Today’s ruling regarding former President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility for the 2026 Zambian presidential elections has sparked significant controversy across the nation. The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) upheld Lungu’s eligibility for the 2021 elections but has now barred him from running in 2026, leading to accusations of inconsistency and disillusionment among many Zambians. This decision has ignited a heated debate about judicial independence, the clarity of the Constitution, and the concerning precedent it sets for the country.

While the court aimed to tackle a crucial constitutional issue, its ruling has generated more questions than answers. If Lungu was deemed eligible to run in 2021 after serving two terms, how can the same Constitution now deem him ineligible for 2026? Even a child would struggle to understand the reasoning. Critics contend that this ruling was strategically designed to prevent the invalidation of the 2021 general elections. Declaring him ineligible for 2021 could have led to a constitutional crisis, potentially nullifying the election results and throwing the country into turmoil with demands for a new election.

This case has also revealed significant flaws within Zambia’s judiciary. The frequent reshuffling of judges, including the alleged dismissal of three Constitutional Court justices by President Hakainde Hichilema, has raised concerns about the judiciary’s independence. The current bench, which has been restructured with judges reportedly appointed or promoted by the current administration, faces accusations of being used as a political instrument.

This isn’t the first time Lungu’s eligibility has come under scrutiny. The issue has been examined and resolved multiple times, including in the notable Danny Pule & Others, Aubrey Bampi Kapalasa, and Sishuwa Sishuwa cases. Each time, the conclusion was the same: Lungu’s partial term following Michael Sata’s death did not count as a full term. Yet, despite these rulings, the question of eligibility has been reopened again and again, with critics accusing the judiciary of playing to the whims of the Executive.

The UPND’s handling of this case may have been a strategic misstep. By barring Lungu in 2026, the ruling has reignited political tensions and potentially bolstered opposition unity. Some political analysts argue that today’s decision was designed to limit Lungu’s political influence while avoiding the fallout of overturning the 2021 elections. However, this maneuver may have backfired, as it has opened the UPND to accusations of judicial manipulation and undermining democratic institutions.

President Hichilema’s perceived willingness to sacrifice the independence of institutions like the judiciary, Parliament, and the Electoral Commission to achieve political goals has not gone unnoticed. Such actions risk eroding public confidence in Zambia’s democracy, leaving citizens to wonder: if even the highest court in the land cannot be trusted, where does one turn for justice?

The ConCourt’s decision, rather than settling the matter, seems to have marked the beginning of an endless cycle of petitions and counter-petitions. The judiciary’s inability to deliver a clear, definitive resolution has turned it into a circus, running like a headless chicken and drawing widespread criticism. Respect for judicial authority is eroding, as many believe the institution has failed to respect itself.

“Respect the judiciary,” people say. But how can citizens respect an entity that appears to contradict its own decisions and allow itself to be used as a political pawn?

Today’s choreographed ruling has not only complicated Zambia’s political landscape but also reshuffled opportunities in the opposition camp. With Lungu out of the picture for 2026, the race for leadership within the Patriotic Front (PF) has intensified, creating an unpredictable and volatile political environment.

The broader implications for Zambia’s democracy are concerning. The ConCourt’s ruling sets a precedent for revisiting final judgments, which could lead to an endless cycle of litigation over constitutional matters. This erodes judicial authority and creates uncertainty in the political arena, undermining the stability needed for national development.

Zambia finds itself at a critical juncture. The judiciary, once the cornerstone of justice, is now viewed with suspicion. Political leaders must recognize the damage caused by undermining democratic institutions and work toward restoring public trust. For the judiciary, the task is to reclaim its credibility by upholding its independence and delivering judgments free from political interference.

For now, however, the question of Edgar Lungu’s eligibility and the broader issues of judicial integrity and democratic governance remains a cloud hanging over Zambia’s future. The dust has not settled; if anything, it has been stirred up, leaving Zambians to grapple with the consequences of today’s decision.

Moses Haansimuna
Legal Analyst, Political Commentator, Investigative Journalist, Public Affairs Specialist
Austria

PF Faction Leader Condemns Restriction of Public Access to Edgar Lungu’s Eligibility Judgment

Raphael Nakacinda, the Secretary General of a faction within the Patriotic Front (PF), has strongly opposed the decision made by Inspector General of Police Grapheal Musamba and the judiciary to restrict public attendance at the upcoming court session for Edgar Lungu’s eligibility case, which is set for judgment on December 10, 2024. Nakacinda contends that no Zambian law prohibits citizens from attending court proceedings, viewing this decision as an unjustified breach of legal norms that erodes the foundation of the rule of law.

He has also sharply criticized Chief Justice Mumba Malila, accusing the Chief Justice of acting beyond his jurisdiction by permitting the live broadcasting of court proceedings. Nakacinda argues that such a decision should only be made after the necessary legislative amendments, rather than by unilateral judicial action. He believes that the Chief Justice should have waited for the legal framework to be updated before taking such matters into his own hands, underscoring a perceived disregard for the established judicial process.

Amid these tensions, Nakacinda’s stance highlights broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and the independence of Zambia’s judicial system. There is a growing debate among political observers and legal experts about the balance of authority between law enforcement bodies and the judiciary, and how decisions made by these institutions impact public trust in legal and political institutions

HOTFM Zambia

Church Calls for Peace Ahead of Kawambwa By-Elections

St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Kawambwa has made a strong call for a peaceful and respectful atmosphere as Zambia prepares for the upcoming by-elections scheduled for December 20, 2024. In a significant message delivered during Sunday mass, Parish Priest Father Kunda Kashinga urged all political parties to set aside their differences and refrain from any acts of political violence. Instead, he emphasized the need to focus on constructive campaigns that reflect respect and mutual cooperation.

Father Kashinga’s call aligns with ongoing national efforts to ensure that Zambia’s electoral processes are free from disturbances and intimidation. Electoral campaigns have previously been marred by challenges such as clashes among party supporters, intimidation, and calls for accountability. His message underscores the commitment to protecting Zambia’s democratic values and ensuring a transparent electoral process.

During his sermon, Father Kashinga also addressed the local electorate, urging them to exercise their right to vote in a responsible and informed manner. Voters should prioritize merit and commitment to community development when choosing candidates. His caution against electoral malpractice and violence serves as a reminder that a legitimate election depends on honesty and transparency.

Father Kashinga stressed the importance of the church’s role as a partner in social development rather than a political opponent. Churches across Zambia have historically been instrumental in community initiatives, working alongside government institutions and NGOs to address social issues like education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation. Father Kashinga called on political leaders to view the church as an ally in national development, committed to the well-being of citizens without compromising neutrality.

Zambia’s commitment to peaceful elections and a transparent democratic process is not only about political integrity but also about ensuring a stable society where development and democracy coexist. Previous electoral events in the country have shown the necessity of cooperation among political parties, community leaders, and institutions to maintain social harmony and national stability.

Organizations such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and various civil society groups have also consistently emphasized the importance of adherence to electoral laws and the protection of voters’ rights. Their efforts reinforce the need for political campaigns to remain respectful and inclusive, focusing on national interests rather than individual or party gains.

As the Kawambwa community approaches the by-elections, Father Kashinga’s message serves as a vital reminder to all stakeholders that peace, democracy, and development go hand in hand. Upholding peaceful electoral practices will be a significant step in strengthening trust in Zambia’s democratic processes and ensuring a brighter future for its citizens.

Father Kashinga’s appeal highlights the collective responsibility of political players, religious leaders, and citizens to work together to achieve national progress. A stable electoral environment will not only secure democratic legitimacy but also pave the way for greater community development, economic growth, and social cohesion across Zambia.

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

It all started in early October last year when rumours swelled that former president Edgar Lungu, who, having initially retired from politics in August 2021, was planning a political comeback, seeking to capitalise on the growing public discontent against his successor Hakainde Hichilema. In response, a ruling party activist swiftly petitioned the Constitutional Court, seeking a declaration that Lungu is not eligible to stand in any future election because of the constitutional two-term limit.

Initially, there were 11 judges of the Constitutional Court who were set to hear and determine the Lungu eligibility case. Of these, six were generally seen as set to rule in Lungu’s favour since he had appointed all of them and they had, on previous occasions, ruled that he was eligible to stand. The remaining five judges – consisting of four new justices appointed by Hichilema and one Lungu-appointed judge but promoted by Hichilema who has consistently ruled that he does not qualify to stand for another election – were generally seen as set to rule in Hichilema’s favour. Upon realising that he lacked a clear majority on the Constitutional Court bench, Hichilema fired three judges, bringing the total number of the remaining judges to eight – four judges appointed by Hichilema and four appointed by Lungu.

Then, the deputy president of the Constitutional Court Arnold Mweetwa Shilimi – one of the newly appointed judges and a very close personal friend of Hichilema – stopped one of the experienced judges, appointed by Lungu, from taking part in the eligibility case on the basis that the panel of judges hearing the matter should consist of an odd, not an even, number. This decision further reduced the total number of judges who finally sat to hear the Lungu eligibility case to seven, made up of one Judge appointed by Lungu but promoted by Hichilema and four judges appointed by Hichilema and the two who were appointed by Lungu.

Since one of the three Lungu-appointed judges has been promoted by Hichilema and has always ruled that Lungu is not eligible to stand for election, the number of judges widely seen as likely to rule in Hichilema’s political interest is five with the remaining two likely to dissent or abandon their previous decisions and follow suit. This five is the guaranteed majority that Hichilema is counting on to exclude his main rival from the 2026 election when the case comes up for ruling on Tuesday, 10 December 2024. With a reconstituted Constitutional Court, the outcome of the eligibility case is such a foregone conclusion that it can only go one way.

Hichilema thinks that removing Lungu, his main rival, reinforces his chances of re-election. To the contrary, the orchestrated exclusion of Lungu is a grave miscalculation that will come back to haunt Hichilema. In addition to the lasting damage a pro-Hichilema verdict will cause to both the remnants of credibility of the Constitutional Court and, more generally, the already weakened standing of the judiciary, the exclusion of Lungu opens room for the emergence of a better and perhaps more credible opposition challenger.

I am aware that Hichilema also plans to disqualify Fred M’membe from the 2026 election using a dubious conviction from one of the many trumped-up charges the state or supporters of the ruling party have brought against the opposition Socialist Party leader. Not even the added exclusion of M’membe will save Hichilema, though the move, after the previous exclusion of Lungu, will further heighten tension and leave the country on the brink of social unrest. Hichilema’s record in office – particularly on the main issues such as anti-corruption, national unity, the economy, the state of democracy and human rights, and the cost-of-living crisis – is so dreadfully poor that it is his single major opponent. All the excluded candidates will have to do is to back the common candidate who will be adopted by the opposition.

Unless he manipulates the constitution to extend his stay in office or remove the requirement that the winning presidential candidate should secure over 50% of the total votes cast, I simply do not see Hichilema winning a second term in 2026. Hichilema probably knows this, which might explain why he is increasingly using repression to contain dissent, inducing traditional leaders and weaker opposition parties to endorse him, and destroying the more serious political opposition, instead of delivering on his election campaign promises.

Having spent fifteen years in opposition, it is understandable that Hichilema does not want to leave power after only five years. However, he only has himself to blame for the growing public discontent against his leadership. He has antagonised the multi-ethnic coalition that brought him to power, concentrated on fighting his predecessor rather than governing, prioritised the arrest of political opponents and critics rather than the deplorable economic conditions in which majority Zambians continue to live, paid more attention to the interests of foreign actors especially mining companies rather than domestic concerns, nurtured high-level corruption in government, destroyed any remaining semblance of autonomy in formal institutions by packing them with loyalists, and embraced and refined the authoritarian tendencies of his predecessors. All things considered, Hichilema is a failed political experiment.

Sometimes I ask myself: what has happened to the Hichilema we had in opposition? The Hichilema in opposition could actively listen and learn. He promised people what they wanted, identified with the people and their needs, and played the part of the ordinary citizen who can represent all citizens. He appeared as a decent political leader who was outraged by anti-democratic or repressive legislation, abuse, injustice, lies, corruption, and ethnic-regional divisions, and a steady pair of hands who could help restore Zambia’s democratic tradition and resuscitate the faltering economy. In power or since his ascent to the position of President, Hichilema has so easily found comfort in the company of all the vices he denounced in opposition that one may think his conscience has been stolen. What would Hichilema’s former self think of him now?

Lacking intellectual curiosity, the Hichilema in power is dripping with arrogance and talks even where he should listen. He is extremely detached from reality, has U-turned on many of the positions that made him attractive to most Zambians when he was in opposition, and has systematically moved to alienate the various constituencies (in the broader sense) that voted for him. Much of his behaviour seems to be geared – if any sense can be attributed to it – towards deliberately shedding the support that brought him into office, and certainly not mobilising support from anywhere. Indeed, he seems to enjoy de-mobilising his earlier support. Since he was elected, he shows very little sign of feeling any need for popular support. On the contrary, he goes out of his way to spit in the faces of his former supporters. Perhaps he is supremely confident of using the Electoral Commission of Zambia, the police, and the judiciary – formal institutions that he has loaded with his supporters – to steal the election. Perhaps he aims to declare an interminable state of emergency. Maybe he aims to change the constitution so that he can never be removed from office.

In 2006, President Levy Mwanawasa said this about Hichilema: “His understanding of politics is that it doesn’t matter; you can cheat, provided you get your goals. The problem [with] Mr Hichilema is…that he wants to cheat, to mislead, to show that he is what he is not”. Was Hichilema a fraud who fooled many into believing that he was a bankable candidate only to show his true colours after assuming State power? Or perhaps he was, all along, just an incompetent political leader whose many weaknesses we overlooked in our quest to get rid of Lungu and a compulsive liar who made various promises which he had no intention of implementing and, in many cases, had the definite intention of doing exactly the opposite? Was his strategy to propose popular policies in order to get elected, and then to drop them after his election?

Whatever the case, I miss the Hichilema we had before 2021. The one we have now is a completely different Hichilema I increasingly no longer recognise. What has really happened to the Hichilema we had in opposition?