Africa-Press – Zambia. I took time to read the constitutional court ruling where LUSAKA youths and PF sympathizers Clandestine Mukandila, and a jailed former law Maker for lumezi constituency hon Munir Zulu, challenged the government against going forward with the proposed “bill 7” in parliament citing procedural failure and lack of public consultation.
And yesterday house speaker, and SC NELLY MUTTI following a point of order; responded by saying the court has no power to stop the bill which is already in the floor of the house as it is now a parliamentary business. She cited for the separation of powers governing the three arms of government. She further went to say that, should the justice minister decide to go ahead with the proceedings of the Bill in the house, she would definitely allow that.
Now to weigh in my take regarding this matter; my lawyer friend helped me with three case studies which I will cite in due course of my write-up.
In general, courts are very cautious about interfering in the internal workings of Parliament, due to a key constitutional principle known as the separation of powers. This principle means that the judiciary (courts), the legislature (Parliament), and the executive (government) have separate functions and must respect each other’s domains.
However, there are exceptions. Let me break this down clearly When the Court Cannot Interfere.
Courts usually cannot interfere in:
Internal parliamentary procedures (e.g., how debates are run, how votes are conducted).The validity of parliamentary rules (standing orders, etc.). Speech or conduct inside Parliament, protected by Parliamentary Privilege (as per laws like the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act). This means that members of Parliament cannot be sued or prosecuted for things they say or do during parliamentary proceedings.
When the Court CAN Intervene
Courts can interfere in parliamentary matters under certain conditions, especially when: Parliament violates the Constitution like passing a law or taking an action that is unconstitutional. When Rights are infringed e.g if Parliament enacts or proposes a law that violates fundamental human rightsthe court may step in. if the way Parliament conducted a process violates legal or constitutional provisions (not just internal rules), courts may review it. Disputes about membership e.g., illegal suspension or expulsion of MPs.
In Zambia, as in other common law countries, the courts have occasionally ruled on parliamentary issues. And the court can stop or interfere in the business of Parliament, but only when:
The Constitution is being violated, Rights or laws are being breached, The issue is justiciable (capable of being decided by a court). But if it’s purely about how Parliament debates or manages itself internally, courts will not interfere. Let us now look at the three case studies as I mentioned earlier, that illustrates when courts can interfere in the business of Parliament, specifically from Kenya and South Africa, and Bill 10 of 2019 where courts have set important precedents relevant to the current situation.
CASE STUDY: Kenya. John Harun Mwau v. Speaker of the National Assembly & Others (2014) Court: High Court of Kenya
Parliament passed a Bill very quickly and without sufficient public participation, as required under Article 118 of the Kenyan Constitution, which says Parliament must facilitate public involvement in legislative processes.
The court ruled that:
Even though Parliament has independence in its internal affairs, it is still subject to the Constitution. If Parliament violates constitutional requirements, the courts can and must intervene therefore; The law was declared invalid because public participation had not been properly done. This was a clear example of the court interfering in parliamentary business, but only to uphold the Constitution.
CASE STUDY: South Africa, Doctors for Life International v. Speaker of the National Assembly (2006) Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Parliament passed a law affecting health rights without adequate public hearings, as required by Section 59 of the South African Constitution (which ensures public participation). What the Court Said:
Courts cannot interfere with internal legislative processes unless constitutional obligations are not met.The court emphasized that public participation is not optional, and failure to do so invalidated the law. The court ruled that Parliament’s failure to follow constitutional procedures (public involvement) justified judicial review. The law was struck down.
CASE STUDY: Zambia – Bill No. 10 of 2019 and the Judiciary’s Role.
Bill 10 was a proposed constitutional amendment to change various provisions of the Zambian Constitution. It sparked national controversy because it aimed to: Expand the powers of the President, Alter the electoral process (including the composition of Parliament just like Bill 7), Create positions like a Deputy Minister (which had been removed by the 2016 Constitution), Remove certain checks and balances.
Many argued that it was a move toward constitutional capture and weakened democratic governance, just exactly as it is being said about Bill 7.
Legal Challenge:
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and other civil society groups petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that: The process Parliament followed violated constitutional procedures in the same manner the reasons where advanced by Munir Zulu and clandestine Mukandila.
The contents of Bill 10 themselves were unconstitutional. They asked the Court to:
1. Stop Parliament from proceeding with the Bill,
2. Declare parts of the Bill unconstitutional.
What the Constitutional Court Said:
Unlike the Bill 7 challenge ruling; The Court refused to stop Parliament from debating the Bill, stating that it would not interfere with internal parliamentary processes, such as debate or committee stages. The Court emphasized that Parliament is a distinct arm of government, and the separation of powers must be respected. This could be were NELLY MUTTI is coming from.
However, the Court reserved the right to review the final enacted law (if passed), to check whether it violates the Constitution as it was with the cases of both Kenya and South Africa respectively.
Bill 10 was ultimately defeated in Parliament in 2020 after failing to get the required two-thirds majority. But the case set a precedent that:
Courts in Zambia will not interfere mid-process while Parliament is still debating a bill. But once a bill is passed, the courts can review it for constitutionality.
This means Parliament is sovereign within the law, but not above the Constitution.The Judiciary cannot stop a bill before it is passed, but can strike it down afterward if it contradicts the Constitution. Checks and balances exist, but each arm must stay within its lane. NOW DOES IT MEAN THE COURT DEPARTED FROM ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT?
Let’s look at what happened with Bill 7 of 2025, and why the Speaker’s claim that courts have no power to interfere in parliamentary business and as to whether the court was inorder to give a ruling in favor of the petitioners, considering the above ruling as cited by case study 3.
On 27 June 2025, the Constitutional Court struck down the process used to initiate Bill 7, declaring it unconstitutional. The key issue was the failure to conduct “wide public consultation”, as mandated by Article 79 of the Constitution.
The Court’s ruling explicitly halted Parliament’s progression with the Bill: it was not merely advisory, but a binding judicial order to stop the process immediately.
However; yesterday Speaker Nelly Mutti asserted that courts can’t halt Parliament’s processes and that the judiciary does not have power to interfere with internal parliamentary affairs.
Reconciling the Two Positions
#Speaker: Courts have no power over Parliament’s internal workings. True courts generally cannot intervene in internal procedural matters like debates, voting, or committee management.
#ConCourt: halted Bill 7. Also true the Court didn’t meddle with debate or voting. Rather, it acted within its constitutional mandate to enforce compliance with Article 79 on public consultation. When Parliament exercises its legislative power, it must do so within constitutional boundaries, and the Court is empowered to stop any process that violates those boundaries.
The Speaker is correct that courts cannot micromanage internal parliamentary procedures. But the Constitutional Court is also correct: when Parliament undertakes action that violates constitutional requirements, ike skipping broad public consultation for constitutional amendments; the Court can and must step in.
Final Answer:
So, yes the Court can halt or interfere in Parliament’s business, osatenga chusi because it is but only when Parliament steps outside its constitutional authority. In the case of Bill 7, the Court acted not to override parliamentary sovereignty, but to protect the Constitution by enforcing compliance of article 79 on public consultation, when Parliament exercises it its legislative powers, it must do so within constitutional boundaries and the court is empowered to stop any process that violates those boundaries.
While Zambia’s Constitution also recognizes Parliamentary privilege and separation of powers, it gives the judiciary power under Article 119 to ensure that all institutions, including Parliament, act within the law.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
