Chief Government Spokesperson Cannot Reinstate an Expelled MP ..

Chief Government Spokesperson Cannot Reinstate an Expelled MP from a Political Party

By Jeremy Kangwa – Concerned Citizen

Recent public statements suggesting that Government has nullified the expulsion of certain Patriotic Front (PF) Members of Parliament have understandably caused confusion among citizens. The claim that an expelled MP can be “reinstated” through an executive pronouncement raises a basic but serious constitutional question: can Government interfere in how a political party disciplines its members?

This column is not written to defend or attack any political party. It is written to clarify constitutional roles, because democracy depends not only on elections, but on restraint and respect for institutional boundaries.

Political parties in Zambia are voluntary associations governed by their own constitutions. Like any association, a party has the right to discipline, suspend, or expel its members in line with its internal rules. Government does not run political parties. It does not sit on their disciplinary committees, and it does not approve or cancel their internal decisions. When a party expels a member, that decision remains an internal party matter. Where due process is disputed, the remedy lies in internal appeals or in the courts of law, not in executive declarations.

Much of the public confusion arises from the failure to separate party membership from parliamentary office. Expulsion from a political party is not the same as automatic removal from Parliament. The Constitution of Zambia is clear that whether a Member of Parliament loses their seat after ceasing to belong to the party that sponsored them is a matter handled through parliamentary and constitutional processes. In practice, it is the Speaker of the National Assembly who determines whether a seat becomes vacant, guided by the Constitution, parliamentary procedure, and where applicable, court decisions. The Executive branch has no constitutional mandate to decide who sits in Parliament on the basis of party discipline.

Some have attempted to justify Government intervention by invoking parliamentary privileges and immunities. These protections exist to safeguard freedom of speech in Parliament and to ensure MPs can perform their legislative duties without intimidation or prosecution for words spoken in the House. Those privileges are important, but they do not shield an MP from their own party’s internal rules. They do not prevent a party from disciplining or expelling a member. Legislative independence and party membership obligations are constitutionally distinct.

Why, then, are the Government’s statements concerning? Because words from those in power carry weight. When the Executive appears to claim authority it does not legally possess, it creates the impression that Government can intervene in opposition parties whenever it suits political convenience. Even where no formal action follows, such statements weaken public confidence in constitutional limits.

A constitutional democracy functions because roles remain clear. Government governs. Parliament legislates. Courts interpret the law. Political parties manage their own internal affairs. Once these lines are blurred, democratic erosion begins quietly, through precedent and normalisation rather than dramatic rupture.

If there were genuine constitutional concerns about the PF expulsions, established remedies were available. The affected MPs could seek relief from the courts. The Speaker could await legal guidance before making any determination. Government could remain institutionally neutral. Public intervention by the Executive was neither necessary nor appropriate.

Citizens should care about this issue because today it may involve PF MPs, but tomorrow it could involve another party. Constitutional overreach does not discriminate by political colour. Once tolerated, it becomes habitual.

Zambia’s democracy will not be preserved by loud statements or political point-scoring, but by restraint and fidelity to the rule of law. Government does not nullify party expulsions. Only courts and Parliament, acting through the Speaker and guided by the Constitution, can determine their legal consequences. Anything else risks reducing constitutional governance to political theatre.

Which brings us to the question that remains unanswered and that should have been addressed first: who, within the Patriotic Front, is legally and procedurally eligible to expel a member? As matters stand, there is an unresolved leadership dispute, an alleged president installed without a convention, a clear vacuum of authority, and an acting leadership arrangement involving Mr Given Lubinda. Until that internal question is settled lawfully, the PF remains trapped in uncertainty. The party needs space to resolve its leadership and disciplinary questions freely, without executive commentary. Loosen the PF. Allow a level playing field. Only then can constitutional order, inside parties and outside them, begin to stabilise.