Munir Zulu and Anor v Attorney General and Ors (2025/CCZ/009) (10 December 2025) – ZambiaLII

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2025/CCZ/009 AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Constitutional Jurisdiction) IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 128 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 1 (2), 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 and 79 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO HEAR A MATTER THAT ALLEGES THAT A PROPOSED LAW CONTRAVENES THE CONSTITUTION IN THE MATTER OF: THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO HEAR A MATTER THAT ALLEGES THAT A PROPOSED LAW CONTRAVENES THE CONSTITUTION IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 1(2), 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 AND 79 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF: THE PER INCURIAM DECISION OF THE COURT DATED 30TH JULY, 2020. BETWEEN: REPUBLIC ~ ZAMBIA CONSTITUTIONAL COURT O'F ZAMBIA MUNIR ZULU 1st PETITIONER 10 DEC 20~ ~ CELESTINE MUKANDILA 2ND PETITIONER AND REGISTRY 1 P O BOX 50067, LUSAKA I • THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT NELLY MUTTI 1 sr ALLEGED CONTEMNOR (SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) PRINCESS KASUNE (MINISTER OF JUSTICE) 2N°ALLEGED CONTEMNOR MALUNGO CHISANGANO (15r DEPUTY 3Ro ALLEGED CONTEMNOR SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) MOSES MOYO (2N° DEPUTY SPEAKER 4th ALLEGED CONTEMNOR OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) LOVENESS M. MWAKA (CLERK OF THE 5TH ALLEGED CONTEMNOR NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) CECILIA SIKATELE-MAMBWE (DEPUTY 5TH ALLEGED CONTEMNOR CLERK CORPORATE AFFAIRS) STEPHEN C. KAWIMBE (DEPUTY CLERK 7TH ALLEGED CONTEMNOR CLERK CORPORATE AFFAIRS) MR SAGE C. SAMUWIKA (DEPUTY SPEAKER 8TH ALLEGED CONTEMNOR ADMINISTRATION) ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 9TH_172ND ALLEGED CONTEMNOR (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) BEFORE LADY JUSTICE J. Z. MULONGOTI. IN CHAMBERS ON THE grH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nymibili of Messrs Makebi Zulu Advocates For the Respondent: N/A Alleged Contemnor Mr. M. Sampa - In Person For the Other Alleged: N/A Contemnors RULING Cases referred to: 1. Mutembo Nchito v The Attorney General 2016/CCZ/0029 Legislation referred to: The Constitutional Court Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2016. [1] The ruling relates to an application by the petitioners for summons to commence contempt and committal proceedings pursuant to Order 9 Rule 20(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules (CCR) Statutory Instrument No. 37 of 2016. [2] Order 9 Rule 20(1) provides thus: -R2- An interlocutory application under the Act shall be by summons or notice of motion, as the case may be. [3] The summons is supported by an affidavit sworn by the second petitioner. The essence is that: this Court delivered judgment on 27th June, 2025 where it declared that the process that led to Bill 7 was unconstitutional. Thus, after Judgment Bill 7 should have been withdrawn completely but the 1st Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly announced that she had received communication from the Ministry of Justice to the effect that Bill 7 which was deferred on 26th June, 2025 was going to be brought in the House and that the Committee that was tasked to review the Bill would commence its sittings immediately. [4] Furthermore, that the actions of the 1st Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly are highly contemptuous and disrespectful to the Court. Additionally, that any National Assembly Official or any Member of Parliament that continue participating in this illegal Constitutional Amendment process are all acting in contempt of the Court. [5] That this Court has jurisdiction to cite all participants in this illegal Constitutional Amendment Bill 7 for contempt of court. And that the Court can take judicial notice of the blatant disregard for the authority of this court by the alleged contemnors. -R3- [6] In their skeleton arguments in support of the application, the petitioners submit that in the case of Mutembo Nchito v The Attorney General(1l this court guided that unlike the High Court, the Constitutional Court was not a divisional court hence the right for an application for leave before commencing contempt proceedings to does exist (sic). Thus, in this Court you simply proceed to file an application for contempt. [7] That the Court has requisite authority to immediately proceed with contempt proceedings without leave being sought. [8] That as stated in the affidavit all persons cited should appear before this Court and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. [9] At the hearing of the application Mr. Nyimbili informed me that all the alleged contemnors had been served but his firm neglected to file an affidavit of service. [1O ] The respondent and all the alleged contemnors were absent except Mr. Sampa, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Matero. [11] I proceeded to hear the application since I have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory applications as a single Judge. Mr. Nyimbili relied on the summons, the affidavit in support and the skeleton arguments. Mr. -R4- Sampa the MP for Matero informed the Court that he was aware of the contempt application and because of that he had stopped attending to proceedings regarding Bill 7. [12] I have considered the summons, affidavit in support and skeleton arguments filed by the petitioner. I must state from the onset that I am inclined to dismiss the application for being misconceived. I say so because Order 9 Rule 20 (1) pursuant to which the application is made provides for interlocutory applications in general by stating the mode of commencement for an interlocutory application. [13] It is settled law that an interlocutory application is typically made where a party is seeking an interim order (see Order X Rule 2(1) CCR). Such an interim order is granted during or pending the hearing of the main matter like an injunction pending hearing of the main matter. The main matter in casu between the petitioners and the respondent was heard and determined by the full bench of the Court with Judgment being delivered on 27th June, 2025. There is nothing pending regarding the main matter. Granted, a party may apply for interlocutory application via summons or notice of motion before or after hearing but they must state the correct rule pursuant to which the application is made for -RS- instance misjoinder or non-joinder is provided for under Order 5 Rule 2 of the CCR. [14] This is how the petitioners should have proceeded by stating which rule of the CCR or section of the Constitutional Court Act; provides for the application sought herein. Order 9 Rule 20(1) on its own is insufficient as it merely states the mode of commencement for filing an interlocutory application. [15] The ruling of the single Judge in Mutembo Nchito v The Attorney Genera1111 relied upon (and is not binding,) was on an application for contempt pursuant to Order 52 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The application before me has not cited any rule or law supporting it. [16] In the net result, I find that the summons for an interlocutory application is misconceived as aforestated. I, accordingly, dismiss the application. I make no order as to costs. Dated at Lusaka the 10th day of December, 2025 . .. . . ~ ~ti .......... . Constitutional Court Judge -R6-