Whether these developments and Actions of various peope He mentioned are

consistent with the Zambian Constitutional Law you studied.

Natashah K Mapingere
23900329

LS100/ Constitutional, Administrative and Local Government Law

Term A 2023
Vivien Zimba
25 July 2023
The Const.of.Zambia.amend.2016. is a Constitution that reflects the values and principles of
its citizens. The constitution is written and is a republic one therefore everything it
encompasses reflects the values of its citizens and any contravention of it is a punishable
offence . Now looking at the case of Mary-Beauty , the events that occurred in the village
and to her ;raises eyebrows as to if these actions are consistent with the
Const.of.Zambia.amend.2016. The following essay will make a deep analysis as to whether
the developments and events that occurred in the village are consistent with the aforesaid
Constitution.

The first development that raises eyebrows is the declaration by chief Zibazako that only
women had to clean the public spaces and not men. This decision raised concerns to Mary
Beauty as she believed the duty of cleaning was to be done by both men and women.
The.Const.of. Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.23 is against discrimination as it states that people
should be treated the same and should not be discriminated based upon their race, sex,
gender etc "no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by
virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any
public authority". Also The Gender Equity and Equality Act (2015) provides that women
should not be discriminated against in economic and social life. The act means that women
are not supposed to be given such duties because they are women because it results in their
abuse. In the above mentioned case, Chief Zibazako, as public authority with the duty to
make resolutions in such situations, should have made a decision that seemed fair and
promoted equality for both men and women and did not discriminate against women
because of their gender. Therefore In accordance with the law, The Chief was supposed to
declare that both men and women clean the public spaces since they both used the public
spaces. Therefore the decision made by Chief Zibazako was inconsistent with the
Constitutional Law of Zambia.

Mary-Beauty and the youths' decision to carry out a protest at the Chief's palace is not a
crime and it is consistent with the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016). First and foremost,
Const.of Zambia.amend.2.(206).art.20 provides for the protection of the freedom of
expression which states that every individual has a right to have an opinion, freedom to
communicate ideas and comment to the general public or to an individual without the
interference of anyone. In the case of Mary-Beauty and the youths,protesting was within
their constitutional rights as they were expressing their opinions about the decision made by
Chief Zibazako and to the general public. As concluded in the Supreme Court in the
Christine Mulundika and 7 Others v The People (1995) (SJ) (Zam) were protesters were
arrested for holding a protest because it disturbed public order, it was decided that holding a
protest was not a crime as it was an exercise of the right to freedom of expression as they
were voicing out their opinions as provided by Const of Zambia.amend.2.(206).art.20. Thus,
holding a protest is consistent with the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).

Secondly, the protesters were punished for protesting and Mary-Beauty was detained.
However, carrying out a protest is a constitutional right as stated in
Const.of.Zamba.amend.2.2016).art.21. hence they were not supposed to be convinced or
punished for it. The Const.of.Zamba.amend.2.2016).art.21. provides for the freedom of
Assembly and association as it states that," Except with his own consent, no person shall be
hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his
right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong
to any political party, trade union or other association for the protection of his interests".
Therefore, Mary-Beauty and the youths carrying out a protest were taking advantage of their
constitutional rights as they formed a group that aimed at protecting their rights and interests
of gender equality. In reference to the case of Christine Mulundika and 7 Others v The
People (1995) (SJ) (Zam) with the facts summarised above, the Judge concluded that
holding an assembly or protesting is an exercise of a constitutional right as provided by the
Const.of.Zamba.amend.2.2016).art.21. So holding a protest is not a crime and Mary Beauty
and the protesters were not supposed to be convicted for it .

The activity of breaking into Mary-Beauty's house as to arrest her contavenes the
Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016). The Const.of.Zambia amend.2.(2016).art.17 provides for
the protection of privacy of one's home and other properties as it states that, no one is to
enter one's property or house without the consent of the owner and if it is the public
authority, it can only enter if is in the interest of the public safety and order. The Chief's
guards should not have entered Mary-Beauty's house without her consent like thieves as it
was unconstitutional because it violates the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.17.
Furthermore, public authorities could only enter into her house if Mary-Beauty was a threat
to the public's safety and order but that was not he case as protesting was her way of
expressing her opinions and it did not cause any harm to the villagers. Therefore, the guards
breaking into here home was unconstitutional as they did not respect Mary-Beauty's
constitutional right of "Privacy of Home and other properties" Constitutional Law in Zambia.

When Mary-Beauty was taken from her bed by force where she was sleeping and ignored
her protest that she was naked and this was unconditional. Furthermore, the Chief guards
paraded with her all the way to the King's palace and despised any attempt by the other
ladies to cover her. This act by the Chief guards contravenes the
Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art,15. which states that " no person shall be subjected to
torture, or inhumane or degrading punishment or other like treatment". Also the The Gender
Equity and Equality Act (2015) provides that both the public body and any person has the
duty to uphold dignity rights and moreover to respect and safe the dignity of both sexes.
When Mary-Beauty argued that she was naked ,the guards had not let her dress up. Seeing
and taking her outside naked despite her pleas was an abuse of her constitutional rights as
this was inhuman and it degraded her being as everyone saw her naked. The guards failed
to respect, protect her dignity and to uphold her rights when they carried her out naked
Therefore, the act of carrying Mary-Beauty naked and refusing to cover her by the Chief's
guards is not consistent with the Constitutional Law in Zambia.

Furthermore, Mary-Beauty was taken to the hut where the Chief instructed the guards to
"teach her how to be a woman' and she was molested by the guards as they took turns
fondling her and kissing her. These acts are not consistent with the
Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.15. which provides for one to not be treated in an
inhuman, degrading manner or other like manner. Furthermore, The Gender Equity and
Equality Act (2015) says " 1) A person is not entitled not to be harassed " 2) "A person shall
not commit an act of sexual harassment" . It further goes on to state that one who commits
an act of sexual harassment is a punishable offence that can send one to jail. Looking at
aforesaid scenario when Mary-Beauty was molested , the guards violated her constitutional
rights as this was cruel, inhuman and it degraded her being. Furthermore, the guards should
have not commited the an act of sexual harassment as it js a punishable offence by law as
precibed by The Gender Equity and Equality Act (2015). Also the Mpombo v The People
(2009) (HC) (Zam), where the law required widows to have sexual intercourse with a male
relative of their deceased husbands as part of a purification ritual ; it was decided that this
practice was unconstitutional as it violated women's rights, very cruel and degraded their
being according to theConst.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.15. Henceforth, molesting
Mary-Beauty is not consistent with the Constitution Law of Zambia as it violated her rights
to dignity, equality, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

The detention of Mary-Beauty was unconstitutional and unlawful in terms

Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.13 provides that "upon reasonable suspicion of his
having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence under the law in force in
Zambia; and who is not released, shall be brought without undue delay before a court; and if
any person arrested or detained under paragraph (b) is not tried within a reasonable time,
then, without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against him, he shall
be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular such
conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the appears at a later date for trial or
for proceedings preliminary to trial". However, Mary-Beauty having been said to have
committed a crime, she was never brought before any type of court as instructed by the law
also, she was not tried on time arguing that she had to change her mind. Also, because no
further proceedings took place, Mary-Beauty was supposed to be released by the Chief .
Therefore, the detention of Mary-Beauty was not consistent with the Constitutional Law of
Zambia.

Last but not least, the declaration by Chief Zibazako that they were detaining her until she
had changed her mind is a contravention of the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).art.19. The
above mentioned constitutional article states that everyone has a right to freedom of
thought. The fact that they wanted her to change her opinion was wrong and abusive
especially under such circumstances ( unlawful detention) . The Chief was supposed to
respect her right to freedom of conscience and thought Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).
Mary -Beauty having an opinion and expressing was her taking advantage of her
constitutional right that she had the right to freedom of authority. Therefore, detaining her as
a way to try and change her mind is inconsistent with the Constitutional Law of Zambia.

In light of the above discussion and analysis, it is imperative to conclude that the acts done
by Mary-Beauty were consistent with the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016).as they
advocated and respected the Const.of.Zambia.amend.2.(2016). However, not the same can
be said about the developments and the acts carried out by the Chief and his guards; they
all were inconsistent with Constitutional Law of Zambia and did not promulgate it .
 Reference List

Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) No.2 of 2016

The Gender Equity and Equality Act No.2 (2015) s 16 (Zam.).

https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default

The Gender Equity and Equality Act s 27 (Zam.) https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default

The Gender Equity and Equality Act No.2 (2015) s 38 (Zam.).

https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default

The Gender Equity and Equality Act No. 2 (2015) s 38 (Zam.).

https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default