Law Commons^™

Fundamental Rights Not So Fundamental? Critique Of The Supreme Court Judgment In Law Association Of Zambia V. The Attorney General, Muna B. Ndulo, Samuel Ngure Ndungu

Southern African Journal of Policy and Development

The article discusses the constitutionality of sections 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act of Zambia. The Law Association of Zambia had unsuccessfully argued in the High Court of Zambia that the sections violated section 20 (Freedom of expression) and 21 (Freedom of assembly) of the Zambian Constitution. The Supreme Court of Zambia upheld the decision of the High Court and held that the sections did not violate sections 20 and 21 of the constitution and were constitutional. This article argues that the Supreme Court decision is wrong and falls short of effectively protecting citizen’s rights of peaceful assembly …

Debate, Richard Primus, Kevin M. Stack, Christopher Serkin, Nelson Tebbe

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Katuka V Electoral Commission Of Zambia (2016/Cc/0025) [2016] Zmcc 2 (9 August 2016), Chanda Chungu

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Katuka And Law Association Of Zambia Vs Inonge Wina And Others (2016/Cc/0010/2016/Cc/0011) [2016] Zmcc 1, Tinenenji Banda

SAIPAR Case Review

The discrete legal issue to be decided by the Court was whether the continued stay in office by the Vice President, Cabinet Ministers, Provisional Ministers and Deputy Ministers – after the dissolution of Parliament on 11th May, 2016, and after the enactment of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016, was ultra vires the constitution and therefore unconstitutional. If unconstitutional, a follow up issue was whether the salaries, allowances, and emoluments drawn by the above officials during their unlawful stay in office should be repaid. The case was filed as three separate causes, but by consent of …

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Minority Judgement, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

On September 5th 2016, there was tension in the packed Constitutional Court. Three out of five Constitutional Court judges (i.e., Anne Mwewa-Sitali, Mugeni Mulenga and Palan Mulonda) dismissed the election petition of Presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema and his running mate Geoffrey Mwamba, on the grounds that the time for hearing the petition had lapsed. The President of the Court Justice Hildah Chibomba, and Justice Margaret Munalula dissented.

Dividing the Court was the interpretation and effect of Articles 101(5) and 103(2) of the Constitution of Zambia. Articles 101 (5) and 103 (2) provide that the Constitutional Court must hear a Presidential …

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Majority Judgment, Muna Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Four Unconstitutional Constitutions And Their Democratic Foundations, Richard Albert

Cornell International Law Journal

The present fascination with the global phenomenon of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment has left open the question whether a constitution can be unconstitutional. To declare an entire constitution unconstitutional seems different in both kind and degree from invalidating a single amendment for violating the architectural core of a constitution, itself undoubtedly an extraordinary action. In this Article, I illustrate and evaluate four different conceptions of an unconstitutional constitution. Each conception draws from a different constitution currently in force around the world, specifically the Constitutions of Canada, Mexico, South Africa and the United States. Despite their unconstitutionality in different senses of …

The Dignity Canon, Noah B. Lindell

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

Human dignity is not a freestanding constitutional right, but it is a strongly held constitutional value. To this point, however, human dignity has had no place in statutory interpretation. This Article argues that courts should create a dignity canon of interpretation, which would operate as a clear statement rule. If laws are to be construed to limit individual dignity, the legislature must expressly this plainly. By conducting re-dos of three Supreme Court cases in the areas of civil rights, criminal procedure, and personal health, the Article shows the promise of the dignity canon.