… politicians should resist reducing constitutional matters to mere partisan political excitement to mislead the public on serious issues.
The Editor Zambia
The attacks on the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, and the entire legislative wing of government for not kicking out some Members of Parliament who have endorsed President Hakainde Hichilema are unjustifiable and mischievous. 
Politicians should avoid creating a dangerous precedent where constitutional provisions are deliberately misinterpreted and Parliament is turned into a battlefield of endless retaliatory measures to destabilise governance.
Understandable that political temperatures are rising, there is a need to resist reducing constitutional matters to mere partisan political excitement to mislead the public on serious issues.
Parliament or any other wing of government is not a makeshift market at matebeto or mutendere market. Parliament has official communication channels and policy on how decisions are made.
The ongoing debate surrounding MPs who are crossing the floor to primarily join the ruling party, while their seats remain undeclared vacant by the Speaker, has exposed something deeper than politics.
The debate has exposed gaps, contradictions, and unresolved tensions in our constitutional order, mainly driven by jealous envy and tribalism.
Analysts say democracy must never become a victim of selective outrage or selective interpretation of the “Constitution”.
The hullaballoo about Article 72 of the Constitution appears, on the face of it, to suggest that an MP who resigns from the sponsoring political party loses the seat.
The legal reality is more complex than the emotional reality being debated on social media.
People should take into consideration that making an announcement at a political rally and actually submitting a resignation letter to the Speaker are two different things.
The decisions by parliament cannot be influenced by how briefcase or makeshift political leaders hallucinate. They can only act on the official communication.
Parliament cannot act based on social media or drinking spree hearsay. It can only act when official communication is made by the affected political parties.
Previously, matters involving defections and expulsions, the judiciary became central in determining whether a seat had legally fallen vacant. This is precedence.
The speaker may be trying to avoid acting outside judicial guidance, especially where constitutional interpretation is disputed or where court action may still arise.
The said Members of Parliament will continue to attend sittings normally until the official communication is made.
Analysts have wondered why the people commenting are not encouraging the PF to officially write to the speaker to officially expel the affected MPs from the party and consequently parliament?
They have questioned the motive behind throwing political comments and not just doing the right thing.
The speaker will not act on hearsay and social media opinions.
Over the years, the courts have repeatedly guided that the Speaker is not a court of law and cannot unilaterally become the final interpreter of contested constitutional matters.
Politicians should not use the Constitution to mislead the public but should instead, explain why some seats are not immediately declared vacant despite public pressure. There is a need for opposition politicians to be honest and tell the people the truth.
The Constitution bars defections, yet the procedure for immediate enforcement remains unclear. It appears there is a lacuna here. The law should never leave matters to speculation.
The law creates uncertainty about whether the speaker acts automatically or must wait for judicial confirmation.
Kicking out MPs that have endorsed or crossed to the ruling party at the rallies is an academic exercise.
In such a scenario, the affected MPs could challenge the decision in court. Parliament dissolves in the eight days’ time.
Some of these MPs are coming from political parties suffering internal disputes over legitimate leadership, making enforcement even more difficult.
Robert Chabinga is a legally recognised leader of the Patriotic Front (PF).
It is for this reason that politicians should resist reducing this matter into a mere partisan excitement.
Today, it may appear to favour one political side. Tomorrow, it may favour another, but if institutions lose credibility, it is Zambia that suffers.
Zambians must not be deceived; Zambia must protect both constitutional order and political stability.
Zambians must avoid creating a dangerous precedent where constitutional provisions are ignored and must equally avoid turning Parliament into a battlefield of endless retaliatory seat nullifications that destabilise governance.
These efforts to mislead the public will not enhance opposition political parties’ popularity as the country heads towards the general elections.
