The ongoing debate surrounding the eligibility of Dolika Banda to contest the vice presidency exposes a glaring lack of intellectual rigor within the Examinations Council of Zambia (ECZ), the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), the courts, and the wider legal fraternity. This controversy is not political theatre; it is a damning indictment of our educational, electoral, and legal institutions.
That the words “minimum” and “equivalent” can be so misconstrued speaks volumes about the calibre of those who draft, interpret, and enforce our laws. Where are the legal minds willing to step forward and educate the nation on the doctrine of original intent?
The constitutional clauses in question were not drafted in a vacuum, nor were they written centuries ago. Many of the architects who framed and passed these amendments are still alive. If the courts were to seek clarity, the historical context and the “mischief rule” of statutory interpretation would settle the matter once and for all.
The language of the law is clear: a Grade 12 certificate is a baseline, not a ceiling.
As a nation, sadly, we believe there is only one rigid route to academic advancement. In Zimbabwe, entry to university requires A-Levels. In Zambia, O-Levels suffice. Yet Zambians with O-Levels study in Zimbabwe, and Zimbabweans with O-Levels enrol in Zambia.
The question the courts must adjudicate is constitutional: Is a Grade 12 certificate with a credit in English the sole valid academic qualification for the Zambian presidency, or is it simply the minimum threshold an individual must attain? Bad laws do not correct themselves—courageous judges do. Unfortunately, instead of jurisprudence, the public is left to wade through a muddy swamp.
That this case has progressed this far through the judicial system speaks to Attorney General Kabesha’s judgement. It is shameful that civil society organizations, which ought to defend progress, are weaponizing a clause that is discriminatory when misinterpreted.
As an Africanist, I am puzzled by the colonial mindset displayed in this case. We should be debating whether the English-language requirement unfairly penalizes highly intelligent students who pass their O-Levels with distinctions but fall short in English. If English is the medium of instruction and those examinations were written in English, does that not demonstrate their capability to advance to undergraduate study? English is elevated to this status only because it is the language of our former colonial master.
That aside, arguing that a Grade 12 certificate is the absolute, unyielding benchmark for leadership is legally illiterate. The Constitution never intended to bar highly accomplished citizens simply because they lack a traditional Grade 12 certificate.
Granted, the requirement for an Ordinary Level (O-Level) English credit exists because of our history as a former British colony where English remains the official language. We expect a head of state to read, write, and articulate policy in English.
As for education, context matters. In the United Kingdom or the United States, native English proficiency is assumed; standardized English tests are reserved for foreigners. To argue that Madam Dolika Banda—a globally recognized executive—lacks English proficiency based solely on the absence of a local Zambian secondary school document is not merely a legal absurdity; it is a national insult.
Moreover, the argument against Madam Banda exposes another logical fallacy: the exclusion of higher qualifications. Madam Banda holds advanced qualifications that far exceed the baseline of an O-Level. If an individual possesses a verified bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or PhD, they have already surpassed and validated those lower academic thresholds. This is the global standard.
It appears that the real issue here is institutional incompetence. The Examinations Council of Zambia, which is tasked with vetting qualifications, lacks either the capacity or the administrative framework to evaluate international and advanced qualifications because our local system remains structurally and disproportionately focused on Grade 12 outcomes.
For critics who argue that it is chronologically or logically impossible to possess a higher qualification without the underlying lower one, they choose to ignore academic reality. Globally, gifted students skip grades, or fast-track their education.
So the legal fraternity must stop hiding behind administrative technicalities and compel the courts to interpret the true legal meaning of “a minimum” requirement. If we continue down this pedantic path, we are choosing to let institutional ignorance reign supreme over merit, intellect, and national progress.
It is time to put this matter to rest, and the courts must act.
By Katoka Mweenda
We currently have a President who has a Grade 12 but has failed in all fronts, be it governance, economy and others. So what is special with this Grade 12 thing. If there was really something special about it, mealie meal would have been K50, fuel K17 and fertiliser would have been K250 by now. Let’s just do away with it
Katoka Mweenda raises an important point about the distinction between a minimum qualification and the highest qualification. If the Constitution intended a Grade 12 certificate to be the absolute and exclusive requirement, it would have stated so explicitly. The purpose of setting a minimum standard is ordinarily to establish a baseline, not to exclude individuals who have demonstrably attained higher academic or professional qualifications.
The courts now have an opportunity to provide clarity through a purposive interpretation of the law, ensuring that constitutional provisions are applied in a manner that promotes fairness, merit, and the broader intent of the framers. A definitive judicial pronouncement will help prevent recurring disputes and strengthen public confidence in Zambia’s electoral and legal institutions.