Constitutional court rejects bid to revive ministers’ stay-in-office debate, labels case ‘hypothetical’

The Constitutional Court has rejected an attempt to reopen debate on its landmark ruling that Cabinet and Provincial Ministers illegally remained in office after Parliament is dissolved.

Lusaka lawyer, Miza Phiri returned to court arguing that the bench overlooked crucial constitutional provisions—Articles 29 and 30—which grant the President power to declare war or a state of emergency in consultation with Cabinet.

Read more: Ex-president Lungu slams Hichilema over attempt to reverse another key constitutional court decision, calls for action

He sought clarity on whether, in such scenarios, the President must recall Parliament before consulting ministers when the House is dissolved.

Phiri also asked the court to determine if Cabinet and Provincial Ministers could legally remain in office during the dissolution period, citing Articles 29, 30, 116(3)(e), and 117(2)(d).

However, in a firm ruling, a seven-member panel led by Constitutional Court Deputy, President Arnold Shilimi dismissed the petition as “hypothetical” and lacking factual basis.

The court noted that no war or state of emergency had been declared during any dissolution of Parliament, rendering the questions purely academic.

The bench distinguished the matter from the 2016 Steven Katuka case, where ministers were ordered to vacate office immediately after dissolution and later refund more than K4.2 million to the state. The current case, the court said, dealt with scenarios that had never occurred.

Phiri had urged the court to overturn the Katuka precedent, relying on reasoning from the Chizombe case.

But the judges held that departures from precedent only happen in “exceptional circumstances” backed by real events, not theoretical arguments.

The court also struck out his late references to the June 2021 COVID-19 pandemic, ruling that they were irregularly introduced and outside the scope of the originating summons.

“All in all, we find that the applicant’s case is bereft of merit for being hypothetical and is accordingly dismissed,” the court ruled.

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.