The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), three major church mother bodies, the Non-Governmental Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC) and LCK Freedom Foundation seeking to halt the work of the Presidential Technical Committee on Constitutional Amendments.
In a ruling delivered in chambers, Constitutional Court Judge Maria Kawimbe held that the petitioners failed to meet the legal threshold for the conservatory orders they sought, which would have stopped all sittings, consultations and drafting activities of the 25-member committee appointed on 2nd October 2025.
The petitioners had argued that the committee was unlawfully constituted, lacked independence and was operating in violation of constitutional norms and the court’s June 2025 decision in Munir Zulu & Celestine Mukandila vs the Attorney General.
The petitioners further contended that the President had no authority to establish the body without a gazetted legal framework and that the accelerated 12-day national consultation period risked producing an illegitimate amendment process.
Affidavits and submissions by Counsel Linda Kasonde, the organisations warned that unless the court intervened, the committee would finalise its draft report before their main petition is heard, rendering the case “nugatory” and causing irreparable harm to constitutional legitimacy.
They also cited alleged procedural irregularities, poor publicity of sittings, exclusion of rural communities and what they described as a pre-determined agenda mirroring the previously rejected Bill No. 7 of 2025.
But the State, represented by Solicitor General Marshall Muchende, argued that the committee was properly appointed under Articles 91(2)(f) and (j) of the constitution and was operating lawfully.
An affidavit by committee Vice-Chairperson Landilani Banda stated that more than 11,000 submissions have already been received across the country and that the committee was now finalising its draft report, stating that halting the process at this stage, would defeat public interest and undermine the expectations of citizens who participated.
In her ruling, Justice Kawimbe observed that while the issues raised in the main petition are substantive and require full consideration by the full bench, the interim application could not succeed because the petitioners had not demonstrated imminent irreparable harm, nor that the balance of convenience favoured stopping the process.
She emphasised that a conservatory order must protect the public interest, not create conditions favourable to one party before the matter is fully heard.
“The relief sought,” she noted, “drafted in very broad strokes and would effectively suspend the entire constitution-making process, an outcome that risked determining the substantive issues prematurely, which a single judge considering interim relief is not empowered to do”.
Justice Kawimbe also found that the petitioners’ fears about the committee’s eventual draft bill were speculative, as no final product exists yet.
The alleged harm, she held, was neither “unmistakably real nor capable of being assessed at this stage” she stated.
She cautioned the petitioners against introducing evidence from the main petition into the interim application, noting that doing so blurred the line between interlocutory and substantive proceedings.
On the balance of convenience, the court held that public interest favoured allowing the committee to continue its work, citing the large number of public submissions and the need to avoid undermining citizen participation already undertaken.
The judge stated that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the three-part test commonly applied in constitutional conservatory applications, establishing a prima facie case, demonstrating imminent irreparable harm and showing that public interest and the balance of convenience favour intervention.
“The petitioners have not successfully met the threshold for the grants of a conservatory order, their application is unsuccessful and accordingly dismissed.” She stated.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
The main petition challenging the legality of the Technical Committee’s establishment and operations remains pending before the Constitutional Court.
