JOHN SANGWA PULLS OUT OF THE AUGUST PRESIDENTIAL RACE
“I will, however, return to legal practice and devote my time to writing on law, governance, and citizenship, and to spending more time with my family.”
Fellow Zambians,
This statement sets out the considerations that have informed my decision at this stage, and the circumstances that have given rise to it.
For the past thirty-six years – more than half of my life – I have served our country as a teacher, an activist, and a public interest litigator, guided at all times by a commitment to justice, constitutional rule, and the public good.
On 12 October 2025, I stepped away from my legal practice to lead the formation of the Movement for National Renewal (the Movement), as part of that continuing commitment to the public good. This decision was informed by my conviction that, after 60 years of independence, Zambia should have achieved far more than it has. While progress has been made, persistent challenges – particularly in governance, economic management, and service delivery – have limited the full realisation of our national potential.
Zambians deserve better from their government. To address decades of waste, mismanagement, and missed opportunities, I believe the country needs a new path – a genuine national renewal. This initiative was undertaken against the backdrop of an approaching electoral cycle, within which the Movement sought to give immediate and practical expression to these concerns.
The ultimate goal of the Movement was to form government. The first step towards this objective was to constitute the Movement as a civic platform with a single mandate: to mobilise 1,000,000 supporters committed to Zambia’s renewal.
The second phase, which involved transforming the Movement into a political party, was contingent upon achieving this self-imposed target. This milestone was reached on 3 March 2026. The response to this call, achieved within a relatively short period, underscored both the depth and immediacy of public demand for national renewal.
The Movement transitioned into a political party on 6 March 2026, and on 23 March 2026, it formally applied for registration with the Registrar of Societies. At the same time, it launched a fundraising effort to raise K100,000,000 for its campaign, based on voluntary contributions from citizens, with no minimum contribution and a cap of K20,000 per individual per month.
Since its transition into a political party, the Movement has encountered three principal challenges that have significantly constrained its operations.
First, the registration process has been effectively denied by the Registrar of Societies, who has imposed conditions not prescribed by the Societies Act and which, notwithstanding any prior administrative practice, are inconsistent with the Constitution.
In particular, the Registrar has required, as preconditions for registration, police clearance and fingerprint certification of office bearers; clearance from the Inspector-General of the Zambia Police Service for the Movement to be registered as a political party, which the Movement sought by letter dated 25 March 2026 and which has not been granted; and approval of the party symbol by the Electoral Commission of Zambia.
These requirements have been maintained notwithstanding the judgment of the Constitutional Court in The Legal Resources Foundation Limited v The Attorney General (2025/CCZ/0020), delivered on 2 April 2026, which affirmed that the Societies Act must be applied in conformity with Article 60 of the Constitution.
Second, the Movement has been prevented by the police from conducting its nationwide Town Hall Consultation Programme with its more than 1,000,000 supporters. The programme, which was scheduled to run from 24 March to 30 April 2026 across all ten provinces, was intended to engage citizens on governance, constitutionalism, and national development priorities, and to collect input for a People’s Manifesto. It was also intended to establish party structures in line with Article 60 of the Constitution and in readiness for the general election, to serve as the primary mechanism for developing nationwide organisational structures rooted in citizen participation.
By letter dated 2 April 2026, the Inspector-General of Police responded to the Movement’s letter of 16 March 2026, which had notified the police of its planned activities pursuant to section 5 of the Public Order Act.
He indicated that the Zambia Police Service was “unable to clear” the programme on the sole ground that the Movement was not yet registered as a political party. Notably, the registration of political parties falls within the statutory mandate of the Registrar of Societies and not the Zambia Police Service. However, the Registrar of Societies had, in turn, insisted on police clearance as a precondition for registration. No public order or safety concerns were cited by the Police.
In effect, this created a circular barrier to the Movement’s activities: the police declined to “clear” the programme because the Movement was not registered, while the Registrar insisted on police clearance as a precondition for registration. As a result, the programme could not proceed.
Third, the Movement was unable to raise sufficient funding to sustain its operations under the prevailing conditions. In order to avoid undue influence or capture, the Movement adopted a citizen-funded model based on voluntary contributions.
However, during engagement with supporters, it became evident that many individuals were reluctant to contribute through formal channels due to concerns about the visibility and traceability of such contributions. This, in turn, significantly limited the Movement’s ability to mobilise financial resources at the required scale. This constraint did not reflect an absence of support, but rather the conditions under which that support could be expressed.
This apprehension was not merely speculative. By letter dated 7 April 2026, addressed to the President of the Republic of Zambia, the Movement formally brought to his attention the chilling effect that such concerns were having on the exercise of constitutionally protected political rights, including the right to support political organisations through lawful financial contributions.
The Movement respectfully requested the President to provide public assurance that citizens were free to support political organisations of their choice without fear or apprehension.
That request did not receive a response, and the concerns raised remain unaddressed.
These constraints operate cumulatively and in a mutually reinforcing manner. Taken together, they make it practically impossible for the Movement to meet even the minimum requirements for participation in the August 2026 general election. In effect, the Movement is excluded from the electoral process.
I acknowledge that this outcome is disappointing. To the more than one million of you who supported this Movement across Zambia, I recognise the time, effort, and conviction you invested, and I do not take that commitment lightly. I am deeply conscious of the expectations many of you carried in this process. Your support reflects a deep belief in the possibility of a better Zambia.
This outcome does not diminish the significance of what we have built together. Our commitment to national renewal remains firm and undiminished. This is not the end of the journey; it is a moment that calls for reflection, resilience, and renewed resolve by all those who remain committed to that cause.
I have also received proposals from registered political parties regarding participation in the August general election, including invitations to stand as a presidential candidate or to serve as a running mate. After careful consideration, I have declined these proposals.
The Movement does not exist to transfer support from one political platform to another, but to advance the conditions under which meaningful participation can take place. Accepting such arrangements would be inconsistent with the founding principles of the Movement.
It would also amount to a tacit endorsement of the conduct of both the Registrar of Societies and the Inspector-General of Police, which undermines the constitutional framework governing democratic participation. It would not address the underlying issues identified in this statement.
This position is not based on preference, but on the principle that political participation must be grounded in a lawful, fair, and constitutional process. Where those conditions are not present, the scope for alternative courses of action is necessarily constrained.
Accepting such arrangements would also mean overlooking their respective decisions to deny the registration of the Movement as a political party and to restrict its nationwide mobilisation, as well as the constraints affecting citizen-based funding.
These issues must be addressed if democratic participation is to be meaningful and genuine. They cannot be resolved solely through litigation, particularly within the limited timeframe of an ongoing electoral cycle. They raise broader structural and institutional questions that require reflection at the national level.
In the absence of a lawful and enabling framework for participation, the scope for continued engagement in this process is fundamentally constrained. After thirty-six years of public service, I have concluded that, at this stage of my life, it is appropriate to step back from active public engagement, while remaining committed to the principles that have guided this work.
I will, however, return to legal practice and devote my time to writing on law, governance, and citizenship, and to spending more time with my family.
The Movement remains a citizen-led initiative. Its continuation and future direction now rest with those who choose to carry it forward, including how it may be reconstituted in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the law. It will be for them to determine how best to organise, mobilise, and advance the objectives of national renewal.
The questions that have arisen in this process remain of national importance and concern the framework within which citizens organise and participate in public life. The future of Zambia does not depend on any one individual, but on the collective commitment of its citizens.
Responsibility now rests with all citizens – particularly the younger generation – to uphold and advance the values of constitutionalism, accountability, and national discipline, and work towards a Zambia that serves all its people and not a few.
I thank all those who participated in this initiative, and those who have supported me over the years.
I am especially grateful to my wife, whose unwavering support, patience, and quiet strength have sustained me throughout this journey.
John Sangwa, SC
It is not surprising that the MNR has come to this end. It was naive on the part of Mr. Sangwa to expect the registration of his movement as a political party to proceed at breakneck speed so to speak. He should have anticipated hurdles and taken measures to counter them.
To think the party can be registered within one week is expecting too much from our civil service. Anyone who has had dealings with our civil service will tell you that it is frustrating to engage with them and every thing moves at snail’s pace.
Counsel John Sangwa is a very big disappointment.
A time Waster. I feel for Madam Dolika Banda. The woman has so much potential but she has learnt the hard way, on putting Trust in “slipperly” characters.
What’s wrong with the Registrar of Societies asking the People intending to form a Political Party to have their Finger Prints cleared by the Zambia Police?
The issue should be the delay in processing the Finger Prints and not the requirement. The requirement is justified..A country can’t risk having a criminal ascending to the highest office in the land.
The man has disappointed a lot of people.
Is he now going to refund the people who had bought into his cause? The 1,000,000 Zambians???
The game of Politics, particularly in Africa, is not for the faint hearted. Sangwa has just exemplified this fact.
This MNR was just a Bubble from start. The whole Concept was Utopia and unsustainable. The man was trying to exploit the “core DNA” of us Zambians: GULLIBILITY. Kindly publish the List of the 1,000,000 Signatures. Doctors at Chainama have their “Plate full”
It means John Sangwa only had the short-term goal of participating in the 2026 general elections and little or nothing beyond that. Forming a political party is a long haul commitment. He’s clearly not cut for that. How he hoped to work with people he had only met on the Internet is beyond me.
No this is not true. How can Sangwa SC quit without a feel of a police cell and teargas. How can he quit without being presented before a judge with those political cases we know our politics of. Counsel please come back and test these Baptisms .