HH IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

HH IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

Sangwa writes AG, urges HH to forget about the illegal Bill 7

• The lawyer is urging Mulilo Kabesha to advise Hichilema to stop disrespecting the Constitutional Courts’ judgment and accept that Bill 7 is illegal and cannot be brought back.

By George Zulu

PRESIDENT Hakainde Hichilema’s continued insistence on returning the “unconstitutional” Bill 7 to Parliament undermines the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the matter, State Counsel John Sangwa has said.

In a letter addressed to Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha dated July 28, Sangwa has warned against undermining the constitutional powers of the ConCourt to interpret the law because it was contemptuous.

He advises Kabesha to urge Hichilema to stop being contemptuous as his actions are undermining constitutional supremacy.

Sangwa says Hichilema’s recent conduct on the failed and illegal Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 is concerning because it is promoting a recall of an illegal bill.

“As you are aware, the effect of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Munir Zulu & Celestine Mukandila v Attorney General (2025/CCZ/009) on the Speaker’s ruling of 9 July 2025 is currently the subject of the above-captioned petition and is therefore sub judice. We write to express our serious concern regarding the President’s repeated public characterisation of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 (“Bill No. 7”) as “deferred” rather than null and void ab initio, which is the clear effect of the Constitutional Court’s judgment,” Sangwa’s latter reads in part.

“On 26 June, 2025, Parliament deferred Bill No. 7 on the assumption that it had been lawfully presented. However, on 27 June, 2025, the Constitutional Court, in Munir Zulu & Celestine Mukandila v Attorney General (2025/CCZ/009), held that the entire legislative process underpinning Bill No. 7 breached Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 and 92 of the Constitution, and was therefore unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and of no legal effect whatsoever.”

Sangwa writes that despite a binding judgment by the Constitutional Court, Hichilema has continued promoting an illegal bill, urging stakeholders to support it.

He says Hichilema’s behaviour and utterances are undermining the Constitutional Court’s ruling and declaration of the bill as illegal.

“Despite this binding judgment, on 12 July, 2025, during a meeting with the United Nations (UN) officials and again at the LGAZ [Local Government Association of Zambia] annual conference, the President stated that Bill No. 7 “has not been discontinued but only deferred” implying that the legislative measures voided by the Constitutional Court remain in force or may be revived,” Sangwa’s letter reads.

He says Hichilema’s suggestion that Bill 7 was merely deferred attacks the Constitutional Court’s judgment.

“By characterising Bill No. 7 as merely “deferred”, notwithstanding the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the President’s remarks, (a) undermine constitutional supremacy (Articles 1(3) and 2) by suggesting that an act or omission declared null and void by the Constitutional Court may be revived by Executive fiat;  (b) breach the separation of powers by implying that Parliament may resurrect a legislative process invalidated by the Constitutional Court; (c) contravene Article 128(4) of the Constitution, which provides that decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all persons and authorities; and  (d) erode public confidence in the rule of law by signaling that judicial determinations may be disregarded or reinterpreted by the Executive,” Sangwa writes.

He is urging Kabesha to advise Hichilema to stop disrespecting the apex courts’ judgment and accept that Bill 7 is illegal and cannot be brought back in the current manner.

“Advise the Presidency to cease any commentary inconsistent with the court’s judgment and to acknowledge unequivocally that Bill No. 7 is null and void, having been declared unconstitutional, null ab initio, and of no legal effect,” Sangwa says.

He urges Kabesha to make the Executive aware that the decisions of the courts of law are binding and should be respected at all cost in order to promote the rule of law.

“We trust that, in light of the Court’s definitive judgment, you will counsel the President to align his public statements and internal processes with the principle of constitutional supremacy,” Sangwa writes in the letter, which he has copied to the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ).