THE PF CASE: A JUDICIARY AT WAR WITH DEMOCRACY
Yesterday was a day of coincidences – injunction against the authentic Patriotic Front leadership, Miles Sampa’s hold on the Matero’s parliamentary seat protected, and the Tonse leadership taken away from the authentic PF leadership at night!
But let me focus a bit more on what has unfolded around the continued court denials of the PF convention. This is not merely a legal controversy. It is a direct assault on Zambia’s democratic architecture. When courts repeatedly intervene in internal party processes at a time of heightened political sensitivity, the issue ceases to be about law alone and becomes a matter of national conscience.
It is now impossible to ignore the growing perception that some sections of the judiciary have abandoned the sacred principle of impartiality and chosen instead to play an active role in shaping political outcomes. Whether by design, fear, convenience, or quiet alignment with the Executive, the result is the same: justice delayed, justice distorted, and democracy weakened.
Zambia is heading into a critical general election in August. At such a moment, judges with even a modest commitment to democratic stability should understand the weight of their decisions. Courts are not operating in a vacuum. Every injunction, delay, and selective urgency carry political consequences. To pretend otherwise is either dishonest or dangerously naïve.
The continued blocking of the PF convention does not punish a political party alone. It punishes millions of citizens who believe in competitive politics, pluralism, and the right of political organisations to organise without judicial micromanagement. Democracy thrives on choice. When courts are seen to systematically narrow that choice, they are no longer neutral arbiters; they become political actors.
This is where the tragedy lies. A judiciary that should serve as the final shield against abuse of power is increasingly viewed as an extension of that power. That perception, once entrenched, is extremely difficult to reverse. Public confidence in the courts is not a luxury; it is the oxygen of constitutional governance. Without it, rulings may be legally clothed but morally naked.
Mr Hakainde Hichilema can not escape responsibility for this crisis of confidence. Even if one were to assume that he gives no direct instructions to the courts, leadership is also about perception, restraint, and safeguarding institutional independence. Silence in the face of obvious public concern is not neutrality; it is complicity by omission. A president who truly respects the separation of powers must be visibly uncomfortable when courts are accused, rightly or wrongly, of serving his political interests.
What we are witnessing is not the strengthening of the rule of law but its weaponisation. Legal technicalities are being elevated above democratic substance. Speed is applied selectively. Urgency appears only when opposition processes are at stake. This pattern, whether intentional or not, feeds the belief that justice is no longer blind but politically guided.
History is unforgiving to judges who confuse temporary favour with lasting legacy. Political seasons change. Presidents come and go. What remains is the record. Those who use judicial authority to advance or protect political agendas will be remembered not as guardians of the Constitution but as contributors to democratic decay.
Zambia has walked this road before. We know where it leads: weakened institutions, polarised citizens, and elections whose credibility is questioned before the first ballot is cast. Recovering from such damage is costly and slow. Some nations never fully do.
This moment demands courage from the bench. It demands restraint from the executive. Above all, it demands honesty. Courts must act and be seen to act, with independence, balance, and urgency that serves democracy, not suffocates it.
If the judiciary continues on its current path, it will not be the Patriotic Front alone that suffers. It will be Zambia’s democratic soul that is placed on trial. History will pass a verdict far harsher than any injunction issued today.
Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party and People’s Pact Presidential 2026 Candidate
