By Kellys Kaunda
WE CANNOT LEGITIMIZE AN ILLEGALITY – LAZ TELLS PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON BILL 7
The Law Association of Zambia, LAZ, has told the parliamentary committee on Bill 7 that its sittings constituted a disregard and breach of the Zambian constitution.
Therefore, the LAZ President said his organization was not going to submitt on the details of Bill 7.
LAZ told the committee that the court ruling on the process that culminated in Bill 7 flouted several provisions of the constitution.
These include articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91, and 92.
Consequently, LAZ told the committee that the court guided that the correct procedure should have been as follows:
1. Government appoints a committee of experts.
2. The committee goes to the people to find out what changes they wanted to be made to the constitution.
3. The committee looks at previous constitutional review recommendations.
4. The committee compiles report and frames the proposed Bill.
5. The report and Bill taken to the district, provincial and national levels for public debate.
6. Only after this process is the final report and Bill taken to parliament.
LAZ told the parliamentary committee that it could not submitt on the specific provisions of Bill 7 because the process that gave birth to it did not follow this process.
In response, the parliamentary committee said while it sympathized with the LAZ position, it was however outside its mandate to do anything about it.
The committee said it was mandated to deal only with the contents of Bill 7 and not how it came about.
On that note, the LAZ delegation closed its notebooks and left the committee room.
It would appear LAZ and the OASIS Forum are not through with the Bill 7 saga.
Watch the space.
It is baffling why LAZ went to appear before a Select Committee of Parliament which had no mandate to receive pleas! The ConCourt had already thrown out application for contempt, so what is left of the ConCourt JUDGMENT? This was a classic case of separation of powers known as, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. A Bill 7 under Parliament process should not have been taken to Court for adjudication. So, now with separation of powers, Parliament is asserting its authority to proceed until conclusion when Bill 7 will be passed or rejected in a vote by Parliament. In all honesty, we think that the ConCourt JUDGMENT is a very good example to students and all of separation of powers where the Judiciary cannot impose its will on the Legislature.
Thanks mate. Well articulated.
LAZ EMBARRASSES THEMSELVES AGAIN ON BILL 7
By Dr.Larry Mweetwa
The position advanced by LAZ that the process at the inception of Bill 7 was flawed cannot stand in the face of the Constitutional Court’s own pronouncements. The Court, exercising its interpretive mandate under Article 128(1) of the Constitution, issued clear and unambiguous guidance: reconstitute the appropriate committee and realign the process with constitutional and statutory requirements. This directive, grounded in the Court’s remedial powers under Article 128(3), was fully complied with by the Ministry.
Pursuant to this judicial guidance, the Ministry undertook the corrective measures ordered by the court, constituted the mandated committee, and, in good faith, invited LAZ to nominate representatives an invitation which LAZ honoured. At that point, the procedural defect if any had been cured in compliance with the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and the principle that a court’s directive restores legality to a process once its instructions are followed.
In light of this, LAZ’s continued reliance on the initial procedural misstep already rectified through judicial intervention appears untenable. One cannot perpetually reopen a matter that the Court has effectively regularised. Jurisprudence from People v. Chungu & Others (SCZ Judgment No. 12 of 2019) reaffirms that once a competent court cures a procedural defect through explicit orders, parties cannot later invalidate subsequent steps undertaken in compliance with that order.
Further, the recurring assertion by LAZ that there has been insufficient or “extensive stakeholder consultation” lacks legal particularity. Article 8 and Article 173 of the Constitution impose obligations of transparency and accountable governance, but they do not prescribe a limitless or indeterminate consultative cycle. Nor has LAZ identified which stakeholders, which statutory or constitutional benchmark, or which procedural irregularity remains outstanding. Assertions devoid of specifics fall short of the evidentiary standard expected of an institution that frequently insists on procedural probity from others.
This lack of precision is particularly concerning given that legislative processes must be challenged with the clarity demanded by authorities such as Attorney General v. Clarke (SCZ Judgment No. 14 of 2008), where the Court underscored the need for parties alleging procedural impropriety to demonstrate the specific legal provision violated, the nature of the violation, and its material effect.
To date, LAZ has not identified any concrete provision of Bill No. 7 that offends the Constitution, nor has it demonstrated through reference to Articles 62, 79 or 92 that the legislative process adopted by the Ministry is ultra vires or procedurally defective. Instead, LAZ offers a generalised refrain of “stakeholder consultation,” a concept which, without defined stakeholders, timelines or legislative anchors, becomes an amorphous standard incapable of practical application.
From a rule of law standpoint, these broad, non-particularised objections do not meet the threshold of legal certainty, a principle recognised in both Zambian jurisprudence and comparative Commonwealth authority. Constructive engagement requires specificity, not abstraction. Therefore, if LAZ is genuinely aggrieved by any segment of the Bill, institutional integrity demands that it:
1. Identify the exact clause(s) objected to,
2. State the alleged constitutional or statutory breach, and
3. Provide alternative drafting or lawful proposals.
Absent such clarity, the discourse risks devolving into perpetual ambiguity—an outcome inimical to the national reform agenda and inconsistent with the constitutional imperative for efficient, predictable governance.
The young current chairperson of LAZ has let the youth down. We thought young and fresh blood has a difference ! A very foolish unproductive and useless lawyer. Where is LAZ of long ago who had substance ? The current LAZ is the most useless LAZ in Zambia ‘ s history.