Judicial Integrity at Stake: The Controversy Over Former President Dr. Edgar Lungu’s 2026 Eligibility- Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

14

Judicial Integrity at Stake: The Controversy Over Former President Dr. Edgar Lungu’s 2026 Eligibility

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

The debate around former President Dr Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s eligibility to contest in the 2026 elections has reignited deep divisions within Zambia’s political and legal landscape. UPND sympathizers have repeatedly argued that it is the Constitution—and not President Hakainde Hichilema (HH)—that has barred Dr. Lungu from seeking a return to office. However, this narrative does not hold water when examined against the backdrop of the Constitutional Court’s precedents and the suspicious circumstances surrounding this latest ruling.



The Constitutional Court’s Previous Rulings on Dr. Lungu’s Eligibility

The Constitutional Court, Zambia’s ultimate authority on constitutional matters, had on several occasions unequivocally ruled that Dr. Lungu was eligible to run for office. These rulings were based on Article 106(6)(b) of the Constitution, which states that a presidential term served for less than three years does not count as a full term.



1. The 2015-2016 Term: After the untimely death of President Michael Sata, Dr. Lungu served as President for less than two years. This period did not meet the constitutional threshold to qualify as a full term.

2. Clear Legal Precedents: The court repeatedly affirmed that Dr. Lungu’s short tenure did not disqualify him from contesting the presidency in 2016 or 2021.



3. 2021 Eligibility: Following these precedents, Dr. Lungu was deemed eligible to run in 2021, where he faced and lost to President Hichilema.

These rulings were consistent and firmly rooted in the Constitution. For the court to reverse its own established precedents now—without any changes to the constitutional framework or compelling new arguments—is deeply troubling.



Political Pressure: A Possible Catalyst for Reversal

The decision to bar Dr. Lungu from contesting in 2026 cannot be separated from the political context surrounding it. President Hichilema, long a critic of his predecessor, vowed to ensure that Dr. Lungu would never return to power. His infamous statement, “we will play iming’alato,” was not just rhetoric but a clear indication of his intent to use every available means to neutralize his predecessor politically.



Fast-forward to the current scenario,  UPND  surrogate Michelo  Chizombe an ally of President Hakainde Hichilema spearheaded a legal petition questioning Dr. Lungu’s eligibility. This petition, however, brought no new evidence or arguments to the table—only recycled claims that the Constitutional Court had already addressed. The court’s decision to entertain this petition and reverse its earlier rulings raises serious questions about judicial independence and political influence.


Unanswered Questions About the Reversal

The court’s latest ruling on Dr. Lungu’s eligibility is riddled with contradictions and lacks a transparent legal basis:

What Changed Between 2021 and 2026? The Constitutional Court previously ruled that Dr. Lungu was eligible in 2021. The Constitution itself has not been amended since then, so on what basis did the court determine that Dr. Lungu is now ineligible for 2026?


Failure to Justify the Reversal: The court has not provided a clear explanation for reversing its own precedent. This unexplained decision undermines its credibility and fuels perceptions of political interference.



Judicial Manipulation: A Threat to Democracy

Further compounding these suspicions is the controversial replacement of three Constitutional Court judges who had previously ruled on Dr. Lungu’s eligibility. These judges were removed under opaque circumstances and replaced with individuals perceived to be aligned with the ruling UPND.



When Dr. Lungu’s legal team raised concerns and requested the recusal of these judges, their plea was ignored. This refusal has further eroded public confidence in the judiciary and bolstered claims that the court’s independence has been compromised.



Does President Hichilema Have the Power to Bar Dr. Lungu?

Constitutionally, President Hichilema does not possess the authority to directly bar a political rival from contesting elections. However, the reversal of Dr. Lungu’s eligibility raises serious concerns about indirect interference. The judiciary, meant to serve as an impartial arbiter, appears to have been swayed by political pressure—a dangerous precedent for Zambia’s democracy.



This leads to a critical question: If HH lacks the legal authority to bar Dr. Lungu, how else could this sudden reversal have occurred if not through political influence over the judiciary?

The Bigger Picture: Implications for Zambia’s Democracy

The barring of Dr. Lungu is more than a political maneuver—it is a direct assault on Zambia’s democratic institutions. By undermining the judiciary’s independence, this decision has eroded public trust in the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent for the future.



Even Zambians who are not supporters of Dr. Lungu are troubled by these developments. Their concerns are not about Dr. Lungu’s political fate but about the integrity of the country’s institutions. A judiciary that is perceived to be politically compromised is a judiciary that fails to serve justice.

The Constitution is meant to be a guiding document, protecting democracy and ensuring fairness. However, the handling of Dr. Lungu’s eligibility case has turned the Constitution into a political weapon, manipulated to serve partisan interests.

Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Integrity

The claim that the Constitution barred Dr. Edgar Lungu from contesting the 2026 elections is misleading. The same Constitution and its provisions were used by the Constitutional Court to declare him eligible in 2021. The court’s unexplained reversal not only undermines its own credibility but also casts a shadow over Zambia’s democracy.

For Zambia to move forward, it is imperative that the judiciary reasserts its independence and integrity. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The handling of this case has left the courts exposed and raised serious doubts about their impartiality. Zambians deserve better, and the restoration of trust in the judiciary is essential for the nation’s democratic future.

Justice must serve the people, not political agendas. Let this be a wake-up call to protect the sanctity of Zambia’s institutions for generations to come.

14 COMMENTS

  1. Thandiwe Ngoma you’re a useless woman and supporter of the Defunct TuPF criminals
    What’s it that you can’t understand?
    Let me put it to you
    The crafters of the constitution didn’t want any Zambian to be President for more than 10 years, Edgar Lungu
    If ECL had been allowed to stand in 2026 he’s going to rule Zambia for more than 10 years
    When ECL and his henchmen realized this they adulterated the constitution by inserting a clause which said if a president holds the office for less than three years, that period will not count as a term. Unfortunately they failed to remove the clause which says that once you have been sworn in twice you can’t hold the office of the president, whether Lungu or anyone else
    That insertion of “less than three years” in the constitution was wrong and because ECL was a tyrant and short sighted leader he got away with it
    But in this world only truth, honesty and integrity will stand the test of time
    Ubucenjeshi bwankoko pungwa tasakamana
    So, the people, through the ConCourt, have corrected that mistake and restored the constitution to its original intention of 10 years only for a president. As a lawyer ECL should not have stood as a president after the death of President Sata
    Only an idiot will fail to understand this explanation

  2. I don’t mean to demean your academic or professional achievements as an individual,but I find argument very shallow as you are only looking at 1 article which defends your perception, however the bench did qualify the bases on why ecl did not/ qualify in 2021.can you be objective and don’t be driven by politics,but the what law states.

  3. In Zambia, the concourt will side with the president of the day.

    Every dog has its day, and this is his. Let him enjoy.

    Vote wisely in 2026.

    • Yes we will so that we do not experience gassing, withdrawal of students allowances, kamugodi, cadreism, regionalism, corruption, fake projects that choked us of a huge debt which they could not repay, failing to pay for fuel and electricity imports, etc

  4. This debate about the 10 December landmark judgement is still on despite the super clarity sure? Please cry quietly you will eventually understand.Read the judgement again and again you will come across an expression ” per incurrium” and use some reference books and check the meaning.Then you will understand.You will stop your complaints.

  5. Lengthy submission, Mr. Mwamba.
    We all know what transpired throughout the tenure of PF and what your motives were, including the bill 10.
    Further, the concourt did not rule if Lungu was eligible or not.
    Now, the law will never be applied in introspect.
    You changed the constitution when Lungu was in his first term.
    Hence, the amendment is applicable to his second term.
    No need for a lengthy submission, former ambassador Mwamba

  6. There is no controversy here, the judgment was very clear for everyone who listened to it, expat people like you who have decided not to accept it. In democracy, there is no 100% satisfaction, we use the majority.

  7. Ms. Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma, you are still holding on to your old untenable arguments. For instance, you talk about a term being three or more years but you deliberately leave out the fact that Mr. Lungu first held office under the 1991 constitution were the constitution was silent on what constituted a term. The three year definition was made by Mr. Lungu when he signed the 2016 constitution. The law CANNOT apply retroactively. Hence Mr. Lungu’s first stint in office in 2015/16 was counted as a full term. The judgement was very clear on this but you are deliberately ignoring this fact.

    The bottomline is Mr. Lungu had absolutely no respect for the constitution. How do you explain swearing in of Mr. Lungu in 2016 by a registrar when the constitution clearly stipulates that only the Chief Justice or his/her deputy are authorized to do this. To make matters worse, both the Chief Justice and her deputy were present at the swearing in ceremony. Why did BOTH decline to swear in Mr. Lungu?

    Mr. Lungu was a master at taking constitutional shortcuts.

  8. 10-0 to Judiciary for televising the judgement, no room for falsehood from the likes of Mwamba. Opposition needs to change their strategy, propaganda checks and balances won’t get them anywhere in this day and age. Its easy to verify any claim nowadays

  9. Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma your perception that there deep divisions in the political space in Zambia is misplaced thought and is based on your opinion. Edgar Chagwa Lungu is not a democratic person but an imposter and dictator.

    The PF today is weak and disorganised because of imposing himself as a party president yet this person voluntarily retired from active politics but from nowhere he announced his come to active politics. The biggest enemies of the PF are Edgar Chagwa Lungu, Given Lubinda, Raphael Nakachinda, Emmanuel Mwamba, and Mukwita these have been misleading Edgar Chagwa Lungu not because they believe in his leadership but to benefit from him in getting handouts.

    Similarly, Edgar Chagwa Lungu from the beginning he knew that he was not legible to contest the General elections in 2021 but he imposed himself on the ballot paper by issuing threats to the Judiciary and ECZ. He also appointed some of the unqualified Judges to Concourt to secure his mischievous actions.

    If Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma you are an accomplished advocate of human rights and good governance how do you describe the ascendancy of former president Edgar Chagwa Lungu to party president of the PF by then? Was his ascendancy to PF party president done in a democratic and transparent manner?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here