LAZ Says Closure Timing Threatens Constitutional Rights

LAZ Demands Explanation As Court Closures Collide With Election Petition Window The Law Association of Zambia has raised sharp concern over the closure of courts nationwide, coupled with the presence of heavily armed military personnel around court premises, demanding a formal…

LAZ Demands Explanation As Court Closures Collide With Election Petition Window

The Law Association of Zambia has raised sharp concern over the closure of courts nationwide, coupled with the presence of heavily armed military personnel around court premises, demanding a formal public explanation for the action. LAZ president Arnold Kaluba said in a statement that the closure carries immediate implications for access to justice, particularly for people requiring urgent judicial intervention, including those with pending criminal proceedings, bail applications and habeas corpus matters.

Kaluba grounded his objection in specific constitutional text. He cited Article 13(3) of the Constitution, which requires that a person arrested or detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence and who is not released, be brought without undue delay before a court. He said any disruption to the ordinary operations of courts must be managed in a manner that ensures affected persons do not suffer prejudice and that constitutional rights continue to receive effective judicial protection.

What makes the timing especially significant, Kaluba said, is Article 103(1) of the Constitution, which provides a strict seven-day window within which a person may petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of a President-elect following the declaration of results. He warned that closing the courts during this constitutionally prescribed period creates a real risk that persons seeking to exercise that right may be prejudiced by uncertainty over access to court registries, filing facilities and judicial officers.

Kaluba said LAZ is demanding an explanation from the judiciary, arguing it is imperative that the institution immediately clarify the arrangements in place to ensure no person is prejudiced in exercising a constitutional or statutory right because of the closure, including any applicable filing deadline. He was careful to acknowledge that LAZ recognises exceptional circumstances, including genuine and immediate security concerns that may require temporary protective measures for judicial officers, staff, litigants and the public.

However, Kaluba stressed that any such measures must be lawful, proportionate and implemented in a way that preserves access to justice and respects the constitutional independence and autonomy of the judiciary. He demanded the urgent restoration of access to the courts and the resumption of filing, receipt and hearing of matters as soon as it becomes safe and practicable to do so.

Pending full reopening, Kaluba said the judiciary must immediately establish and publicly communicate alternative arrangements for the filing and receipt of urgent and time-sensitive matters, and, where necessary, ensure such matters can be placed before a judicial officer without undue delay. He called for particular priority to be given to matters affecting personal liberty, including habeas corpus and bail applications, as well as constitutional, electoral and other proceedings subject to strict statutory or constitutional timelines.

Kaluba said the judiciary must ensure no person is prejudiced by the closure in respect of any applicable filing deadline, and should issue directions or make arrangements as necessary to preserve parties’ legal and constitutional rights. He further called for prompt communication to legal practitioners, litigants and the public regarding the reasons for the closure, its geographical scope, expected duration and the arrangements for continued access to justice, along with clarification of the legal and institutional basis for the security measures, to the extent such information can properly be disclosed without compromising legitimate security considerations.

LAZ’s intervention adds institutional and legal weight to concerns already raised separately by other bodies, including the Human Rights Commission and civil society organisations, over the timing of the court closures relative to the constitutional petition deadline.