LAZ rejects Bill 13
By Tony Nkhoma
THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has opposed the Lands and Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill No. 13 of 2025.
Making submissions before the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Lands and Natural Resources, LAZ president Lungisani Zulu said LAZ does not support Bill 13 in its current form.
“In light of the comprehensive analysis of the profound risks to property rights and the rule of law detailed herein, the Law Association of Zambia unequivocally states that it does not support the Lands and Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill, N.A.B NO. 13 of 2025, in its current form,” Zulu said.
The Lands and Deeds Registry Amendment Bill seeks to empower the Chief Registrar to cancel certificate of title for cause.
Zulu said the Bill seriously fails to balance this interest with the need to preserve the security of titleholders, sanctity of the certificate of title, due process and adequate compensation.
“It is undeniable that there is a lot of fraudulent activities and impropriety in the title acquisition process which can be nipped in the bud by the Chief Registrar exercising statutory powers of cancellation if satisfied,” Zulu said.
He said any reform aimed at addressing fraudulent or erroneous titles should prioritise robust judicial oversight as the primary mechanism for substantive cancellations.
He said this is in order to align with international best practices and truly safeguard property rights.
“If administrative powers are to be enhanced, they must be accompanied by stringent safeguards, including clear, objective criteria for administrative action, Mandatory, comprehensive due process for all affected parties, An explicit and well-funded indemnity or compensation scheme for innocent parties and Independent judicial review at the earliest possible stage,” Zulu said.
He said should the Bill proceed in the current direction, qualifications for appointment to the office of Chief Registrar be elevated to mirror those required for appointment as a Judge of the High Court.
He said this would ensure that the individual entrusted with such significant quasi-judicial powers possesses the requisite legal acumen, experience, and independence to make decisions that directly impact fundamental property rights.
“Such a measure would serve as a vital institutional safeguard, enhancing the credibility and impartiality of the office,” Zulu said.
He urged the Committee to carefully consider the ramifications and recommend substantial revisions that uphold the constitutional protection of property rights while fostering an efficient and transparent land administration system.
