GRACE CHAILE
FORMER Lumezi Member of Parliament Munir Zulu urged the Constitutional Court to halt the ongoing constitutional amendment process, arguing that the proposed changes, particularly on wards and delimitations, require a careful, inclusive, and consultative process rather than unilateral pronouncements by government officials.
Mr Zulu, alongside Mr Celestine Mukandila, the national youth chairperson of the Tonse Alliance, have filed the petition against the Attorney General, contending that the steps taken by government breached constitutional principles due to the absence of broad-based consultations.
The two have argued that the Constitutional Court should suspend any further action on the process until meaningful national consensus was achieved.
Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha in his response to the petition denied allegations of a hidden agenda in the government’s constitutional reform efforts.
Kabesha argued that the proposed roadmap issued by the Minister of Justice had provided for stakeholder involvement and met all legal requirements. He maintained that the government was acting in line with constitutional provisions and clarified that the United Party for National Development (UPND) had no legal role in the amendment process.
He rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the LAZ, Chapter One Foundation Limited Vs Attorney General case, arguing that the facts of that matter was significantly different.
In that case, the court held that a bill could not be challenged for constitutionality before being enacted into law.
In reply, Mr Zulu, through his lawyers Joseph Chirwa and Associates, stated that President Hakainde Hichilema had made pronouncements on the proposed constitutional amendments which were interpreted by the government as policy guidance.
Mr Zulu also argued that the ministerial statement issued by the Minister of Justice outlining a proposed roadmap contradicted the legitimate expectations of Zambians whom the petitioners claimed to represent.
He asserted that the Constitutional Court’s decision in the matter of LAZ and Chapter One Foundation Limited Vs Attorney General had been reached per incuriam, or in error, because it failed to recognise that constitutional amendment bills must derive from the will of the people.
