Speaker’s controversial handling of Bill 7 could undermine 2026 polls, former MP, Sensio, warns

Former Kasenengwa Constituency lawmaker, Sensio Banda, says the Speaker’s controversial handling of the ruling on Bill 7, which appears to contradict the Court’s decision, threaten to undermine the credibility of the 2026 general elections.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2025, Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti ruled that Bill 7 can still return to Parliament for further consideration, should the Minister of Justice Princess Kasune choose to proceed with it.

Banda told Zambia Monitor that the country finds itself at a political crossroads following the Constitutional Court’s decision on June 27, 2025 that declared Bill 7 unlawful due to insufficient public consultation.

He stated that the core issue centered on whether Parliament, under Mutti, can legally continue deliberations on the Bill, given its autonomy as delineated in Article 62, or whether doing so would violate the supremacy of the constitution and the binding nature of the court’s ruling.

“The constitutional court holds original and final jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation and alleged breaches, as per Articles 128–129. Its decisions are final and non-appealable,” Banda stated.

He added that the court’s role in law interpretation was explicitly empowered, and that its authority superseded all else including legislative intentions.

Banda argued that the Courts of Law had the power and finality on the interpretation of constitutional matters and that Article 62 vested legislative authority exclusively in Parliament and Article 80 enabled internal parliamentary committees.

“However, this autonomy is not absolute. Article 80(11) affirms that no entity, parliament included, is beyond judicial review when it concerns constitutional compliance,” he said.

Banda said the Court’s verdict effectively rendered Bill 7 null and void, meaning further debate or passage would contradict constitutional supremacy.

He stated that Parliament retained discretion to proceed post-verdict, with Mutti relying on legislative autonomy but that this position faced conflicts with the Constitution.

Banda argued that if Parliament continued deliberation, it risked violating Article 1, establishing Zambia as a constitutional state—and flouting the final authority of the Constitutional Court.

“If the Executive and the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), emboldened by the Speaker’s stance, proceeded with by-elections in Kabushi and Kwacha despite existing court injunctions, it signaled a serious breakdown in the separation of powers and deepening systemic unconstitutionalism by government,” he said.

Banda argued that by potentially by-passing judicial authority, the UPND government risked eroding public trust, dismantling constitutional checks and balances, and setting a dangerous precedent that compromises judicial independence and the rule of law.

“Should the Speaker facilitate advancing Bill 7 in defiance of court judgment, stakeholders may consider legal mechanisms, such as petitions challenging the Speaker’s compliance with Article 79 and court orders, or pursue political recourse through parliamentary discipline,” Banda stated.

He said constitutional scholars warned that this could strain state architecture and expose Zambia to legal disputes concerning the legitimacy of laws enacted under these contested circumstances.

WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.