GOVERNANCE Activist Isaac Mwanza has petitioned the Constitutional Court, challenging its judgement in the Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila case, in which it was declared that Constitutional amendment without wide consultations is unconstitutional.

Mwanza alleges that the court contravened the Constitution by determining that every constitutional amendment requires consultation before the process is initiated.

Mwanza, who has cited the Attorney General as the respondent in the matter, is seeking an order setting aside or vacating the majority decision of the Constitutional Court dated June 27, 2025, for want of consideration of material constitutional provisions and for judicial overreach.

He is also seeking a declaration that Article 64(1) and Article 88(1) as read together with Article 89(1), empowers a Minister, member of parliament, or a citizen to initiate a constitutional amendment process without prior public consultation, provided that public involvement is subsequently facilitated by the National Assembly.

Mwanza wants a declaration that the majority judgement in the case was rendered per incuriam (with lack of due regard to the law) by not considering the best practices for initiating constitutional amendments in commonwealth and comparative jurisdictions like the United States of America, South Africa, Ghana, Malawi.

He argued that in the above jurisdictions, constitutional amendments were initiated by the Executive or members of Parliament and citizens, among others, and subjected to consultations through various channels in the Legislature.

Mwanza further wants a declaration that the decision of the court creates an absurdity to the effect that a citizen, a member of parliament, a Minister or the President cannot initiate amendment to the Constitution even for minor amendments without wide consultations through the use of an independent Technical Committee which is not even established under the Constitution.

Lastly, Mwanza seeks a declaration that the decision of the Constitutional Court requiring wide consultation with the Zambian people failed to distinguish between the level of public participation required in a constitution-amendment process and that required in a constitution-making process.

Last week, the Constitutional Court held that the state’s decision to initiate a Constitution amendment process before undertaking wide consultations with the people goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

In his petition, Mwanza argued that the decision of the court constituted a contravention of the Constitution.

“The Petitioner alleges that the decision of the Court constitutes a contravention of the Constitution, as outlined below: (i) That the majority decision of the Court was made per incuriam of Article 88(1), when read together with Standing Orders 131, 132, 133, and 134 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, 2024, which expressly allow both citizens and the National Assembly to initiate the constitutional amendment process and Article 91(2) as read together with Section 2(2)(d) of the Inquiries Act by determining that every constitutional amendment requires consultation before the process is initiated,” he stated.

“(ii) The Court’s prescription of the procedure to be followed in initiating a constitutional amendment rather than enjoining Parliament to enact legislation to regulate such a process exceeded its constitutional mandate under Article 128(1). In doing so, the Court effectively imposed procedural requirements akin to legislation, thereby contravening Article 62(2) of the Constitution, which vests legislative authority exclusively in Parliament”.

Mwanza further submitted that the Court’s judgement, before the Bill was drafted, amounted to an unlawful usurpation of Executive authority.

“The Court’s decision purporting to determine how the constitutional amendment process must be initiated, even before a Bill is drafted, amounts to an unlawful usurpation of executive authority to determine the level of consultation in contravention of Article 91(2) of the Constitution and that the decision also failed to take into account that the amendment process had already been deferred to allow for public engagement,” stated Mwanza.