Rushed Bills undermining Constitution, says Kalala

By NATION REPORTER

THE large number of Bills currently before Parliament and the accelerated pace at which they are being processed is undermining proper scrutiny and public participation, Josiah Kalala, the Chapter One Foundation executive director has said.

Mr Kalala said the issue was not merely the volume of proposed laws, but whether there had been sufficient time and opportunity for stakeholders to meaningfully engage with the legislative process.

“The concern is legitimate. It is not simply about the number of Bills, but whether there has been sufficient time and space for proper scrutiny,” Mr Kalala said.

He cited Article 89 of the Constitution, which requires the National Assembly to facilitate public involvement in law-making, stating that such participation must go beyond procedure and be genuinely substantive.

“Meaningful participation requires adequate notice, access to the Bills, and a genuine opportunity for stakeholders to interrogate and influence the content. A compressed legislative timetable risks reducing this to a procedural exercise,” Mr Kalalasaid.

He said implications of the legislative process were particularly significant in an election year, especially for laws directly affecting governance and political activity.

Mr Kalala said the Electoral Process Amendment Bill and the Public Gatherings Bill as key pieces of legislation with the potential to shape the electoral environment ahead of the August 13 general election.

“These laws directly affect how elections are conducted and how citizens organise, speak and participate. Elections are not confined to polling day—they are defined by the broader conditions under which democratic engagement takes place,” he said.

Mr Kalala warned that late-stage legal changes could materially alter those conditions, raising concerns about fairness and transparency in the electoral process.

He also raised concerns about parliamentary quorum and participation, warning that low attendance or limited debate could weaken both the credibility of the legislative process and the legitimacy of the resulting laws. “Laws require full parliamentary engagement. If legislative business proceeds in a context of low attendance or limited debate, it weakens both the credibility of the process and the legitimacy of the outcome,” Mr Kalala said.

He said the durability of the proposed laws would depend on both the process through which they were enacted and their substantive alignment with constitutional principles.

“Laws developed without meaningful participation, or which undermine constitutional standards, are vulnerable to legal challenge and public contestation,” he said.

Mr Kalala called for a more transparent, consultative and constitutionally compliant legislative process, particularly given the heightened sensitivities surrounding governance in an election year.

“We cannot speak to the motives behind all the laws, but some proposals are certainly concerning, especially those relating to the Electoral Process Bill, the Public Gatherings Bill and the Human Rights Commission Bill,” he said.