LAZ Says Reopening Of Courts Does Not Resolve Fallout From Three-Day Closure

LAZ Says Reopening Of Courts Does Not Resolve Fallout From Three-Day Closure The Law Association of Zambia has welcomed the reopening of the courts on Thursday, restoring registry services and judicial business after a shutdown that began the previous Monday. The professional…

LAZ Says Reopening Of Courts Does Not Resolve Fallout From Three-Day Closure

The Law Association of Zambia has welcomed the reopening of the courts on Thursday, restoring registry services and judicial business after a shutdown that began the previous Monday. The professional body was quick to caution, however, that resuming operations does not by itself address the problems the closure created.

Access to justice, LAZ said, is too important to be treated as an administrative matter. Over the preceding days, the association made repeated efforts to engage the judiciary for clarity on why the courts closed, how long the disruption would last, and under what authority it was ordered.

That explanation, the body said, has not been forthcoming in the detail the situation demands. LAZ specifically noted a public statement issued by State House, in which the executive indicated it did not sanction or direct the closure of the courts. The association said it had no reason at this stage to doubt that assertion, effectively ruling out any suggestion of executive interference while leaving open the question of who did authorise the shutdown.

LAZ’s principal concern lies with the practical effect on litigants and legal practitioners. For three days, court users had no comprehensive, publicly communicated alternative for handling urgent applications, filings and procedural deadlines.

The association pointed to specific groups it believes may have been affected. These include accused persons who may have required bail hearings, individuals needing protection from unlawful detention, and survivors of gender-based violence seeking protection orders.

Litigants requiring urgent injunctions were similarly exposed, LAZ said, along with businesses and individuals whose contractual or property interests demanded immediate attention. Parties bound by fixed statutory or constitutional filing periods faced the same uncertainty.

No person should lose a right, remedy or hearing simply because the institution meant to provide it was inaccessible, the body argued. It is now calling on the judiciary to issue clear, authoritative direction on how affected filings and deadlines will be treated, and to ensure no litigant is unfairly prejudiced as a result.

LAZ acknowledged that genuine security concerns may, in exceptional circumstances, justify restricting access to court premises. The safety of judicial officers, staff, legal practitioners and the public remains important. But any such response, it said, must be proportionate and should preserve access to essential services wherever reasonably possible.

Security cannot serve as blanket justification for shutting court users out entirely, the association added. Where physical closure is unavoidable, alternative arrangements must exist for urgent matters and essential filings.

The episode, LAZ said, has exposed the need for a clear institutional framework governing access to justice during emergencies, so the country is not again left with running deadlines, unprotected rights and no indication of where to turn.

The judiciary should now develop and publish formal contingency arrangements for future disruptions, the body said, providing at minimum for urgent applications and alternative filing routes when physical access is unavailable.

LAZ said it stands ready to work with the judiciary and other stakeholders to address the issues raised. It will continue monitoring the matter under Section 4 of the Law Association of Zambia Act, Chapter 31 of the Laws of Zambia, its empowering statute, which commits the body to defending the rule of law, access to justice, constitutionalism and judicial independence.