This question has remained part of the political and legal discourse in Zambia at all times. My answer to this question is simply, YES – even under the Constitution as amended and the Electoral Process Act, it is the Speaker who has to make a decision and a declaration.
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
The relevant provisions of the Constitution is Article 72, which reads:
“72. (8) Where a vacancy occurs in the National Assembly, the Speaker shall, within seven days of the occurrence of the vacancy, inform the Electoral Commission of the vacancy, in writing, and a by-election shall be held in accordance with Article 57.”
The confusion comes in when people look into Section 96 of the Electoral Process Act which reads:
“96. (1)(b) A question which may arise as to whether the seat of an elected or nominated Member of Parliament, mayor, council chairperson or councillor, has become vacant, other than a question arising from the election of a candidate as a Member of the Parliament may be determined by the High Court or a tribunal, as the case may be.”
The plain reading of these Article 72(8) may leave laymen like me to conclude that the duty of the Speaker is limited to informing the Electoral Commission of the vacancy in the National Assembly but that is not the correct position at law.
Further the reading of Section 96(1)(b) of the Electoral Process Act may raise eyebrows in laymen like me to conclude that a declaration on whether the seat of an elected or nominated Member of Parliament has become vacant can only be made by the High Court; but that reasoning too is wrong at law.
First, there is nothing new about provisions of Section 96(1)(b) which are now contained in the Electoral Act. The same have existed to the stretch of my memory of reading the Constitution when I was a little boy. The exact words were also in repealed Article 72(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zambia, Act No. 18 of 1996. We have just moved that provision from the Constitution to a subordinate Act of Parliament, that is, the Electoral Process Act.
Equally, the need for the Speaker to notify the Commission has been part of our electoral laws. The repealed Electoral Act No. 2 of 1991 provided for the Speaker shall, upon a vacancy occurring in the elected membership of the National Assembly to inform the President and the Commission of such vacancy and repealed Electoral Act of 2016 also provided, in Section 108(1), for notification of the Vacancy was communicated by the Speaker and received by the Commission.
So the question that must be put to rest is whether the Speaker’s duty is limited to notifying the Electoral Commission but not to declare the seat vacant.
My readers may wish to know that the usage of the word, “may” in Section 96(1) (“… may be determined by the High Court or a tribunal”) of the current Electoral Process Act does not make it mandatory for the High Court to become a body of first instance to determine whether a seat of fallen vacant or not. Always note the usage of the word “may” or “shall” whenever you come across these words in the statutes. “shall” is mandatory but “may” is discretionary.
So who has the power to declare the seat vacant?
This matter was considered by both the High Court and Supreme Court of Zambia in the case of THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & THE MOVEMENT FOR MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY vs AKASHAMBATWA MBIKUSITA LEWANIKA and 4 OTHERS in APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1993 and Supreme Court Judgment No. 2 of 1994.
In this case, “Counsel for Miss Kapwepwe contended that it was the duty of the High Court to declare the seats vacant. This was rejected because the High Court only comes in when there is a dispute.” The Supreme Court also did not overturn the High Court decision that states that it is the Speaker who has to make a decision and a declaration.
CONCLUSION
It is established law based on precedence that the High Court only comes in when there is a dispute. The Speaker. Speaker Matibini, has the power to declare the any other seat vacant. The dispute in his current declaration of the Chilanga seat vacant is based on the question as to when a person who had been sentenced to death can be said to be “serving” (as per Article 70(2)(f)) his sentence where an appeal or notice of intention to appeal has been made, and in view of provisions of Section 18(1) of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 25 of the Laws of Zambia. The question is one that require the Constitutional Court to interpret but the power to make a decision and a declaration lies within the powers of Honourable Speaker Patrick Matibini.
(Views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent any institution I may be associated with and neither are they meant to offer a legal opinion. Those seeking a legal opinion can contact the Law Association of Zambia, which is an authority of legal matters in Zambia)
By Isaac Mwanza
Any one can remove ka Keith from Parliament.
Thy shall not kill. He killed.
By-election, some one is scared.
The people of Chilanga definitely need Parliamentary representation. We need reforms to deal with contested elections expeditiously. The Lusaka Central and Munali seats were nullified over half a year ago. Margaret Mwanakatwe and Nkandu Luo should not be in parliament nor cabinet. But we are Zambians and ok with mediocrity
It is just common sense that the seat be declared vacant by the speaker. The people of Chilanga need representation in parliament. Whether Keith is sentenced to death or not he will not represent the people of Chilanga anymore. Ba upnd what’s your problem kanshi? Everything imwe kuilishanya even when one answers to the call of nature imwe everything is wrong. This party is full of complaints starting from the president to the cadres.
Interesting analysis,
Perhaps he did so illegally then.
I did think it was a tad odd
Thanks
BB2014,2016
It’s clear. In this case thy shall declare Keith’s seat vacant. Substituting Thy with Honorable Speaker, It follows that The Honorable Speaker shall declare Keith’s seat vacant.
Well researched article. Surely, why do we overlook such minds when making our laws? This guy must he made part of the reform process of our laws
The writer should have compared this case to the Prof Luo and Mrs Mwanakatwe Petitions. Does Mukuka’s appeal to the Supreme Court not suspend the High Court Ruling? Is this not possible that the Supreme Court might not find Mukuka guilty of Murder? Surely if u properly appeal a Sentence u are not guilty until proven guilty by the Supreme Court in this Case. They cannot kill Keith now until the Appeal is heard and confirmed.
good article,is this the adviser to chishimba kambwili.
That’s us Zambians always making a storm in a cup of tea…instead of debating about pressing issues like this new Insurance Bill or this SI on Water drilling or the Draft Land Bill.
Yes, we tend to concentrate on petty issues. I mean how, for example, could we chose to ignore or trivialize Zodwa’s deportation. I expected Zambian women to stand up for Zodwa and put to an end such unfairness. It starts small but could grow to unmanageable levels like the case is now. Zodwa must come back without fail. Zambians were denied an opportunity to see someone proud of the way they were made-something we all need to embrace.
This is one of the shallowest arguments I have ever had to read. Shame
Ba LT Its not called power. It is called authority
The question that begs an answer is this: Is Mukata serving his sentence? We are doing injustice to posterity if we are going to look at this case from a political position because the issue is purely legal. Suppose the Supreme Court agrees with the appellant and set him Free, what will become of the seat that has been declared vacant?
Much as the Speaker may have the power to declare the seat vacant, the question is at what stage can this power be exercised in the case like this one?
Ba upnd muli mbwa sana. U are only thinking abt Keith while a life was was by this 1d10t.