Nakacinda challenges Sampa ruling in appeal court

LUSAKA, April 7, 2026 — Patriotic Front Secretary General Raphael Nakacinda has filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal contesting a High Court judgement that upheld Miles Sampa’s October 24, 2023 Extra-Ordinary Conference as valid, escalating a leadership dispute that continues to divide the former ruling party.

The appeal targets a ruling delivered on March 27, 2026 by High Court Judge Conceptor Chinyanwa Zulu under Cause No. 2025/HP/0577, which found that the Patriotic Front had no Central Committee at the time of the conference and that the meeting convened by Sampa was lawful. The judgement effectively recognised Sampa’s position alongside Morgan Ng’ona and Robert Chabinga in the disputed party structure.

Nakacinda, in a sworn affidavit accompanying the Notice of Appeal, argues that the trial court reached conclusions that conflict with both the evidence presented and the provisions of the Patriotic Front constitution. He maintains that the court erred in determining that the party’s Central Committee had ceased to exist, stating that continuity provisions and internal mechanisms for filling vacancies remained operative at the time in question.

The appeal asserts that the lower court failed to evaluate the full body of evidence on record, including what Nakacinda describes as key admissions by Sampa. According to the affidavit, Sampa acknowledged that the October 24, 2023 meeting did not constitute a General Conference as defined by the party constitution, a point the appellant argues undermines the legal basis of the ruling.

Nakacinda further contends that the court misapplied constitutional provisions governing the convening of an Extra-Ordinary General Conference. The affidavit states that the judge limited interpretation to Regulation 67 while excluding other applicable clauses, and incorrectly held that the constitution did not address scenarios in which both the party president and secretary general resign.

The filing also raises the issue of authority, arguing that Sampa lacked locus standi to unilaterally convene the conference. Nakacinda’s legal challenge states that the court did not sufficiently address whether proper authority existed to call such a meeting, an omission he claims affected the integrity of the ruling.

A central element of the appeal focuses on evidentiary standards. Nakacinda argues that the High Court accepted the existence of an Extra-Ordinary General Conference without credible supporting documentation, including verified delegate lists or attendance registers. The affidavit states that the burden of proof was improperly shifted onto the plaintiffs despite admissions made by the respondents.

In the Notice of Appeal, Nakacinda formally states his dissatisfaction with the judgement and seeks a reversal by the Court of Appeal, warning that allowing the ruling to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice. The filing signals a continuation of the legal contest over the Patriotic Front’s leadership and constitutional interpretation.

The dispute traces back to internal disagreements following the October 2023 meeting, which Sampa and his allies presented as a legitimate Extra-Ordinary Conference. Opposing factions within the party have maintained that the gathering did not meet constitutional thresholds required for a General Conference, placing the matter before the courts.

The High Court ruling marked a significant moment in the ongoing contest by siding with Sampa’s position, but the appeal now shifts the focus to the appellate court, where legal arguments will be re-examined on both procedural and substantive grounds.

The Court of Appeal is expected to determine whether the High Court properly interpreted the Patriotic Front constitution, assessed the available evidence, and applied the correct legal standards in validating the October 24, 2023 meeting.

Editor’s Note: “The appeal places the Patriotic Front’s leadership dispute back before the courts, with the outcome set to shape control of the party structure ahead of key political timelines.”