Peter Sinkamba has filed a petition at Zambia’s Constitutional Court challenging the Electoral Commission of Zambia’s decision to require adoption certificates signed by both the president and secretary general of a sponsoring political party as a condition for candidates contesting the August 13, 2026 general elections.
Sinkamba’s petition argues that ECZ does not have the constitutional authority to impose this dual-signature requirement on candidates seeking to contest elective office.
The challenge targets a specific provision within ECZ’s nomination framework that requires aspiring parliamentary, mayoral, council chairperson, and councillor candidates to present adoption certificates bearing signatures from two senior party officials before their nominations can be accepted as valid.
The petition goes to the heart of a wider legal and political controversy that has consumed Zambia’s pre-election period. Multiple opposition political leaders, civil society organisations, and legal practitioners have raised concern that the requirement creates an administrative barrier that party leaderships could weaponise to block internal rivals from accessing the ballot.
If a party president or secretary general withholds a signature, a candidate who has won internal party support could still be disqualified at the nomination stage before voters have any say.
ECZ has defended the requirement as a legitimate mechanism for ensuring that candidates presenting themselves under a party banner carry genuine institutional endorsement from that party’s leadership.
The commission has consistently maintained that the provision strengthens electoral integrity and prevents unauthorised use of party symbols and identities by candidates acting outside their party’s formal structures.
Sinkamba’s ConCourt petition is now the most direct judicial test of ECZ’s authority to impose conditions on candidacy beyond those already prescribed in Zambia’s constitution.
The Constitutional Court will need to determine whether ECZ’s nomination requirements are compatible with constitutional provisions governing the right to stand for election. A ruling against ECZ could invalidate nomination requirements already being applied across the country with the August 13 election date approaching.
Waste of time.
There is the constitution and there is subsidiary legislation. The constitution gives a general direction but the subsidiary legislation describes how that direction is followed. The Commission regulates its procedures under the constitution and the ECZ Act.
Hope that the costs in the court ruling will show that the course of Action in its self is driven by malice and those that pay for such frivolous actions and also be held accountable.
Am not one against people speaking up. But hate those that take such action under the guise of “political party or foundation” to give sembalance of speaking for Zambians. Speak for yourself and be man enough to stand for what you speak for. Dont hide behind a name or poltical being that lacks representation. No ward councillor, no MP, no membership that is representative of what you even believe…just a on man show hoping one day the public can fund your liveihood. Parasite.
Of course you can sue because you are a fuuuul.
Can you ask NDC – Saboi , she will inform you of the confusion that erupted during the ECZ meeting where there were you 2 president representing 1 party.
And you know what? The same fuuls were complaining asking ECZ on what criteria they used to invite opposition parties.
When ECZ wants to resolve such issues, you are up again suing……whats your problem kanshi?
Noneties Presidents who think by such action they can ganner some support…….the opposite is true.
Ba sinkamba aren’t you a president and obviously you should have a secretary general…. Maybe you don’t pay something at the courts that’s you have developed a habit of troubling courts