By 
Attorney-General, Mulilo Kabesha, has told the Constitutional Court that President Hakainde Hichilema had not violated the Constitution or the Political Parties Act, countering accusations filed by the Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) through constitutional lawyer John Sangwa.
LRF had sued the President, the Attorney-General, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Registrar of Societies for allegedly failing to enact the Political Parties Act as required under Article 60(4) of the Constitution.
The provision, introduced in 2016, has never been operationalised, prompting LRF to seek mandatory orders compelling the President to initiate the Political Parties Bill within 30 days.
In its response, the State argued that the petition is misguided because Article 60(4) did not set any timeframe for passing the law.
Kabesha submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to supervise how another arm of government carries out its constitutional functions.
“The Constitution does not impose a rigid deadline, nor does it empower this Court to micromanage the legislative process,” the AG stated.
The State maintained that there had been no deliberate constitutional neglect, insisting the legislative process is already in motion.
Kabesha pointed to the draft Political Parties Bill exhibited by the petitioners as evidence that work had begun.
He added that none of the three constitutionally recognised avenues for introducing a bill had been triggered, meaning the National Assembly cannot yet be faulted.
The respondents also argued that political parties were already regulated under the Societies Act, and that Section 18 of Constitution Amendment Act No. 1 of 2016 requires political parties to align their internal constitutions with Article 60.
Kabesha dismissed claims that delays had eroded public trust, strengthened executive dominance or posed risks to the 2026 elections, calling them speculative.
“There is absolutely no omission, and the allegations of constitutional violation are unsupported by any cogent evidence,” he argued.
He further submitted that compelling Parliament to enact the law within a fixed period would undermine the doctrine of separation of powers, noting that Parliament had exclusive authority over its legislative procedures.
The respondents have asked the Court to dismiss the petition entirely, arguing that LRF was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
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.
Comments