WHAT MANY ARE MISSING: POLITICAL DECLARATIONS DO NOT REPLACE DUE PROCESS
When emotions run high, many confuse what appears politically obvious with what is constitutionally enforceable. In a democracy governed by law, even the clearest public declaration must still be subjected to formal verification and lawful procedure before any institutional action is taken.
That is the difference between mob sentiment and constitutional order. When a person says, “I have resigned from Party A to join Party B with immediate effect,” two distinct legal consequences are implied:
1. A clear and unequivocal resignation from the former party; and
2. An express declaration of intention to become a member of the new party.
The operative words “with immediate effect” indicate that the decision takes effect at once and is not deferred to some future date. However, in constitutional and parliamentary matters, what ultimately matters is not political interpretation alone, but whether there is sufficient, formal and verifiable evidence before the competent authority to support any action that may affect the tenure of elected Members of Parliament.
That is why the Speaker must be guided by official facts, due process and sound legal advice rather than public excitement or partisan expectations. In other words, the statement may strongly suggest a completed political decision, but the constitutional consequences must still be determined through a lawful and procedurally defensible process.
That is the essence of institutional maturity and respect for the rule of law.
Saviour Chishimba
President, United Progressive People (UPP)
Clearly, there is need to provide firm guidelines on this matter. The current legal framework is inadequate.
The MPs in question, for all intents and purposes, have crossed over to the ruling party and we should not hide behind technicalities. To pretend that they are still with their sponsoring party is to promote dishonesty as a national value.
