WHY IS SPEAKER NELLY MUTTI NOT DECLARING SEATS VACANT?
The ongoing debate surrounding Members of Parliament who are crossing the floor to primarily join the ruling party, while their seats remain undeclared vacant by the Speaker, has exposed something deeper than politics.
In my opinion, it has exposed gaps, contradictions and unresolved tensions within our constitutional order. Our democracy must never become a victim of selective outrage or selective interpretation of the “Constitution”. Take note that although I am using the word “Constitution”, our country does not have a Constitution (this is for another day).
Many citizens are justifiably furious because Article 72 of the Constitution appears, on the face of it, to suggest that an MP who resigns from the sponsoring political party loses the seat. However, the legal reality is more complex than the emotional reality being debated on social media.
Making an announcement at a political rally and actually submitting a resignation letter to the Speaker are two different things. Government is an institution of record and there is action that may be taken without an official record.
Over the years, our courts have repeatedly held that the Speaker is not a court of law and cannot unilaterally become the final interpreter of contested constitutional matters. That is why, in several previous matters involving defections and expulsions, the judiciary became central in determining whether a seat had legally fallen vacant.
Simply put, the Speaker may be trying to avoid acting outside judicial guidance, especially where constitutional interpretation is disputed or where court action may still arise.
This explains why some seats are not immediately declared vacant despite public pressure, but let us also be honest with ourselves as a nation. The current situation reveals serious loopholes in our laws:
1. The Constitution prohibits defections, yet the procedure for immediate enforcement remains unclear. The law should never leave matters of how to put in operation to speculation.
2. The law creates uncertainty about whether the Speaker acts automatically or must wait for judicial confirmation.
3. Political parties themselves often suffer internal disputes over legitimate leadership, making enforcement even more difficult.
4. Zambia has increasingly normalised defections close to elections, creating public suspicion and weakening trust in our institutions of democracy.
This is why we must resist reducing this matter into mere partisan excitement. Today it may appear to favour one political side. Tomorrow it may favour another, but if institutions lose credibility, our Republic suffers.
The cure therefore is not mob justice, political bitterness or emotional constitutionalism. The cure is in credible law reforms.
As a country, we should seriously consider the following:
• Establishing a clear Constitutional Court fast track mechanism for governance disputes.
• Defining strict timelines within which the Speaker and courts must determine parliamentary seat vacancy matters.
• Clarifying the distinction between resignation, expulsion, coalition participation and mere political association.
• Introducing stronger internal democratic standards within political parties to reduce opportunistic defections.
• Encouraging issue-based politics rather than survival-based politics.
Most importantly, Zambia must protect both constitutional order and political stability simultaneously. We must avoid creating a dangerous precedent where constitutional provisions are ignored, but we must equally avoid turning Parliament into a battlefield of endless retaliatory seat nullifications that destabilise governance.
A mature democracy is not built by anger, but by institutions, consistency, wisdom and fairness, even when emotions are high.
Let us, therefore, lower political temperatures and raise constitutional intelligence.
The Republic must always come before temporary political victories.
Saviour Chishimba
President,
United Progressive People (UPP)