Prof Lumina: Bill 7 Has No Legal Existence After Court Judgment

Prof Lumina: Bill 7 Has No Legal Existence After Court Judgment

Constitutional and international human rights law expert chas stated that the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, commonly referred to as Bill 7, is legally void and has no standing in law following a ruling of the Constitutional Court, warning that Parliament’s continued consideration of the bill risks undermining constitutional supremacy, judicial authority, and democratic governance.

Professor Lumina made the remarks in a detailed written submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on December 9, 2025, and restated them in a column published in The Mast on December 11, 2025. His position is grounded in the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Munir Zulu and Another v Attorney-General, which declared the process used to initiate Bill 7 unconstitutional.

According to Professor Lumina, the effect of that judgment is that Bill 7 was stripped of legal existence from the outset. He stated that a bill declared void at inception cannot be revived through parliamentary procedure, debate, or political consensus. In his submission, he maintained that Parliament has no lawful authority to proceed with a bill that the Constitution itself no longer recognises.

He stressed that the Constitutional Court’s decision carries binding consequences for all arms of the State, including the legislature. Professor Lumina warned that continued processing of Bill 7 would amount to a direct confrontation with the constitutional order and would further weaken public confidence in constitutional governance. He stated that parliamentary processes cannot create a legal foundation where the Constitution has withdrawn one.

Professor Lumina also raised concerns about the conduct of the Parliamentary Select Committee, particularly the manner in which the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) was engaged during its appearance before the committee on December 12, 2025. He described the interaction as hostile and confrontational, attributing it to the approach taken by the committee chairperson, Imanga Wamunyima.

He stated that the treatment of LAZ raised serious constitutional and democratic concerns, noting that LAZ is a statutory body with a long-established role in defending constitutionalism, the rule of law, and legal accountability in Zambia. He warned that dismissive or adversarial engagement with such institutions undermines the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny.

Professor Lumina explained that parliamentary committees charged with scrutinising legislation exist to enhance the quality, legitimacy, and constitutionality of laws. He cited international parliamentary standards, including those articulated by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which define parliamentary scrutiny as an active process involving interrogation, evidence-based assessment, and reasoned recommendations rather than endorsement or political loyalty.

He further noted that constitutional amendment bills demand a higher threshold of scrutiny than ordinary legislation because they alter the foundational legal framework of the State. In that context, he referred to guidance from the Venice Commission, which emphasises the importance of procedural safeguards, inclusive deliberation, and public participation in constitutional amendment processes.

Professor Lumina stated that international best practice recognises the role of professional associations, including legal bodies, in legislative scrutiny due to their technical expertise and constitutional insight. He said a hostile or dismissive posture by a committee chair towards such bodies is incompatible with accepted parliamentary standards and weakens the credibility of the legislative process.

He also cited guidance from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which requires parliamentary committees to conduct proceedings impartially and to treat witnesses with respect regardless of their views. He stated that conduct involving intimidation, frequent interruption, dismissal of submissions, or framing participation as antagonistic diminishes public participation and erodes confidence in Parliament’s constitutional role.

In support of his position, Professor Lumina referred to specific provisions of the Zambian Constitution. He cited Article 61, which provides that legislative authority derives from the people and must be exercised in a manner that protects the Constitution and promotes democratic governance. He also referenced Article 88(2), which guarantees citizens the right to comment on deliberations and decisions of the National Assembly, and Article 89(1), which vests legislative authority in Parliament subject to the Constitution.

He emphasised that the phrase “subject to the Constitution” is central to constitutional supremacy. According to Professor Lumina, Standing Orders, committee procedures, and parliamentary majorities cannot be used to override the Constitution or circumvent binding judicial decisions.

Professor Lumina warned that if the Select Committee proceeds with Bill 7, any report it produces would itself be constitutionally defective. He stated that a report premised on a void bill would have no legal validity and that acting on such a report would deepen the constitutional impasse and expose Parliament to further legal challenges.

He concluded that the only constitutionally defensible course of action available to Parliament is to halt consideration of Bill 7 and to restart any future constitutional amendment process in strict compliance with the guidance of the Constitutional Court and through genuine, people-driven consultations.

According to Professor Lumina, adherence to constitutional limits is not optional. He stated that institutional integrity is demonstrated when public bodies obey the law even where it demands restraint rather than preference.