The High Court has reiterated that all parties in the petition challenging the controversial transfer of the public seal must strictly comply with prior directions on the filing of responses and written submissions.
Justice Chacha Mwita, on the matter, emphasised that his June 12 orders were still binding.
“The orders I have issued are that parties comply with directions issued on June 12 because those directions are very clear on the filing of responses and submissions,” he ruled.
The petition, which raises constitutional concerns over the procedure and legality of transferring the public seal, an emblem of presidential authority, was filed last month following claims of irregularity in the process.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, State Counsel Christine Walumbe confirmed that pleadings had been served and an affidavit of service was already on record, a fact acknowledged by Counsel Kaumba, representing the Attorney General.
Kaumba told the court that he had prepared a draft replying affidavit and forwarded it to his clients at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), requesting more time to finalise and file it.
However, he argued that the matter had been overtaken by events, noting that the petition was anchored on Executive Order No. 1 of 2023, which he claimed was no longer in effect, having been replaced by a new Executive Order issued in 2025.
Justice Mwita, however, cut him short and directed that such claims must be formally presented through a filed response.
“File your affidavit and include those grounds,” the judge said firmly.
Kaumba then requested 14 days to comply.
The court granted the request and set the matter for mention on October 27, 2025, to confirm full compliance with filing directions.
Until then, the court’s interim orders—preserving the status quo in relation to the public seal—remain in force.
The dispute has drawn wide public and legal interest, with observers noting that it touches on the constitutional management of instruments of state power.
The petitioners argue that the transfer of the seal lacked transparency and may have violated established legal procedures.
The court is expected to determine whether the process adhered to constitutional requirements and whether any corrective orders are warranted.
The October mention will be a
procedural checkpoint before substantive hearings commence.
