LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND PROCEDURE, A SOBER RESPONSE TO HARRY KALABA’S APPEAL TO THE AFRICAN UNION(AU)
Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo, LLB
I yesterday read a letter circulating on Facebook authored by Harry Kalaba, addressed to His Excellency Évariste Ndayishimiye in his capacity as Chairperson of the African Union. As a Lawyer, political analyst, author, and good governance activist, I feel compelled to respond to this letter, not to inflame political tensions, but to restore clarity, defend institutional order, and ensure that both Zambians and the international community are guided by law rather than political anxiety expressed by the former Foreign Affairs Minister and leader of an opposition political party.
This is not merely a response, it is a call to ground our national discourse in truth, legality, and democratic maturity, very important.
Let me begin with the law, because in any democracy, the law must always lead politics. Article 4(g) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union(AU) is unambiguous, the AU shall not interfere in the internal affairs of Member States. Article 4(h) goes further, limiting intervention to extreme circumstances such as war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Zambia is not in such crisis. Zambia is not at war. Zambia is preparing for the general elections on the 13th August 2026.You may also wish to know that Article 3 of the same Act reinforces this balance by promoting democracy, peace, and human rights while simultaneously defending sovereignty and constitutional order. These principles are binding. One cannot invite the AU to defend democracy while asking it to disregard sovereignty. That is not how law works, that is how confusion begins Mr Kalaba.
Equally important, our own Constitution provides clear guidance on the conduct and expectations of public institutions such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia. Article 216 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment No. 2 of 2016) explicitly provides that any commission once appointed shall be independent in the performance of its functions and shall act with dignity, professionalism, propriety, integrity, impartiality, and in a non-partisan manner. The Constitution does not bar individuals or Citizens from different political backgrounds, be it PF, UNIP, UPND, or any other political affiliation, from being appointed to commissions. What it demands is that once appointed, such individuals rise above partisan interests and uphold the integrity of the office.
Therefore, any argument suggesting illegality merely on the basis of perceived political association has no constitutional grounding. Mr. Kalaba’s claims, in this respect, have no legal foundation.
Across Africa, we have seen similar political strategies before, and they have failed. In Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Uganda, opposition leaders attempted to elevate domestic electoral grievances to international platforms. Yet in each case, the consistent message from regional and global institutions was clear, resolve your disputes at home. Courts, constitutions, and national institutions are the first guardians of democracy.
This is not a rejection of accountability; it is a reaffirmation of sovereignty and legal order. International bodies do not replace domestic systems, they respect them.
Mr. Kalaba, with his experience as a former Foreign Affairs Minister, understands, or ought to understand, that international organisations operate on strict rules of engagement.
The African Union does not act on political letters alone. It operates through formal state processes, institutional decisions, and defined legal thresholds. Observer missions are not dispatched on demand; they are invited by sovereign states in line with the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. There is no shortcut. There is no back door. There is only procedure and procedure is the backbone of international legitimacy.
More importantly, the law in Zambia already provides clear remedies. If there is alleged illegality in the composition of the Electoral Commission of Zambia, Article 128 of the Constitution points directly to the Constitutional Court for remedies. If there are administrative grievances, the High Court stands ready through judicial review. If compliance with political party regulations is in question, the Societies Act chapter 119 of the Laws of Zambia governs the process. Crucially, Mr. Kalaba himself admits that the Registrar of Societies responded and completed the certification process. The system worked. The law spoke. What, then, remains unresolved in law?
Zambia’s democratic journey offers an even stronger lesson. The United National Independence Party(UNIP) once had everything, structure, control, and authority, yet it lost power when the people chose change.The movement for multi party Democracy (MMD) also lost power in 2011 with every authority on their disposal.The Patriotic Front equally held the instruments of state, but in 2021to UPND, the people spoke decisively.
This is the heartbeat of our democracy, power does not belong to institutions; it belongs to the people. No letter, no complaint, no external appeal can substitute the will of the Zambian voter if they decided to.
So the message to Mr. Kalaba is both simple and profound, go to the people. Speak to them. Convince them. Offer solutions, not suspicions. Build trust, not doubt. That is the only legitimate path to leadership in a democracy.
The African Union is not a campaign platform, it is a legal and diplomatic body bound by rules, objectives, and respect for sovereignty. If Mr. Kalaba seeks to be taken seriously, by Zambians, by Africa, and by the international community, he must do what the law demands, cite specific breaches, follow proper procedures, and respect the institutions that uphold our democracy. Anything less is not a defence of democracy, it is a departure from it.