- Judge throws out application by LCK Freedom Foundation, Chapter One Foundation
CHOMBA MUSIKA
Lusaka
THE Lusaka High Court has dismissed a bid by LCK Freedom Foundation and Chapter One Foundation to block Government’s decision to table and process 77 bills, few days before the dissolution of Parliament on Tuesday next week.
Judge Lameck Mwale threw out the application for judicial review against tabling of the bills because his court has no jurisdiction to do so but the Constitutional Court.
The judge found that the judicial review application by the applicants was inviting it to delve into the realm of constitutional interpretation, which is exclusively a preserve of the Constitutional Court.
“I take the view that a
matter that is purely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court cannot be launched by way of judicial review under Order 53 of the White Book on the pretext that it is public law,” Judge Mwale said.
“Therefore, given the want of jurisdiction on the part of this court, I am not satisfied that there is a case fit for further investigation at a full inter-parte hearing. Put nakedly, the applicants’ application is without hope.”
He added: “In the premises, I come to the inescapable conclusion that the application for leave should be denied for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.”
LCK Freedom Foundation and Chapter One Foundation had filed an application for judicial review seeking to prevent the tabling and processing of the 77 bills before Parliament.
The two organisations sought an order to stay the tabling and processing of the Bills and declare the decision to process the proposed pieces of legislation within the compressed timeframe unlawful and irrational.
LCK Freedom Foundation executive director Linda Kasonde submitted that the two organisations contended that both the compressed timeframe and the suspension of the National Assembly’s Standing Orders to achieve it were unlawful and unconstitutional.
They further argued that the compressed timeframe in which to table and process the Bills, without adequate provision for meaningful public participation, was inconsistent with Article 89 of the Constitution.
They wanted the court to declare that any Bills that have been passed in contravention of the minatory participatory requirements under Article 89 of the Constitution are null and void.
But Judge Mwale ruled that the issues the applicants sought to redress can only be interpreted properly by the Constitutional Court…https://enews.daily-mail.co.zm/welcome/home
