Some individuals who have taken Members of Parliament to the Constitutional Court over their involvement in efforts to amend the Constitution and extend the life of Parliament beyond 2028 say they have begun receiving threatening phone calls with some allegedly originating from legislators in the opposition.
The development comes as a legal challenge against Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) gathers momentum with applicants arguing that lawmakers have a direct personal interest in the proposed constitutional changes and should recuse themselves from parliamentary processes relating to the bill until the Constitutional Court has delivered its ruling.
The applicants, who are suing the legislators as constituents contend that the proposed extension of Parliament’s term beyond the constitutionally prescribed limit violates Section 328(7) of the Constitution.
They argue that the extension would unlawfully benefit sitting MPs by prolonging their tenure beyond 2028 without obtaining direct approval from voters through a referendum.
“We approached the courts because we believe constitutional questions must be resolved through lawful processes and not through intimidation. Since filing the applications, some of us have received phone calls warning us against pursuing the matter. What is concerning is that some of these calls are allegedly coming from legislators themselves, including opposition MPs,” said one applicant
The applicants claim that while some callers attempted to persuade them to withdraw the court applications others allegedly made veiled threats regarding the consequences of continuing with the legal challenge.
Several applicants, speaking on condition of anonymity said they feared victimisation but remained determined to pursue the matter through the courts.
“This is not a political fight. It is a constitutional issue. We are simply asking the court to determine whether MPs can participate in a process that directly benefits them.” another applicant said
At the centre of the dispute is the argument that Parliament failed to adequately consult citizens before advancing the constitutional amendment process.
According to most of the applicants, public consultations were conducted in only 64 administrative districts across the country rather than in all 210 constituencies represented in Parliament.
They argue that many constituents were therefore denied a meaningful opportunity to express their views on proposals that could affect the country’s governance framework.
“The Constitution belongs to the people. Our concern is that decisions of this magnitude should involve direct consultation with citizens, particularly when elected representatives stand to benefit from the outcome.” said an applicant
Constitutional law experts contacted by this publication said the case raises important questions about conflict of interest, public participation and constitutionalism.
One legal analyst said the applicants appear to be relying on provisions designed to prevent elected officials from extending their own terms of office without public approval.
“The principle behind Section 328(7) is to ensure that office holders do not use constitutional amendments to extend their stay in office. It is ultimately for the Constitutional Court to determine whether the current process complies with those constitutional safeguards.” said one lawyer
The applicants further argue that because the Constitutional Court has been asked to rule on the legality of the proposed extension, principles of good governance and the rule of law require the cited MPs to temporarily step aside from deliberations and voting on the matter.
“While the court applications do not legally stop Parliament from proceeding with the bill, there is a strong argument that legislators with a direct interest in the outcome should avoid participating until the court has spoken,” another legal expert said.
However, political observers warn that allegations of intimidation, if substantiated could deepen tensions surrounding an already contentious constitutional debate.
For the applicants, however, the legal battle has become more than a constitutional dispute.
“We expected disagreement. What we did not expect were attempts to pressure citizens for exercising their constitutional right to approach the courts.” one constituent said.
