The High Court of Zambia has refused to stop Parliament from fast-tracking the processing of 77 Bills ahead of the dissolution of Parliament next week.
The case was brought before the court by LCK Freedom Foundation and Chapter One Foundation, who sought permission to challenge Parliament’s decision to suspend Standing Orders in order to quickly process the proposed laws.
The two organisations argued that the move limited adequate public participation in the legislative process, contrary to Article 89 of the Constitution.
They also asked the court to restrain the Attorney General, the National Assembly of Zambia and the Clerk of the National Assembly from tabling, debating or forwarding the Bills to President Hakainde Hichilema for assent until the matter was fully determined.
However, High Court Judge Lameck Mwale dismissed the application, ruling that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Zambia and not the High Court.
Justice Mwale stated that the case required interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to public participation in the law-making process, a responsibility reserved for the Constitutional Court.
“Quite clearly, the issues that the Applicants seek to pursue in the present case are constitutional in nature and can only be given proper constitutional interpretation and effect by the Constitutional Court,” Justice Mwale ruled.
The judge explained that although Parliament has authority under Article 77 of the Constitution to regulate its own procedures and Standing Orders, the applicants were essentially asking the High Court to determine whether Parliament’s actions violated Article 89.
According to the ruling, such constitutional questions can only be handled by the Constitutional Court under Article 128 of the Constitution.
Justice Mwale further noted that judicial review proceedings at the leave stage are intended to screen out cases that are not suitable for full hearing.
After examining the application, the court concluded that the matter could not proceed before the High Court due to lack of jurisdiction.
“In the premises, I come to the inescapable conclusion that the application for leave should be denied for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed,” the judge stated.
You reap what you sow Not so