THE NUMBERS MATTER — CHONGWE EAST ELECTION PETITION
Anita Kamanga got 16,058 votes.
Sylvia Masebo got 6,798 votes.
That is a margin of 9,260 votes.
Does that automatically mean the petition cannot succeed? No. But it raises a very important question:
👉 Can the alleged malpractice be shown to have had enough electoral impact to overturn a result decided by 9,260 votes?
This is where Rose Salukatula v Victor Lumayi is relevant. The court found electoral misconduct had occurred, but held that the misconduct did not have the required impact on the election. The petition was dismissed.
Other cases such as Mwapela v Chinga, Kayekesi v Kambwili and Limata v Chikote also involved substantial winning margins, with the courts ultimately upholding the elections after considering the alleged irregularities and their electoral impact.
There is no rule that a large margin automatically defeats an election petition.
But the principle is clear:
The bigger the margin, the more compelling the evidence must be that the alleged malpractice could have materially affected the result.
In Chongwe East, that margin is 9,260 votes.
So the real question is not simply:
“Was there malpractice?”
It is:
“Was the malpractice sufficiently widespread or consequential to justify overturning an election decided by 9,260 votes?”
For me, that is a very high evidential hurdle.
The numbers matter. The impact matters. And ultimately, the evidence will decide. ⚖️
