DID THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT NEED PARLIAMENT’S APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE THE USA 🇺🇸- ZAMBIA 🇿🇲 HEALTH DEAL?
Picture this:
Your church committee wants to buy a brand-new bus. The chairperson spends weeks negotiating the price, haggles until the dealer nearly gives up, and finally signs a document saying both sides intend to proceed.
He walks into Sabbath service grinning from ear to ear.
“Saints,” he announces, “the bus is ours!”
Just then, the church treasurer raises an eyebrow.
“Chairman, have you forgotten? Our constitution says any purchase this big must first be approved by the full church board before the money is released.”
The chairman protests, “But I’ve already signed!”
The treasurer chuckles. “Signing starts the journey. It doesn’t finish it.”
That, in simple terms, is exactly what Zambia’s Constitutional Court was explaining.
Two civil society organisations rushed to court worried that Government was negotiating a health aid deal with the United States without first obtaining Parliament’s approval. Their argument was simple: “Parliament must approve first, before Government signs anything.”
The Court replied, “Not quite.”
According to the Constitution, the Executive is like the church chairperson. It has the authority to negotiate and sign international agreements. Parliament, however, is like the church board. Its constitutional role comes before Zambia finally commits itself through ratification or accession, not before every negotiation or signature.
Then came the plot twist.
The Court discovered there wasn’t even a completed agreement on the table. The negotiations had stalled. In other words, everyone was busy debating how to share the wedding cake before anyone had even proposed.
So, the Court dismissed the case as premature. But it also issued an important warning: not every bilateral agreement automatically escapes Parliament. Some agreements, especially those affecting sovereignty, natural resources, or other major national interests may still require parliamentary oversight, depending on their nature.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ORDINARY ZAMBIANS?
It means Government can negotiate and even sign international agreements, but where the Constitution requires it, Zambia cannot take the final step of binding the country internationally without Parliament performing its constitutional role. Each institution has its own constitutional lane, and neither should overtake the other.
Moral of the story
Starting a deal is not the same as finishing it.
The Executive can open the door through negotiation, but where the Constitution requires it, Parliament must unlock the door before Zambia can walk through it.
Disclaimer:
My commentary on this decision is no more a legal critique than a campfire tale is a treatise on thermodynamics. It is, rather, a dramatized retelling, a lively reenactment if you will, of the judicial clash, unburdened by the solemn drudgery of analysis and delivered with the unapologetic zest of a storyteller who knows a good duel when he sees one.