Africa-Press – Zambia. The recent Constitutional Court decision to remove President Hakainde Hichilema from proceedings in the matter brought by PF Presidential Candidate Brian Mundubile and Tonse Alliance Youth Chairperson Celestine Mukandila has been widely misunderstood. This ruling has been wrongly interpreted by some as a clearance of the President from allegations of constitutional violations.
This is incorrect and misleading.
1. The Court Removed HH on Procedural Grounds — Not Substantive Grounds
The Court merely held that:
A sitting President cannot be sued in his personal capacity for acts done in his official role.
This is a procedural rule under Article 98.
It is not a judgment on the legality of the President’s actions
The Court did not:
Clear him of wrongdoing
Declare the Bill 7 process constitutional
End proceedings
Remove accountability
Address the constitutional breaches before the nation
The case simply continues with the Attorney General as the respondent, as required by law.
2. The Constitutional Breach of Bill 7 Remains Unresolved — And Unanswered
The Constitutional Court previously ruled that the process leading to the introduction of Bill 7 was:
Unconstitutional
Invalid
A nullity
Government was ordered to conduct a people-driven process through broad consultations and an independent body of experts.
Instead, the Minister of Justice reintroduced the same Bill in defiance of the Court’s directive, and the Speaker accepted it. This constitutes:
Violation of Article 1(1)
Contempt of Court
Abuse of authority
Gross misconduct
Breach of constitutional responsibility by the Executive
This is the constitutional violation we are addressing — not the two-term debate.
3. Presidential Immunity Does Not Protect a Sitting President from Accountability for Constitutional Breaches
Article 98 protects a President from being sued personally, but it does not shield a President from:
✔ Impeachment under Article 108
✔ Constitutional declarations binding on the Presidency
✔ Accountability after leaving office
✔ Public, parliamentary, and judicial scrutiny
Therefore, HH can still be held responsible if the Executive under his authority acted unconstitutionally, especially in reintroducing a Bill the Court declared illegal.
4. The Accountability Mechanisms Remain Fully Available
Despite this ruling:
A) The Constitutional Court can still declare the Bill 7 actions unconstitutional.
Parliament can still pursue impeachment proceedings under Article 108.
C) The Speaker can be removed under Article 82 for violating the Constitution.
D) Ministers who acted illegally may face removal or prosecution.
The ruling changes who is sued, not who is accountable.
5. Zambians Must Not Be Misled — HH Has Not Been Cleared of the Bill 7 Breach
The constitutional questions surrounding Bill 7 remain before the nation:
Why did the Government defy a Constitutional Court order?
Why was an illegal bill reintroduced?
Why did the Speaker accept a bill declared a nullity?
Why is the Executive undermining the rule of law ahead of 2026?
These questions demand answers, and no procedural ruling can bury them.
CONCLUSION
The Constitutional Court’s ruling does not absolve President Hichilema or his administration from the serious constitutional breaches associated with Bill 7. It only clarifies that a sitting President cannot be sued personally. The constitutional violations remain, the illegality remains, and the accountability mechanisms remain fully open.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
