Fundamental Rights not so Fundamental? Critique of the Supreme Court Judgment in Law Association of Zambia v. the Attorney General

Authors

Muna B. Ndulo, Cornell Law SchoolFollow
Samuel Ngure Ndungu, Cornell Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The article discusses the constitutionality of sections 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act of Zambia. The Law Association of Zambia had unsuccessfully argued in the High Court of Zambia that the sections violated section 20 (Freedom of expression) and 21 (Freedom of assembly) of the Zambian Constitution. The Supreme Court of Zambia upheld the decision of the High Court and held that the sections did not violate sections 20 and 21 of the constitution and were constitutional. This article argues that the Supreme Court decision is wrong and falls short of effectively protecting citizen’s rights of peaceful assembly and expression. It argues that the Supreme Court failed to realise that section 5 (6) fundamentally operates as a limitation on the constitutional rights of citizens to peaceful assembly and expression.

Recommended Citation

Ndulo, Muna B. and Ndungu, Samuel Ngure (2017) "Fundamental Rights not so Fundamental? Critique of the Supreme Court Judgment in Law Association of Zambia v. the Attorney General," Southern African Journal of Policy and Development: Vol. 3: No. 2, Article 5.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/sajpd/vol3/iss2/5