The Electoral Commission of Zambia has moved into the next phase of the delimitation process after concluding provincial sittings and receiving submissions from more than 100 districts proposing new constituency boundaries, placing the exercise at a decisive stage ahead of the 2026 general elections.

The commission has confirmed that it is now analysing proposals submitted from across the country, following consultations that were conducted to gather local input on how constituencies should be created or adjusted. The exercise is expected to result in the creation of 70 new constituencies, a move aimed at improving representation and service delivery.

The transition from consultation to evaluation marks a critical point in the process, where technical considerations such as population distribution, geographical size and administrative efficiency will shape final decisions. The ECZ has maintained that the process is being conducted transparently and without political or ethnic bias, emphasising that its mandate is to ensure equitable representation.

However, the delimitation exercise has drawn criticism from some quarters, where concerns have been raised about how the process is being handled and the potential implications of its outcomes. Questions have been directed at the level of transparency and whether the creation of new constituencies could favour certain political interests.

Some critics have argued that the legislative framework guiding the process contains provisions that may influence electoral outcomes. These concerns have been linked to broader discussions around Bill 7, which introduced changes related to constitutional and electoral structures, including aspects tied to constituency delimitation.

The differing positions have created a contrast between institutional assurances and political suspicion. On one hand, the commission has presented the exercise as a technical and administrative process grounded in data and legal requirements. On the other, critics have framed it as a politically sensitive undertaking with potential consequences for electoral balance.

District submissions have formed a key component of the process, with local authorities proposing adjustments intended to address challenges such as overpopulated constituencies and uneven access to services. These submissions are now being reviewed as part of the commission’s internal analysis, which will determine how proposals translate into final boundaries.

The scale of participation in the submission phase reflects the level of interest in the delimitation exercise. Constituency boundaries have a direct impact on representation, influencing how communities are grouped and how resources are distributed. As such, the process carries both administrative and political significance.

The commission’s next steps will involve consolidating submissions, assessing their alignment with legal and demographic criteria, and preparing recommendations for implementation. This stage is expected to define the final structure of constituencies that will be used in the upcoming elections.

At the same time, the broader political environment continues to shape how the process is perceived. Delimitation is taking place within a context where electoral preparations are intensifying, and where different stakeholders are closely monitoring developments that could influence campaign dynamics.

The outcome of the exercise will determine not only the number of constituencies but also their geographical configuration, which in turn affects voter distribution and representation. These factors make delimitation one of the most consequential administrative processes in the lead-up to elections.

While the commission has reiterated its commitment to impartiality, the presence of competing narratives underscores the importance of clarity and communication in the final stages of the process. The publication of decisions and the rationale behind them will be central to addressing concerns and maintaining confidence in the exercise.

As the ECZ moves toward finalising constituency boundaries, the focus shifts to how decisions will be received by stakeholders and whether the process will achieve its stated objectives of improving representation without triggering further disputes.

Patriotic Front secretary general Morgan Ng’ona has initiated contempt of court proceedings against Given Lubinda and other party figures over a disputed convention, escalating an internal leadership fight into a legal confrontation with implications for the opposition’s election positioning.

The action follows a convention that produced a leadership outcome now under challenge, with Ng’ona arguing that the gathering proceeded in violation of a court order that had restricted the process. The dispute centres on whether the meeting that elevated Makebi Zulu as party president was conducted within the bounds of existing legal directives, placing the question of legitimacy before the courts.

Ng’ona’s move introduces a judicial layer into an already fractured party environment, shifting the contest from internal political negotiation to legal determination. The case is expected to test the interpretation of court orders governing party processes and whether the convention’s outcome can stand under scrutiny.

Parallel to the legal action, PF figures have continued internal engagements, with Lubinda and Makebi Zulu holding discussions aimed at managing tensions following the convention. The meeting signals attempts to contain divisions even as formal proceedings advance, suggesting that the party is navigating both negotiation and confrontation at the same time.

The dispute has unfolded against a backdrop of competing claims within the PF, where factions have differed on both process and leadership direction. The convention itself has become the focal point of these divisions, with opposing sides questioning its procedural validity and the authority of its outcomes.

Ng’ona’s filing marks a decisive shift in strategy, moving away from internal dispute mechanisms toward court-led resolution. This introduces timelines and outcomes that are no longer controlled by party structures but by judicial processes, potentially affecting how quickly the dispute can be resolved ahead of national elections.

The legal route also raises the stakes for all parties involved. A ruling against the convention could invalidate leadership outcomes and force a reconfiguration of party structures, while a ruling in favour of the process could consolidate the current leadership position. In both scenarios, the court’s decision is likely to shape the PF’s readiness for the August polls.

The development reflects broader tensions within opposition politics, where leadership contests are increasingly intersecting with legal frameworks. In this case, the court is being asked to determine not just compliance with procedure but the legitimacy of a political outcome with national consequences.

The internal conflict has also drawn attention to the difficulty of maintaining cohesion within large political movements ahead of elections. While discussions between Lubinda and Makebi Zulu suggest ongoing attempts to stabilise the situation, the concurrent legal action indicates that divisions remain unresolved.

At the centre of the dispute is the question of authority who has the mandate to lead, and whether that mandate was secured through a process that meets legal requirements. This question now sits before the courts, where evidence, documentation and interpretation of prior orders will determine the next phase of the PF’s trajectory.

The outcome of the contempt proceedings will likely extend beyond the immediate parties, shaping perceptions of internal governance within political organisations and the role of courts in resolving such disputes. It also places the PF under sustained public scrutiny at a time when opposition cohesion is being closely watched.

The case proceeds with the potential to redefine the party’s leadership structure or reinforce the current arrangement, depending on how the court interprets the contested process. With the election calendar advancing, the timing of the ruling may prove as consequential as the decision itself.