ECZ’S CONDUCT OF THE 2026 GENERAL ELECTIONS BEING QUESTIONED BY UPND THROUGH NATIONWIDE ELECTION PETITIONS
By Prof. Proud Moonga, PhD
Lecturer, University of Michigan, United States of America,
Good Governance Activist
UPND continues to behave as though it is still an opposition political party, rather than the governing party entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and strengthening the institutions of the Republic. How can a ruling party that publicly proclaimed, defended and commended the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) for conducting “free and fair elections” across the country now turn around and embark on what appears to be a nationwide challenge of parliamentary and local government results won by the opposition?
This is not merely a question of political strategy. It is a serious question of governance, institutional credibility and democratic legitimacy. A government has a constitutional and moral responsibility to protect the integrity of state institutions, particularly institutions whose decisions determine the democratic transfer and exercise of political power. When the same electoral process is praised as credible when it produces favourable outcomes, but subsequently questioned when it produces victories for the opposition, citizens are entitled to ask whether institutional principles are being applied consistently.
This goes beyond political embarrassment. It raises fundamental questions about the political maturity with which state institutions are being governed and protected. The moment a ruling party begins to treat independent institutions primarily through the lens of partisan political advantage, the distinction between the State and the ruling party becomes dangerously blurred. That distinction is at the heart of constitutional democracy.
Where are the institutions and constitutional safeguards responsible for protecting the Republic from the erosion of institutional independence? Where are those entrusted with providing governance oversight and ensuring that public institutions are not weakened by partisan interests? The responsibility to safeguard democratic institutions cannot be left entirely to the opposition, civil society or ordinary citizens. Those who control state power have an even greater obligation to preserve institutional integrity.
A good leader is not measured merely by the ability to win elections or exercise executive authority. Good leadership is measured by how effectively leaders protect institutions that can constrain their own power. A genuinely democratic government should strengthen the ECZ even when its decisions are politically inconvenient. It should defend the independence of the judiciary even when cases before the courts involve members of the ruling party. It should respect Parliament even when Parliament exercises oversight over the Executive. It should protect law-enforcement institutions from political interference, regardless of who is being investigated.
That is the essence of constitutionalism: government itself must remain subject to the Constitution, the law and independent institutions.
The ECZ is not an institution of UPND. It is not an institution of the opposition. It is an institution of the Republic of Zambia. Its credibility therefore belongs to every Zambian. Once confidence in the electoral management body is systematically weakened, the damage does not stop with one election or one political party. It undermines citizens’ confidence in the entire democratic process.
Today, serious allegations have been made concerning the conduct of the presidential election involving Hon. Brian Muntayalwa Mundubile, including claims that returning and presiding officers in certain constituencies and polling stations were instructed to alter figures in favour of the ruling party. These are extraordinarily serious allegations. They must neither be politically dismissed nor accepted without evidence. They must be subjected to a transparent, impartial and credible legal and investigative process.
If such allegations are proven, then the matter would go far beyond an ordinary electoral dispute. It would constitute a direct assault on the integrity of the electoral process, the independence of election officials and the democratic will of the electorate. Those responsible would have to be held accountable in accordance with the law, irrespective of their political affiliation or position.
What makes the current situation particularly troubling is the apparent contradiction between the earlier declaration that the elections were free and fair and the subsequent decision to challenge numerous opposition victories. There is nothing inherently wrong with a political party challenging an election result where it genuinely believes that electoral malpractice occurred. That is an essential component of the rule of law.
However, there must be consistency and institutional honesty. You cannot simultaneously present an electoral institution as credible when it produces results favourable to you and then cast doubt on that same institution when it produces results favourable to your political opponents. Such conduct risks reducing democratic institutions to instruments of political convenience.
The courts now have an important responsibility. Election petitions must be determined strictly on the evidence and in accordance with the Constitution and electoral law—not according to political pressure, public sentiment or the identity of the petitioner or respondent. The judiciary must remain the ultimate guardian of electoral justice where disputes arise.
Equally important, the ECZ must be given the institutional space to account for its decisions and procedures. Where allegations have been raised concerning the alteration of results, instructions to election officials or irregularities at polling stations and constituency centres, the public deserves credible answers. Accountability is not an attack on an institution; accountability is what strengthens an institution.
This situation should concern every Zambian, regardless of political affiliation. Those celebrating today may find themselves seeking protection from the same institutions tomorrow. Political power is temporary; institutions are permanent. The greatest mistake any government can make is to weaken institutions while in power and later discover that it needs those same institutions when it is no longer in power.
Democracy cannot survive if institutions are respected only when they produce politically convenient outcomes. Institutional independence must not be conditional on political loyalty. The ECZ must be independent. The judiciary must be independent. Parliament must be capable of exercising meaningful oversight. The police and other law-enforcement agencies must operate professionally and impartially. These are not privileges granted by the government of the day; they are pillars of constitutional governance.
The separation between the ruling party and the State must also remain clear. A political party wins an election and forms government, but it does not thereby acquire ownership of the State or its institutions. Government is exercised on behalf of the people and within the constitutional framework. State institutions must therefore serve the Republic rather than partisan political interests.
The real test of democratic leadership is not how a government behaves when everything goes its way. The real test comes when institutions make decisions that are politically uncomfortable. It is at that point that leaders demonstrate whether they genuinely believe in constitutional democracy or merely believe in institutions when those institutions serve their interests.
Zambia must never become a country where electoral institutions are praised when they deliver victory to one side and condemned when they deliver victory to another. We must never normalise the politicisation of independent institutions. We must never allow the distinction between the party in power and the State itself to disappear.
The country needs strong institutions, not strongmen; constitutionalism, not political expediency; accountability, not impunity; and the rule of law, not the rule of political convenience.
If the allegations surrounding the conduct of the elections are unfounded, let the appropriate institutions establish that fact transparently. If they are substantiated, those responsible must face the full consequences of the law. If election petitions have legitimate grounds, let the courts determine them on their merits. If they do not, let them be dismissed.
But what Zambia cannot afford is the gradual erosion of public confidence in the institutions that underpin our constitutional democracy.
The ECZ must belong to the Republic, not to the government of the day. Parliament must belong to the people, not to a political party. The judiciary must belong to justice, not to political interests. And the State must remain bigger than every political party and every individual who temporarily occupies public office.
The question before Zambia is therefore much bigger than who wins or loses individual election petitions. The fundamental question is whether we are building a constitutional democracy governed by strong, independent and accountable institutions—or a political system in which institutions are increasingly judged according to whose interests they serve.
Zambia deserves better. Our democracy deserves better. And future generations deserve institutions that are stronger, more independent and more credible than the political actors who occupy public office today. Zambia belongs to all of us. Political power is temporary. The Republic is permanent. Let us therefore protect the institutions of the Republi