PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MANDEVU BY-ELECTION: THE FRUITS OF THE 2025 (BILL 7) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: STRIPPING PARTIES AND VOTERS OF CHOICE AND WEAKENING MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY
BITTER PILL 1 OF SUPER BILL 7
The unfolding situation in the Mandevu parliamentary by-election raises profound concerns about the state of our multiparty democracy and the consequences of the constitutional changes enacted in 2025 through Bill 7. More so that it follows the Lumezi Parliamentary and the Mbala Mayoral elections were candidates of the ruling party are also going unopposed.
Following the reported withdrawal of three rival candidates representing the Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD), the Leadership Movement (LM), the independent camp, the UPND candidate, Adrian Banda, remains the sole contender in the forthcoming by-election.
This development demands serious national reflection. It raises a fundamental question: What is the value of an election if the people are left without a meaningful choice of representatives?
A constitutional amendment that undermines electoral choice – the bitter pill of a bill
Before the 2025 constitutional amendment, Article 52(6) of the Constitution provided for the cancellation of an election and the filing of fresh nominations in specified circumstances where a candidate resigned after nominations had closed and before polling day. This was so as to protect political parties from being ditched by their adopted candidates for whatever reason. It was also to safeguard voters from remaining without alternatives in an election.
The Bill 7 amendment changed that position. Under the revised provision, a candidate who resigns/withdraws after nomination becomes ineligible to contest, but the election proceeds on the scheduled date.
The practical consequence is that an election may proceed even after competing candidates have withdrawn, potentially leaving voters with no alternative candidate against whom to measure the remaining contender. This is the emerging situation in Mandevu: FDD and LM whose candidates have decided to withdraw, for whatever reasons and the electorate’s in Mandevu have no opportunity to choose among competing political alternatives. They are stuck with the UPND candidate.
The people deserve more than a predetermined choice
The people of Mandevu have already suffered the disruption of their original parliamentary election following the attack on the constituency’s results-totalling centre.
They now face a fresh electoral process in which three rival candidates have reportedly withdrawn, leaving the ruling party’s candidate without competition.
I have totally nothing against Adrian Banda, a young and rising politician who I am closely associated with. However, the people of Mandevu should not have to endure an interrupted election only to find themselves deprived of a meaningful choice when the process resumes.
An election is not merely an administrative exercise in filling a parliamentary seat. It is the mechanism through which citizens exercise their constitutional right to participate in the governance of their country.
Where voters are presented with only one candidate following the withdrawal of their alternatives, their ability to express a preference between competing political programmes is necessarily diminished. It is in this political and democratic sense that the current situation risks disenfranchising the people of Mandevu—not necessarily by denying them the physical opportunity to vote, but by depriving them of the meaningful electoral choice that gives voting its democratic value. By this I actually encourage the electorate of Mandevu to proceed and participate in the parliamentary election
Political parties and their supporters are also affected
The consequences extend beyond the electorate.
The three political formations whose candidates have reportedly withdrawn have lost the immediate opportunity to compete for the parliamentary mandate through those candidates. Their supporters may likewise be left without the candidates they intended to support.
We must, however, distinguish between voluntary political decisions and withdrawals resulting from any unlawful pressure. The mere fact of withdrawal does not establish intimidation, coercion or wrongdoing. For now, the independent candidate is reported to have cited financial challenges and undisclosed personal reasons, whereas the FDD candidate is said to have cited intimidation and threats to his family for their withdrawals. The main issue at hand is how the ECZ and the Police have not been effective in following up such complaints.
The Bill 7 amendment must be examined in the public interest
Beyond the Mandevu situation and going into the future, the UPND government and the proponents of the 2025 constitutional amendment including the opposition MPs who defied their party’s and their electorates’ instruction must explain why a constitutional framework that previously provided for fresh nominations in specified circumstances was changed to allow elections to proceed after a candidate’s resignation. (I am shocked that some of these proponents are now calling from the suspension of the Mandevu election!!)
What safeguards were considered to protect voters when the remaining candidate has no electoral opponent?
What happens to the democratic interests of voters who supported the withdrawing candidates?
And is it consistent with the spirit of multiparty democracy for a constituency to be left with no competing candidate without any opportunity for fresh nominations?
These questions are especially important because constitutional amendments should strengthen democratic institutions and protect citizens’ rights, rather than create avoidable situations in which the substance of electoral choice is diminished.
My position
I continue to hold the position, which I shared with those with whom I stood in opposing Bill 7, that Constitutions should be designed to protect democratic participation and prevent the withdrawal of candidates from unnecessarily undermining the electorate’s choice.
The law should not be indifferent to the democratic consequences of a contest in which all competing candidates disappear from the ballot.
I therefore call for a transparent examination of the consequences of the amended Article 52(6).
I call for a national discussion on whether the current constitutional framework adequately protects voters’ meaningful choice when candidates withdraw after nominations have closed.
The right to vote must be understood not merely as the right to mark a ballot paper, but as the right to participate in a credible electoral process offering a genuine choice wherever the law can reasonably protect that choice.
Conclusion
Voters in Mandevu are encouraged to participate fully in the election process including turning out to vote. Non-the-less let us consider the Mandevu case as tell-tale sign that constitutional changes must be judged not only by their stated objectives, but also by their practical consequences for citizens and political parties.
The 2025 amendment may have been intended to prevent electoral disruption through candidate resignations. But where its application results in a contest without competing candidates, it raises a legitimate concern that administrative continuity has been prioritised over democratic choice.
We cannot claim to strengthen democracy by making it easier to complete an election while making it harder for citizens to exercise meaningful electoral choice. Zambia deserves a constitution that protects not only the holding of elections, but also the substance of democratic participation.
Next time there is a proposal to amend the Constitution let us all be alert and avoid creating pitfalls for democracy and good governance.
Issued by:
Given Lubinda
Bo Lubinda, dont the participating political parties that nominate their candidates know that if their candidate withdraws, the remaining nominated candidate from a competitor will be declared winner of the seat? Do you want to deny a candidate who subjects himself or herself to an electoral competition to be denied his or her desired position when there are no other candidates willing to compete?? Why should a candidate or political party willing to compete be punished when other candidates from competing political parties or as independents decide not to compete?? When political parties nominate a candidate who then resigns, it is the problem of the political party and their candidate!!!
Bill 7 does not force or tell any candidate to resign or withdraw before the election day, the withdraw is entirely the candidate’s own choice. Ballot papers are already printed and the same candidates who withdrew are still appearing. If you have a football match and the other team fails to turn up without any valid reason, don’t they award all the 3 points to the team which turned up? We need to be objective when we debate on such issues.