LAZ suit against Speaker Premature — Andeleki

Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Human Rights and Governance, Clement Andeleki, has described as premature the decision by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to sue Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti over her ruling that allowed the continuation of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 despite a prior court judgment against it.

Mr. Andeleki, who is also a lawyer and a member of LAZ, has questioned the legal basis of the Association’s actions, arguing that the Bill is still a proposal and not yet law, and therefore cannot be challenged in court.

"I do not expect LAZ to be suing on behalf of other interest groups," he said. “We are lawyers, and we know that a bill is not a law. The country is guided by legal precedent, and you cannot take legal action against a legislative proposal.”

He has cited the landmark 1972 case involving Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula and the Attorney General, in which the court ruled that the Chona Commission was merely a proposal and could not be challenged in court.

“The court said then and the principle remains that you can’t stop what doesn’t exist,” he said.

Mr. Andeleki has also pointed to LAZ’s previous case involving the Acting Auditor General, where it was claimed he was appointed by the President.

“Isn’t it common sense that someone acting is not appointed? There was no appointment letter or swearing-in. The case was eventually abandoned and I suspect the same outcome will happen with this lawsuit against the Speaker.”

And Mr. Andeleki has acknowledged that LAZ has the legal right to litigate, but urged caution and adherence to precedence.

"Several fora have guided us that a proposal such as a bill is nothing until enacted. It cannot be challenged as though it were law," he said.

Last month, the Constitutional Court ruled that the government’s move to initiate Bill No. 7 without broad public consultation violated the spirit of the Constitution.

The Court cited breaches of Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, and 92 of the Republican Constitution.

The majority judgment was delivered by Constitutional Court President Justice Margaret Munalula.

However, despite the ruling, Ms. Mutti ruled last week in Parliament that the Bill was still properly before the House a decision that has sparked further debate within legal and political circles.

Ends……………….

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beltz pledges impactful leadership as ZedPro Global Patron

Zambia's Mining Sector headed in right direction – Beltz Mining Director

Nkandu Beltz urges partnerships for sustainable mining