The Constitutional Court in Zambia has issued a significant ruling affirming the Attorney General’s constitutional independence and delineating his duty as the “keeper of the public interest.” This ruling specifically directed Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha to represent Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti in a petition filed by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ). LAZ’s petition sought to halt all parliamentary proceedings related to the controversial Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025, alleging that the Speaker violated the Constitution by allowing continued debate on the Bill, despite an earlier Court ruling that deemed its originating process unconstitutional due to not being “people-driven.”

A seven-member panel of the Constitutional Court emphasized that Article 177, situated in Part XIII of the Constitution, intentionally strengthens the Attorney General’s autonomy from the Executive. The Court explained that this placement underscores the office’s broad mandate to serve the entire Government, ensuring constitutional fidelity, the rule of law, and the separation of powers are upheld. It was stressed that the Attorney General’s representation extends explicitly to all arms of Government, and all public officers, including the Attorney General, are bound by Article 122 to uphold the Judiciary’s independence and dignity. Crucially, the Court dismissed LAZ’s argument that a conflict of interest with the Executive precluded the Attorney General from representing the Speaker. The Court clarified that the Attorney General is not constitutionally mandated to act in the Executive’s interest if it detrimentally affects other government branches. The Attorney General is also professionally regulated by LAZ and subject to judicial review under Article 267(4).

The ruling further characterized the Attorney General as “essentially in-house counsel for the entire Government system,” highlighting that the Constitution does not require separate legal standing for each branch or institution. To prevent fragmented or contradictory legal positions within the Government, the Court reiterated that legal proceedings against any state organ must be brought through the Attorney General. By relying on its precedent in LAZ v. President of the Republic of Zambia, the Court rejected LAZ’s motion for independent representation for Speaker Mutti, instead ordering Kabesha to be joined as a Respondent in place of the Speaker, an approach deemed consistent with Zambia’s constitutional framework.

In parallel, Chanda Katotobwe, a Patriotic Front Luapula Constituency lawmaker, has voiced strong cautions regarding the constitutional amendment process, particularly concerning Bill No. 7 of 2025. Katotobwe asserted that such processes should be devoid of propaganda, misinformation, or attempts to create an illusion of transparency, emphasizing that propaganda should not be conflated with government performance or national progress. He stressed the necessity for any constitutional amendment to be anchored in integrity, transparency, and genuine national consensus.

Katotobwe expressed dismay at the Government’s perceived insistence on imposing constitutional amendments on the Zambian people. He argued that introducing significant constitutional changes as the country approaches a general election is ill-advised and reflects “bad faith.” Such actions, he suggested, create the impression that the ruling party lacks confidence in securing victory in the upcoming election and views constitutional amendments as a means to retain power. He labeled these as “misplaced priorities” that come at a high cost to the nation, pointing out that Zambia, having been removed from the Least Developed Country (LDC) classification in 2021, returned to it in 2024 with a lower ranking, partly due to poor governance and priorities like Bill No. 7.

Furthermore, Katotobwe contended that Zambia is not facing a constitutional crisis and that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and irrelevant, failing to address critical national challenges such as escalating poverty and strain on the healthcare sector, which ultimately impact lives. He acknowledged and supported the stance taken by the church, including Catholic bishops and clergy, as well as other religious denominations, traditional leaders, and citizens who have defended the Constitution against Bill No. 7. He reiterated the Constitutional Court’s earlier ruling that the bill was illegal and outlined specific directions that, to his knowledge, have not been followed. Katotobwe concluded by insisting that reintroducing Bill No. 7 under current circumstances is unwarranted, especially while the nation grapples with severe economic hardships and rising costs of living.