A University of Zambia lecturer says it is lawless and wrong for Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti to bar opposition PF MPs whose seats were nullified by the High Court from attending parliament when their appeals to the Constitutional Court remain undetermined.
Responding to questions on Twitter, Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa urged the Speaker to familiarise herself with the ruling of the ConCourt in the case of Margaret Mwanakatwe v Charlotte Scott where justice Enoch Mulembe ruled that “where there is an appeal, the law, as per constitutional provisions, has stated that the seat only becomes vacant after the final determination of the Constitutional Court” stands.
He argued that the Speaker made a mistake to venture into constitutional interpretation using the law within herself, and urged her to accept that she made a mistake and reverse her decision.
Below are a series of the academic’s tweets on the subject as monitored by Lusaka Times.
“The decision by the Speaker of the National Assembly to bar MPs whose election were nullified by the High Court from attending Parliament until their appeals to the Constitutional Court are determined is wrong and undermines the judiciary and the principle of separation of powers.
“The ConCourt ruled in 2016 in the case of Mwanakatwe v Charlotte Scott that by operation of Article 73 (4) of the constitution, an appeal to the ConCourt acts as a stay of the decision of the High Court. This means until the case relating to an election petition is disposed of in the Constitutional Court, the matter is considered active or undetermined, and the affected MPs have the right to remain in parliament. Nelly Mutti either did not read the judgement in the Mwanakatwe case or is out to undermine the judiciary, which would make her the female version of Patrick Matibini!
“If you remember, in 2016, the High Court nullified the election of Mwanakatwe as MP for Lusaka Central constituency. Mwanakatwe then appealed against the verdict to the Constitutional Court. While waiting for her appeal case to be determined, she applied for a stay of the High Court’s decision so that she could remain in parliament. The ConCourt via a single judge, Enoch Mulembe, ruled that there was no need for her to seek a stay because her appeal served as one and allowed her to remain in parliament until the matter was conclusively decided by the Constitutional Court. This is the precedence on this subject, one that may explain why the affected MPs this time did not apply for a stay.
“The purpose of that constitutional provision that allows an MP to remain in parliament pending the determination of their petition was to prevent the creation of a vacuum in the office of MP while the case remained undetermined by the courts. If the High Court verdict was final, despite an appeal, the result would have been a vacancy in the affected constituency.
“Now can you imagine a scenario where a by-election is held after the High Court nullifies a sitting MP’s election only for the ConCourt to overturn the ruling of the lower court on appeal by the affected MP but after the by-election has already taken place? There will be chaos.
“There is no finality to an election petition decided by the High Court, once an appeal against the ruling has been filed in the ConCourt, until after the determination of that appeal by the superior court. By making that ruling, the Speaker either genuinely misread the law, is unforgivably ignorant of the fact that the word ‘determination’ as used in Article 73 (4) has been interpreted by the ConCourt to include the appeal, or is simply incompetent.
“Her main mistake was to venture into constitutional interpretation using the law within herself. Ati “practical application” monga ni kumushi pa nsaka? The Speaker should read the Mwanakatwe v Charlotte ruling by Enoch Mulembe (l doubt she would have come to that ruling if she had read the case), swallow her pride and reverse her ruling. That would be the right thing to do.
“Unless the ConCourt vacates its decision in the Charlotte v Mwanakatwe case (and for that to happen, someone will have to apply to the full bench to reverse the ruling of a single judge), its decision that “where there is an appeal, the law, as per constitutional provisions, has stated that the seat only becomes vacant after the final determination of the constitutional court” stands.
“We can criticise the ConCourt for its bad decisions, but that is the institution with the power to interpret the constitution. It is lawless for another institution, the Speaker, or indeed anyone else, to assume the Court’s functions for whatever reasons, or ignore its decisions.”