The Judicial Veto: LAZ and CSOs Petition ConCourt on Constitutional Amendment Process Legitimacy

The current constitutional landscape is marked by a significant judicial intervention, as a broad coalition of prominent legal and civil society organizations formally petitioned the Constitutional Court to halt and invalidate the ongoing constitutional amendment process. Data verified via current search results based on legal reporting from November 18, 2025, confirms that the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), alongside institutional bodies including NGOCC, the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, the Council of Churches in Zambia, the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the LCK Freedom Foundation, have cited the Attorney General as the respondent, thereby challenging the actions of the State apparatus. This collective action signifies a pivotal moment in the nation’s jurisprudence, shifting the debate over the methodology of constitutional reform from the political sphere to the judicial domain.

The essence of the petition is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the executive-led review mechanism. The petitioners are seeking an order of the court that would effectively quash all instruments and outcomes stemming from the current initiative, specifically demanding the nullification of all acts, consultations, findings, recommendations, and draft Bills produced by the appointed Technical Committee on Constitution amendments. Furthermore, the petition targets the procedural foundation of the process itself, requiring the quashing of the specific Terms of Reference that were issued on October 20, 2025. This request is predicated on the legal principle that the current mechanism lacks the necessary foundational legitimacy required for such fundamental national exercises.

Crucially, the petition extends beyond mere invalidation of the current process, seeking a mandatory directive that establishes a clear precedent for future constitutional discourse. The consortium demands an order requiring the government to initiate any subsequent constitutional review or amendment process exclusively through a defined, statutorily enabled mechanism. This mechanism must be demonstrably independent, transparent, inclusive, and genuinely people-driven. In demanding this structural change, the petitioners are advocating for the Constitutional Court to affirm a high-water mark for participatory democracy in matters of fundamental law, thereby seeking a judicial declaration that the reliance by the Executive on ad hoc, non-legislated processes for constitutional change is incompatible with established democratic tenets.