The Editor Zambia
Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance secretary general Muhabi Lungu’s questioning of the legality of Speaker of National Assembly Nelie Muti’s recognition of NRPUP leader Ezra Tembo as leader of the opposition in parliament is surprising and shows lack of understanding of the law making institutions.
The attempts by Muhabi Lungu to bring the Speaker of the National Assembly in the Tonse Alliance theatrical of confusion is disappointing. The opposition has failed to organize itself in Parliament. They have failed to produce a united opposition front. 
Ezra Tembo has a party and has numbers, and has the recognition of the House, while Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance has only press statements and Facebook live videos.
The threats by the uncoordinated Muhabi Lungu to consider legal action to challenge the Speaker’s decision to recognize Ezra Tembo as leader of the opposition shows gross ignorance of the law and an abuse of court processes.
This is desperation masquerading as legal strategy by people who have no understanding of parliamentary procedure.
Muhabi Lungu calls himself a lawyer. Yet his accusation of the Speaker, disregarding the constitution and parliamentary standing orders are completely misplaced.
Muhabi Lungu should direct himself look at the Moses Sakala v Attorney General and Others judgement, 2023/CCZ/0025, in which the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 74(2) – The appointment and election of the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly.
How the election of the leader of the opposition is conducted is not prescribed by the Constitution but is purely an internal affair of the political party.
“The Speaker of the National Assembly plays no role in the election/selection of the leader of the opposition as this is purely an intraparty political affair. How the largest opposition political party in the National Assembly will arrive at its selection/decision is purely within its authority and control.”
The full judgment: https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2024/10/eng@2024-06-25/source
How is Muhabi Lungu accusing the Speaker of imposing Ezra Lungu as leader of opposition when the process is a political party internal matter?
Under Article 74(2), the opposition political party with the largest number of seats in the National Assembly elects the leader of the opposition.
The candidate must be a Member of Parliament belonging to an opposition political party and the decision is communicated to the national assembly by the political party.
Under Rule 43 of the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2021, the Speaker receives written communication notifying her of the person elected.
The speaker is not required to demand meeting minutes, count votes or investigate the party’s internal selection process.
The Constitution does not prescribe one particular method of election. The party may use a caucus meeting, party polls or another process recognised within its structures.
In simple terms, the Constitution tells us who chooses the leader, but leaves the party to decide how it makes that choice. The Court also clarified that participation need not be restricted to opposition MPs alone. The party’s wider membership and structures may be involved.
That is why, in this case, the Constitutional Court dismissed Moses Sakala’s petition challenging the selection of the then leader of the house.
The speaker should stand firm and not be intimidated by these empty threats. Parliament must be protected from politicians who do not respect the separation of powers.
Muhabi Lungu should take time to read the court ruling on the matter he is considering taking to court.
