Climate Action Professionals Zambia v. Attorney General

This case concerns a constitutional petition filed by Climate Action Professionals Zambia (CAPZ), an organization engaged in climate advocacy and public awareness, against the Attorney General of Zambia. The petitioner challenged the State’s alleged failure to operationalize key climate governance mechanisms established under the Green Economy and Climate Change Act No. 18 of 2024 (GECCA). The petition was filed before the Constitutional Court of Zambia on October 31, 2025, invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 128 and 257(g) of the Constitution.  The dispute arose after Parliament enacted the GECCA on December 20, 2024, and published it on December 26, 2024. The Act entered into force on October 10, 2025, through a commencement order. The legislation established a comprehensive institutional and regulatory framework for addressing climate change, including mechanisms such as a greenhouse gas inventory system, an integrated measuring, reporting, and verification (IMRV) system, a climate change fund, and a climate change register.  CAPZ alleged that, despite the Act’s entry into force, the State had failed to establish or implement several of these mechanisms, particularly the IMRV system, the Climate Change Fund, and the Climate Change Register. The petitioner argued that this omission violated Article 257(g) of the Constitution, which requires the State, in managing natural resources and the environment, to “establish and implement mechanisms that address climate change.”  The petitioner further contended that the GECCA had been enacted precisely to give effect to this constitutional obligation and that the State’s failure to operationalize its provisions constituted a breach of constitutional duties. The petitioner sought declaratory and mandatory relief, including a declaration that the State had contravened Article 257(g) and an order requiring the government to establish and implement the relevant climate mechanisms within a specified period.  The Attorney General opposed the petition, arguing that neither the Constitution nor the GECCA imposed an obligation to immediately operationalize all climate mechanisms upon the Act’s commencement. The respondent characterized Article 257(g) as directive in nature, requiring progressive implementation depending on legislative design, administrative capacity, and available resources. The State further argued that steps toward implementation were already underway, including preparatory work on the IMRV system and arrangements for the Climate Change Fund and Register. The respondent also maintained that the issues raised concerned policy and administrative matters rather than constitutional interpretation, and that granting the requested orders would infringe upon the separation of powers. The Constitutional Court decided the case on March 25, 2026. In its decision, the Court focused on whether the petition raised a constitutional question within its jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that its mandate is limited to interpreting the Constitution and determining alleged constitutional violations. It distinguished between constitutional obligations and statutory duties, emphasizing that while Article 257(g) imposes a general duty on the State to address climate change, it does not prescribe the specific mechanisms identified by the petitioner.  The Court found that the specific mechanisms at issue, including the IMRV system, Climate Change Fund, and Climate Change Register, were creations of the GECCA and therefore fell within the domain of statutory implementation. Determining whether the State had complied with those obligations would require interpretation and application of the statute rather than the Constitution. As such, the matter concerned statutory compliance, which lies within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts rather than the Constitutional Court.  Accordingly, the Court held that the petition did not raise a constitutional question suitable for determination under Article 128 of the Constitution. It dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on March 25, 2026, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.