MUNIR ZULU ELIGIBLE TO CONTEST AUGUST ELECTIONS – LEGAL SCHOLAR

MUNIR ZULU ELIGIBLE TO CONTEST AUGUST ELECTIONS – LEGAL SCHOLAR

…says once a sentence below three years is served, civic rights are restored

A legal scholar has stated that former Lumezi Member of Parliament Hon. Munir Zulu remains eligible to contest the forthcoming general elections despite having served a prison sentence.

In an analysis of the constitutional provisions, Musterd Phiri said the law clearly allows Zulu to stand for public office again.

Mr. Phiri explained that the eligibility question had sparked public debate following Zulu’s release from prison.

“The Constitution provides a clear answer – yes, he can,” Mr. Phiri said.

He cited Article 70(2)(f) of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016), which disqualifies individuals from contesting parliamentary elections only if they have been sentenced to imprisonment for three years or more.

“Article 70(2)(f) disqualifies a person from being elected as a Member of Parliament if they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least three years,” he said.

According to Mr. Phiri, Zulu’s sentence was below the constitutional threshold.

“Zulu’s sentence was less than three years. Having served his time, he does not fall within the constitutional bar,” he said.

Mr. Phiri added that once a sentence below three years has been served, the law restores the individual’s political rights.

“The law restores his political rights, leaving the ultimate decision to the electorate,” he said.

He further noted that Zambia had previously witnessed politicians return to active politics after serving shorter sentences.

Mr. Phiri pointed to the case of Chishimba Kambwili, who served a five-month sentence and later resumed political activities.

“Chishimba Kambwili was sentenced to five months imprisonment for hate speech. After serving his sentence, he resumed active political participation,” Mr. Phiri said.

He emphasized that the Constitution sets clear legal standards rather than moral judgments regarding eligibility for public office.

“The Constitution sets objective standards, not moral judgments,” he said.

“Once a sentence below three years is served, civic rights are restored.”

Mr. Phiri added that in a democratic system, voters ultimately determine whether to elect a candidate.

“The ballot box, not the courtroom, will determine his future,” he said.

Mr. Phiri asserted that the law was clear on the matter.

“In the end, the law has spoken, eligibility is intact, and democracy will decide,” he said.