The Constitutional Court has adjourned the hearing of an application by the Law Association of Zambia for an injunction to prevent Parliament from proceeding to receive submissions and debate the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill number 10 of 2019 to Monday, 16th September, 2019.
On Monday, Attorney General Likando Kalaluka filed arguments in opposition to an application for injunction, stating that the State Proceedings Act bars an injunction against the State in civil proceedings.
Mr Kalaluka also denied the claim by the LAZ lawyer John Sangwa that the doctrine of exclusive cognizance is alien to Zambia’s Constitutional law.
The Attorney General cited a number of Zambian and foreign authorities to show that Parliament enjoys the doctrine of exclusive cognizance in the conduct of its business.
Mr Kalaluka quoting some legal authorities, defined the doctrine of exclusive cognizance as a principle where only the House can regulate what is said and done in the proceedings of the House.
On the contention by Mr Sangwa that the National Assembly proceeded with the legislative process despite the matter being sub judice, Mr Kalaluka quoted the legal authorities which state that successive Speakers, by law and parliamentary practice, have discretion to determine which matter is sub judice.
Even in exercise of discretion, consistency ought to be observed by the Speaker. Surely this argument is persuasive.
LT reporting is deliberately inconsistent in cases where they don’t want the public to know more on certain issues that negatively affect PF. Surely where are the details? Don’t tell me J Sangwa didn’t provide more details than reported.
So the Speaker of Parliament is above the Constitution? He can use his discretion to choose which Bill should proceed to be processed thru Parliament and which one shouldn’t proceed after the Bills are Petitioned in Court. Both the Lungu Impeachment Bill and Amendment Bill 10 were Petitioned and the Speaker who is a PF Cadre decides to stop the Impeachment Bill and to proceed with Bill 10. So who checks whether or not the Speaker’s Discretion is Constitutional or not? Why should such a decision be left to one individual especially where a Bill is subject to a 2/3 Majority Vote? Parliament thru a 2/3 Majority should decide and not the Speaker alone. As it is Speaker Matibini has a Veto Power over Bills. This is illegal and unconstitutional in a Normal Constitutional Democracy. In Zambia…
This Concourt is State Captured and cannot dispense Justice. What is the Purpose of this Injunction when the Parliamentary Select Committee has been allowed by Concourt to continue receiving Submissions and in fact has completed the Process. The Injunction and the Petition have been rendered academic and redundant. This particular Judge is well known for her bias towards the State.A leopard cannot change its Spots for sure.
These adjournments are defeating the purpose of the creation of the ConCourt. We want matters to be heard and decided expeditiously. These adjournments are not inspiring. By the time the case will be concluded that Bill would’ve already been signed into Law. Please discard this mentality of adjournments.
The LAZ Injunction Petition is being handled by Anne Sitali the Notorious Judge who rigged the 2016 Presidential Petition. An Injunction is an Urgent Matter so the Petition by LAZ is being rendered Academic and useless. Concourt is obviously conniving with Parliament and the Presidency to get the Amendment Bill No.10 passed by Parliament. They are scheming how to achieve a 2/3 Majority Vote in Parliament. This is where this particular Judge will come in handy to help mutilate the Constitution and Rig the 2021 Elections. History repeats itself. Cry the beloved Zambia.
Provide hard evidence beyond any reasonable doubt…That’s how all courts operate and not hear say provided by the Supreme leader HH of the UPND who has hidden the privatisation loot in the paradise papers…