Public Order Bill Unconstitutional
The Public Order Bill (2019) has been labelled unconstitutional by Professor Muna Ndulo and may even be worse than the much-criticised current Public Order Act that hails from colonial times.
“In my view its contents are worse than the existing Public Order Act. Its proper name should be Public Order Plus Act,” Ndulo has stated.
Professor Ndulo has written a paper on the proposed piece of legislation entitled ‘The Public Order Bill, 2019 and the Right to Assembly in a Democratic State.’
“For the avoidance of any doubt, the right to assemble is a constitutional right, provided for and guaranteed by Article 21 of the Zambian Constitution. Article 21 provides that: ‘except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of Assembly and Association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to any political party, trade union or other association for the protection of his or her interest’.”
Another problem identified by Professor Ndulo with the proposed Bill relates to freedom of speech. He has also warned regarding the powers and discretion given to police to refuse to hold meetings.
“A law which confers a discretion on a public official without indicating with sufficient precision the limits of that discretion does not satisfy the quality of the ‘law’ contemplated in article 21 by the requirements of prescribed law. Indeed, to imagine that that citizens will vest such vast and potentially wild powers in the Police will be to suggest that they have predetermined their liberties and freedom. Such bondage is not reasonably foreseeable in any constitutional democracy.”
Ndulo argues that given that the Bill violates key constitutional provisions the proposed legislation would be “unconstitutional and invalid.”
The existing Public Order Act was introduced in 1955. Successive government’s have pledged to reform the heavy handed and out-dated piece of legislation that was designed to govern ‘subjects’ rather than ‘citizens’, and has often been deployed in order to batter the opposition and civil society. Its continued use has been linked to human rights violations, attracting frequent criticism.
