Mutti’s Parliamentary Move Provokes Sharp Legal Backlash
Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, is under growing fire from legal scholars, opposition leaders, and civil society following her controversial ruling on Bill 7, a piece of legislation that seeks to curtail the interpretive powers of the Constitutional Court.
The backlash intensified after lawyer Mehali Darbahak publicly challenged the Speaker’s authority to adjudicate the matter, arguing that her decision represented a fundamental breach of the separation of powers. “Speaker Mutti cannot be both player and referee,” he said. “The fact that she presided over a motion in which she was directly implicated raises serious constitutional concerns.”
Bill 7, tabled under the guise of procedural reform, would significantly limit the ability of the Constitutional Court to make binding rulings on legislative matters. Critics have described the Bill as an assault on judicial independence and a veiled attempt to insulate Parliament from legal oversight.
The controversy erupted when Speaker Mutti declared the Bill admissible and allowed it to proceed to second reading, a move opponents say overrides the authority of the courts. Her ruling came despite a pending challenge before the Constitutional Court questioning the Bill’s legality.
“This is not just about Bill 7,” said Darbahak. “It’s about the rule of law. We cannot have Parliament arrogating powers that belong to the judiciary.”
The ruling has also drawn comparisons to past constitutional crises, with some legal analysts warning that Zambia could be entering dangerous territory. “We’ve seen this in other countries,” said constitutional scholar Professor Kalaluka Mwansa. “First you weaken the courts, then you pass laws with impunity. The Speaker’s decision must be reviewed, or we risk setting a precedent that will haunt our democracy.”
In Parliament, opposition members staged a walkout during the session in which Mutti upheld the motion, accusing her of bias and abuse of office. The Socialist Party labelled the ruling “reckless and dangerous,” adding that it undermines the principle of checks and balances.
SP general secretary Dr. Cosmas Musumali said the party would challenge the Bill in court and seek international attention to what he called “a direct threat to constitutional governance.” He added, “If the Speaker wants to act like a judge, let her resign from Parliament and join the judiciary.”
Government representatives have defended the Speaker, insisting that she acted within her powers and followed procedural rules. However, civil society organisations remain unconvinced.
The Zambia Law Association issued a carefully worded statement urging Parliament to exercise restraint and respect the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction. “Constitutional interpretation is the exclusive preserve of the judiciary,” the statement read. “Any attempt to usurp this function poses a grave risk to our democratic order.”
Bill 7 has now become a rallying point for a growing coalition of legal professionals, opposition parties, and human rights groups, all united by a shared concern over creeping authoritarianism.
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) is expected to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the pending challenge, while international observers are reportedly monitoring the developments closely.
The unfolding crisis highlights a broader tension between Zambia’s legislative and judicial arms, one that could shape the country’s legal landscape for years to come. With constitutionalism under scrutiny, Speaker Mutti’s legacy may ultimately be defined not by her stewardship of Parliament, but by the storm now engulfing it.
As the nation watches, the central question remains: Can Zambia’s institutions withstand the pressure, or will political expediency rewrite the rules of engagement?
My advice to the UPND Government is that forget about constitution amendment and focus on the economy and developmental projects such as agriculture, energy and employment for Zambians. Generally you are doing well taking into consideration the state of economy you found when you came to power. You ve made some strides. The economy is no longer in ICU. If you concentrate on the constitution amendment the opposition parties will capitalise on it and that would cost you next year. These opposition parties have nothing to criticise you on, they have nothing to tell people in regard to what they would do when voted into power. Hence looking for weak things to use to incite people to be against ruling Government. SO PLEASE DROP CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ISSUE.
Our president said the constitutional court judgement was not instructive but advisory and that briefly the bill would be retabled.
The Speaker reiterates it by saying the concourt overstepped boundaries and therefore it can not halt a bill already on the floor. The justice minister can reintroduce whenever she likes.
What the executive and the legislature are not telling us is that disregarding people participation is the constitutional procedural breach, making the constitutional amendments unconstitutional warranting parliamentary adherence to the judgement to withdraw the bill.
And this is why we shouldn’t elect people on the basis of receiving chitenges , mealie meals etc It is all corroding Zambia’s governance .
Let the New dawn listen to the voice of people.
We have so many other priorities to sort out.
Why waste time and money on this?