The Court of Appeal has restrained Miles Bwalya Sampa from interfering with the office of Morgan Ng’ona and from altering Patriotic Front records at the Registrar of Societies, placing the party’s internal dispute under judicial control pending a full hearing.

The interim order, issued in Lusaka under case CAZ/08/151/2026, arises from an appeal filed by Ng’ona, who is listed in court documents as suing in his capacity as member and Secretary General of the Patriotic Front. Sampa is cited as respondent in his role as party president. The order sets immediate limits on actions affecting the party’s administrative structure while the court considers the underlying dispute.

Court records show that the application was supported by an affidavit and argued by counsel for the appellant before the Court of Appeal granted interim relief. The court directed that Sampa, whether acting personally or through agents, must not interfere with Ng’ona’s role and functions as Secretary General. The restriction extends to any attempt to alter official party records maintained at the Registrar of Societies.

The order also carries a penal notice warning that disobedience may result in contempt proceedings, including committal to prison for breach. The notice underscores the binding nature of the directive and signals that the court expects strict compliance while the matter proceeds.

The dispute centres on control and recognition of office bearers within the Patriotic Front, an issue that has been the subject of competing claims within the party. By issuing the interim injunction, the court has preserved the existing administrative position pending determination of the appeal.

An inter partes hearing has been scheduled for 14 April 2026 at 09:00 hours, where the court will consider arguments from both parties on whether the injunction should remain in force, be varied, or discharged. The scheduling of a full hearing places the matter on a defined legal timetable, with both sides expected to present their positions in detail.

In addition to the interim order, the matter has been referred to the Deputy Judge President for appropriate action, and further directed to the full court for consideration. The referral reflects the weight of the issues raised in the application and the potential implications for party governance.

The court documents cite reliance on the Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 2016, alongside procedural provisions drawn from Order 59 Rule 10(9) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England, 1999 edition. The reference situates the application within established procedural frameworks governing injunctions and appellate proceedings.

The order itself was dated 19 March 2026 and signed by K. Muzenga, identified in the document as a Court of Appeal Judge. The record indicates that the court considered the submissions before granting the interim measures now in force.

Legal representation for the appellant is listed as Messrs. Kayula & Associates, with an address in Kabulonga, Lusaka. The filing places the case within the formal appellate process, where the court will determine the legality and scope of actions taken in relation to party leadership positions.

The ruling establishes a temporary legal position that prevents changes to the Patriotic Front’s official records and leadership functions until the appeal is resolved. The outcome of the April hearing will determine whether the restrictions remain or are adjusted as the case progresses.

The Tonse Alliance has condemned the blocking of its president Brian Mundubile from boarding an international flight, describing the incident as an abuse of state authority and a violation of constitutional rights.

In a press statement issued by George Chisanga MP, the alliance states that the action raises serious concerns about freedom of movement and the state of democratic governance in Zambia ahead of the 2026 elections. The development places the incident at the centre of growing political tension, with the alliance framing it as a direct restriction on a senior opposition figure.

The statement says the decision to prevent Mundubile from travelling was unjustified and demands an immediate explanation from authorities responsible for the action. It also calls for the unconditional restoration of his right to travel and accountability for officials involved.

Freedom of movement is recognised under Zambia’s legal framework, and the alliance argues that any limitation must be grounded in law. It maintains that the blocking of Mundubile does not meet that threshold and instead reflects misuse of state systems.

The incident is presented as part of a wider political environment in which opposition figures are facing increased pressure ahead of national elections. The alliance links the development to what it describes as a pattern affecting political actors outside government.

“The arbitrary restriction of this right particularly against a leading opposition figure—is not only unlawful, but also a direct attack on democracy itself,” the statement reads.

Tonse Alliance further states that the development undermines confidence in democratic processes and may have implications for political stability. It warns that actions targeting opposition leadership risk heightening tensions in an already charged electoral environment.

The statement references international attention on Zambia’s governance climate, citing concerns raised in external reports regarding democratic space. It argues that incidents such as this reinforce those concerns and warrant scrutiny.

Mundubile’s reaction, as conveyed in the statement, reflects strong dissatisfaction, with the alliance describing him as shocked by the situation and its broader implications for governance.

The alliance is calling on citizens, civil society organisations, religious institutions, and international stakeholders to take note of the development and support efforts aimed at protecting constitutional freedoms.

It maintains that Zambia’s democratic framework must be upheld through adherence to the rule of law and equal application of rights, regardless of political affiliation.

Full Statement Below.

PRESS STATEMENT
For Immediate Release

Condemnation of the Blocking of Brian Mundubile from International Travel

The Tonse Alliance expresses its strongest condemnation of the deeply troubling and unjustified action taken today to block its President, Brian Mundubile, from boarding a scheduled international flight.

This incident represents a dangerous escalation in the abuse of state institutions and raises serious concerns about the erosion of constitutional freedoms in Zambia.

The freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under the laws of our Republic. The arbitrary restriction of this right—particularly against a leading opposition figure—is not only unlawful, but also a direct attack on democracy itself.

We therefore demand:

An immediate and full explanation from relevant authorities regarding the legal basis of this action. The unconditional restoration of Hon. Mundubile’s right to travel freely.

Accountability for all officials involved in this abuse of power.

This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a broader and worrying pattern of intimidation and suppression directed at opposition leaders ahead of the upcoming elections.

Such actions undermine the credibility of our democratic processes and elections and threaten national stability.

Let us be clear: Zambia does not belong to any political party or administration—it belongs to its people.

The Tonse Alliance will not be intimidated. We will continue to stand firm in defending democracy, the rule of law, and the rights of all citizens.

President Mundubile is totally flabbergasted at what the country has become under the UPND where the have taken Zambia back to the stone age!

Recently, the US State Department, UN Human Rights Watch charged that Zambia’s democratic space had drastically.

We call upon the people of Zambia, civil society, the church, and the international community to take note of this development and to stand in defense of constitutional order.

Issued by:

GEORGE CHISANGA MP
PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESPERSON

Lawyers representing members of former president Edgar Lungu’s family have challenged the Drug Enforcement Commission’s account of its operation at a Lusaka property, disputing claims that the residence was abandoned and raising questions over the legality of the entry.

The dispute centres on a property in Libala, where the Commission conducted an operation that has since drawn legal scrutiny. The Commission had indicated that the property was abandoned, a position used to justify its actions at the premises. However, the legal team representing the family has rejected that claim, maintaining that the property remains under active ownership.

According to the lawyers, the residence was not abandoned and continued to meet municipal obligations, including the payment of rates. They argue that the description of the property as abandoned does not reflect its actual status and should not have been used as a basis for enforcement action.

The legal challenge goes beyond the condition of the property. Lawyers have also questioned the process followed by the Commission in accessing the premises, stating that entry into private property must comply with established legal requirements. They argue that such actions require proper authorisation and adherence to procedures governing searches and entry.

The Commission’s operation forms part of its broader mandate to investigate matters related to financial crimes and property. Such operations often involve the identification and verification of assets, as well as enforcement actions where necessary. However, the current dispute highlights the need for strict compliance with legal standards when exercising those powers.

At the centre of the case is a question of procedure. The lawyers contend that even where an enforcement agency has grounds to act, it must do so within the confines of the law. This includes obtaining the appropriate legal instruments before accessing private property and ensuring that actions taken are proportionate and justified.

The disagreement over the property’s status has therefore become closely linked to the issue of due process. If the property was not abandoned, as claimed by the lawyers, the basis for the Commission’s action may be subject to further scrutiny within the legal system.

The matter also carries wider attention due to the individuals involved. The property is linked to members of the family of a former head of state, placing the dispute within a broader public and political context. However, the legal arguments presented focus on general principles that apply to all property rights, regardless of ownership.

The case highlights the balance between enforcement authority and legal safeguards. While institutions such as the Drug Enforcement Commission are mandated to act on suspected wrongdoing, their actions are subject to oversight through legal processes designed to protect rights and ensure accountability.

The lawyers’ challenge places the matter firmly within that legal framework. Their arguments call for a detailed examination of both the facts surrounding the property and the procedures followed during the operation. This includes verification of ownership, assessment of the property’s status and evaluation of whether the Commission complied with required legal standards.

The outcome of the case will depend on how these elements are assessed within the judicial system. The process is expected to address both the factual dispute over whether the property was abandoned and the procedural questions raised regarding entry and authorisation.

The case also underscores the importance of clarity in enforcement operations. Descriptions used to justify actions, such as whether a property is considered abandoned, carry legal implications and must be supported by verifiable evidence.

As proceedings continue, attention is likely to remain on the interaction between enforcement powers and legal procedure. The resolution will provide guidance on how similar cases are approached and the standards that must be met when agencies exercise their authority.

For now, the dispute remains active, with both sides maintaining their positions. The Commission stands by its account of the operation, while the legal team continues to challenge both the factual basis and the process followed.