. That pronouncement has triggered fury, not just from opposition circles, but from prominent legal figures as well.
Celestine Mambula Mukandila, National Youth Chairperson of the Tonse Alliance and the lawyer who petitioned the court over the Bill’s legitimacy, came out swinging.
“It is an utter embarrassment that the head of Parliament would issue a ruling without reading the judgment that governs the very matter at hand,” Mukandila charged. “This is not just administrative laziness it is a direct insult to the Constitution and the authority of the courts.”
He said Speaker Mutti’s failure to engage with the ratio decidendi the legal backbone of the Constitutional Court’s judgment amounted to judicial defiance and a dangerous precedent that could shatter the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in Zambia’s democratic system.
This is not a legislative error. This is a premeditated attempt to bulldoze a Bill declared illegal,” Mukandila said, warning that the Tonse Alliance will not allow the Constitution to be “shredded for convenience.”
He further threatened contempt of court proceedings against the Ministry of Justice should it dare proceed with the amendments.
Legal analysts have since weighed in, describing Speaker Mutti’s move as “constitutionally absurd” and “a mockery of justice.”
Former Justice Minister Wynter Kabimba was equally unforgiving, urging the Executive to disregard the Speaker’s political gymnastics and trash the Bill altogether. Kabimba noted that the Court’s ruling was aimed squarely at the Executive’s abuse of process and had no bearing on legislative autonomy, contrary to what the Speaker claimed.
“The ruling was clear the process was flawed from the start. You can’t fix an illegality by continuing with it,” Kabimba argued.
The controversy has now snowballed into a full-blown constitutional crisis, with critics accusing Mutti of arming Parliament with immunity to violate the law, thereby rendering court rulings meaningless.
Mukandila concluded with a chilling warning:
“If this behavior is allowed to stand, we will be left with a Parliament that no longer respects the law, a government that manufactures laws in the shadows, and a Speaker who silences justice to protect political interests.”
KUMWESU
The constitutional court may revisit and reverse earlier judgements when it is necessary to do that, we heard this in the case of eligibility of Edgar Chagwa Lungu landmark judgement that put finality as to the question of Mr Lungu participating in future elections. As and he was stopped, doing away with earlier judgements.
I believe this can still happen concerning the bill 7.
The Speaker is in charge of the House where bills are presented and they run through some stages until they are passed or thrown out by the two thirds majority vote.Later the President may put his signature to make it law.
We have the three arms of government which are working independently.The judiciary can not stop work of the legislature or process of not even the executive can do that when the bill process has been introduced in the house.
In this case someone must ask the constitutional court to revisit it’s decision.If the bill is in bad state it is the duty of the parliamentarians to act on it within the house.And it may not go further.The court is an outsider to Parliament unless the speaker wants some clearance on some constitutional queries.Then the speaker may consult.How ever the President has powers on his Ministers and may advise the the mover of the bill to make further consultations and halt the bill.Bill 10 was allowed to pass through all the stages inspite of it considered to be in bad state.The parliamentarians debated on it and successfully allowed it to pass through all the stages until it was shot down.
My submission to this topic is my own opinion and I accept corrections.Iam a Zambian I believe I am allowed to put my views straight so that we can share and agree if possible.Corrections are very much welcome.