We can safely say that the country has now passed the shock stage where a Speaker can so openly exhibit her partisan leanings unashamedly without pretense.
We know for a fact that almost all the speakers this country has had have had partisan leanings towards the presidents and ruling parties which appointed them to that high office. But never has the country experienced a speaker so unashamedly stake out their partisan positions to the extent of insisting on a wrong that has been adjudged by the country’s highest court on Constitutional matters as out of order.
Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti is now claiming that the unpopular Bill 7 of 2025 can still proceed in Parliament if the Justice Minister chooses to advance it, stating that the bill followed proper procedures and that the Constitutional Court’s ruling only affected its pre-parliamentary process and not its current status in the House.
Mutti reaffirmed Parliament’s independence, asserting that no external body can halt a legislative process once underway.
Since when did Nelly become an interpreter of the law in this country? Who gave her the right and the house she leads power to interpret the law? As far as we know the main duties of the national assembly is to make laws and not to interpret them, and therein lies the correct definition of separation of powers and not the one Nelly is claiming.
There are several reference points both in the Republican Constitution and from several court judgements which dispel the claim Nelly is trying to project this time around. Why does she seem so desperate in aiding Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND in trying to push through a constitutional bill that has been soundly rejected by Zambians, whose cause was also supported by a ConCourt judgment on the same?
We want to refer Nelly to the Constitutional Court judgment which ruled against her immediate predecessor Dr. Patrick Matibini when he tried to use his position to interpret the law when he declared the Roan parliamentary seat which was held by Chishimba Kambwili.
In a landmark ruling delivered by then Constitutional Court President Hildah Chibomba, Judges Annie Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, Palan Mulonda and Martin Musaluke, they stated that while the Speaker was well within his power to respond to the point of order that was raised on the floor of the house, he exceeded his powers when he proceeded to apply the purpose canon of interpretation of statute in order to cure the lacuna that he identified in Article 72 of the Constitution.
The judges stated that Dr Matibini exceeded his in power as the function of interpreting the law in the Constitution was vested in the judiciary, the branch of government to who he is assigned that delicate task.
Further to that, the Constitution is also very clear on the only body that is granted finality in terms of interpreting the law, stating in Article 128 that, “(1) Subject to Article 28, the Constitutional Court has original and final jurisdiction to hear—(a) a matter relating to the interpretation of this Constitution; (b) a matter relating to a violation or contravention of this Constitution;…”
Therefore, if the Constitutional Court passed a majority judgement deeming the Bill 7 constitutional amendment process unconstitutional, where is Nelly drawing her powers, which she doesn’t even have, to say the same unconstitutional bill can still be considered before Parliament?
It therefore follows that Nelly is engaging in an illegality by seeking to proceed with a matter that has been declared illegal. The implication is that even the process that will come out of her misadventures should be deemed an illegality without any legal backing whatsoever.
The only correct position the nation should follow is one that was decided upon by the ConCourt on June 27, which held that the State’s decision to initiate a constitutional amendment process, through Bill 7, before undertaking wide consultations with the people, goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
The ConCourt therefore ordered that an independent body of experts conduct wide consultations with the people.
By Daily Revelation Editor
We can safely say that the country has now passed the shock stage where a Speaker can so openly exhibit her partisan leanings unashamedly without pretense.
We know for a fact that almost all the speakers this country has had have had partisan leanings towards the presidents and ruling parties which appointed them to that high office. But never has the country experienced a speaker so unashamedly stake out their partisan positions to the extent of insisting on a wrong that has been adjudged by the country’s highest court on Constitutional matters as out of order.
Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti is now claiming that the unpopular Bill 7 of 2025 can still proceed in Parliament if the Justice Minister chooses to advance it, stating that the bill followed proper procedures and that the Constitutional Court’s ruling only affected its pre-parliamentary process and not its current status in the House.
Mutti reaffirmed Parliament’s independence, asserting that no external body can halt a legislative process once underway.
Since when did Nelly become an interpreter of the law in this country? Who gave her the right and the house she leads power to interpret the law? As far as we know the main duties of the national assembly is to make laws and not to interpret them, and therein lies the correct definition of separation of powers and not the one Nelly is claiming.
There are several reference points both in the Republican Constitution and from several court judgements which dispel the claim Nelly is trying to project this time around. Why does she seem so desperate in aiding Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND in trying to push through a constitutional bill that has been soundly rejected by Zambians, whose cause was also supported by a ConCourt judgment on the same?
We want to refer Nelly to the Constitutional Court judgment which ruled against her immediate predecessor Dr. Patrick Matibini when he tried to use his position to interpret the law when he declared the Roan parliamentary seat which was held by Chishimba Kambwili.
In a landmark ruling delivered by then Constitutional Court President Hildah Chibomba, Judges Annie Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, Palan Mulonda and Martin Musaluke, they stated that while the Speaker was well within his power to respond to the point of order that was raised on the floor of the house, he exceeded his powers when he proceeded to apply the purpose canon of interpretation of statute in order to cure the lacuna that he identified in Article 72 of the Constitution.
The judges stated that Dr Matibini exceeded his in power as the function of interpreting the law in the Constitution was vested in the judiciary, the branch of government to who he is assigned that delicate task.
Further to that, the Constitution is also very clear on the only body that is granted finality in terms of interpreting the law, stating in Article 128 that, “(1) Subject to Article 28, the Constitutional Court has original and final jurisdiction to hear—(a) a matter relating to the interpretation of this Constitution; (b) a matter relating to a violation or contravention of this Constitution;…”
Therefore, if the Constitutional Court passed a majority judgement deeming the Bill 7 constitutional amendment process unconstitutional, where is Nelly drawing her powers, which she doesn’t even have, to say the same unconstitutional bill can still be considered before Parliament?
It therefore follows that Nelly is engaging in an illegality by seeking to proceed with a matter that has been declared illegal. The implication is that even the process that will come out of her misadventures should be deemed an illegality without any legal backing whatsoever.
The only correct position the nation should follow is one that was decided upon by the ConCourt on June 27, which held that the State’s decision to initiate a constitutional amendment process, through Bill 7, before undertaking wide consultations with the people, goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
The ConCourt therefore ordered that an independent body of experts conduct wide consultations with the people.
Related
You can share this post!
ZNBC board chairman questions K3m dividend from Top Star
Prof Chirwa expresses openness to serve as advisor to HH on technological matters
Related Articles
Indiscriminate Police checkpoints
Jito’s observation on chaos in Middle East threatening…
Electoral Promises