GOVERNMENT CANNOT WITHDRAW ECL’S BURIAL CASE BEFORE SOUTH AFRICA’S TOP COURT, BUT HIS FAMILY CAN – SPEAKER MUTTI

By: Thomas Afroman Mwale

Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, says it is the family of late former President Edgar Lungu that has the authority to withdraw the burial case currently before the Supreme Court of South Africa, which has resulted in Mr Lungu remaining unburied eight months after his death.

Ms Mutti said the appellants in the matter are members of the Lungu family, who have the power to withdraw the case not the Zambian Government.

She explained that it was the family that initially challenged the repatriation of Mr Lungu’s remains to Zambia.

She described the matter as serious and advised Matero Member of Parliament Miles Sampa to help facilitate the return of the former president’s body to Zambia for burial.

The Speaker was responding to Mr Sampa, who asked in Parliament when Mr Lungu would be buried, describing the eight-month delay as unchristian.

Mr Sampa raised the matter while debating President Hakainde Hichilema’s State of the Nation Address on National Values and Principles.

He appealed to Vice President Mutale Nalumango and Minister of Justice Princess Kasune to urge Attorney General Kabesha to withdraw the case and allow the former president to be buried.

Former President Lungu died on 5th June 2025 and has not yet been buried due to an ongoing legal dispute between his family and the Zambian Government over his final resting place.

His family appealed a judgment by the High Court of South Africa, which ruled in favour of the Zambian Government that he should be buried in Zambia.
#SunFmTvNews

ZAMBIA DECIDES? ARE WE READY AS ZAMBIANS?

By: Chanda John Chimba.

The political space is often filled with noise, but sometimes that noise becomes so manufactured that it insults the intelligence of the very people it claims to represent. Recently, the so called podcast opinion polls pushed by Emmanuel Mwamba have sparked more amusement than credibility among many observers.

These polls, which appear heavily tilted toward Makebi Zulu and Harry Kalaba, attempt to create the impression that they are the most popular opposition figures in the country. But to many watching closely, this impression feels carefully manufactured rather than genuinely measured.

Across the democratic world, opinion polling follows structured and transparent methods designed to capture representative views. Yet here, citizens are asked to “vote” by calling into a podcast, a process that raises more questions than answers. Who verifies the callers? Who ensures balance? Who prevents coordinated participation? When the same familiar voices dominate the lines, it begins to look less like public opinion and more like organised theatre. Critics argue that such arrangements risk turning polling into performance, where participation is curated rather than open, and results reflect networks rather than national sentiment.

Meanwhile, the camp of Brian Mundubile remains unshaken. Those around him have consistently maintained that podcast polls do not reflect the real mood on the ground, the conversations in markets, the sentiments in communities, or the genuine concerns of citizens across the country. Political momentum is not built in call in queues, it is built through engagement, service, and trust earned over time.

What is perhaps more concerning is the growing trend of opposition figures turning their energy inward. Instead of presenting a united alternative, divisions have deepened to the point where it often appears to be opposition versus opposition rather than opposition versus the ruling party. Many citizens long for cooperation, maturity, and shared purpose, not rivalry driven by insecurity or competition for attention.

It is particularly disappointing to some observers that elements within Patriotic Front have directed intense criticism toward Mundubile. His greatest “offence,” they argue, is simply offering himself in service to the nation and receiving significant support both nationally and within party structures. That support, visible, growing, and organic, has unsettled those who did not anticipate it. But popularity born from engagement cannot be silenced by narratives crafted in studios.

Mundubile’s approach to politics has been widely described by supporters as calm, disciplined, and focused on issues rather than personalities. He has consistently emphasised policy, national development, and constructive dialogue. Where others escalate rhetoric, he responds with substance. Where others chase spectacle, he speaks of service. In a political environment often dominated by confrontation, his steady and measured tone stands out.

Many citizens say they would welcome a truly united opposition, one grounded in shared vision rather than competing egos. The country’s challenges require cooperation, maturity, and leadership anchored in responsibility.

In the end, political legitimacy is not built on staged enthusiasm or curated opinion. It is built in the hearts of the people, quietly, steadily, and authentically. And that reality cannot be manufactured, no matter how many microphones are switched on.

Copper, Crocodiles, and Courage
…Zambia Tells Uncle Sam to ‘Keep the Change’

Amb. AM 26 Feb 26

In a move that has electrified the corridors of African power, Zambia, the continent’s second-largest copper producer, has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles by rejecting a $1 billion financing proposal from the United States government.

President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration, elected on a reformist platform under the United Party for National Development (UPND), declined the deal after uncovering what local media and international observers have described as restrictive and intrusive conditions.

Among the most controversial demands: unfettered access to the personal health data of Zambian citizens and sweeping mining concessions for American interests (Reuters).

Zambia’s refusal echoes a broader continental shift. Observers have applauded the government’s bold stance, contrasting it with the historical pattern of African nations acquiescing to Western demands, often at the expense of sovereignty and integrity.

As Lusaka charts its own course, echoes ring across the southern border, where Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa—known as “The Crocodile”—similarly rebuffed U.S. overtures, famously telling Washington to “keep your money.” (Reuters)

This is no mere diplomatic spat. At stake is Zambia’s immense mineral wealth, which includes not only copper but also an increasingly strategic cache of rare earth minerals.

These resources are critical in the escalating global contest between the United States and China for technological supremacy. While both superpowers vie for influence, Zambia and Zimbabwe find themselves in the crosshairs, but, crucially, are no longer playing by the old rules.

Washington’s grip as the world’s economic trendsetter appears to be loosening. Once, the world caught a cold when America sneezed; today, African nations like Zambia and Zimbabwe reach for their own remedies.

Is this the dawn of a stronger, multipolar Africa? Whatever the answer, Lusaka and Harare now stand tall, their mineral-rich lands a testament to a new era of African resolve and resourcefulness.

ARCHBISHOP PHIRI ACTING LIKE JUDAS
…he has betrayed the ZCCB -Sishuwa

By Mast Reporter

NDOLA Archdiocese Archbishop Benjamin Phiri exhibited the characteristics of a Judas Iscariot when he betrayed the position of the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) that the pulpit must remain a place of prophetic truth and moral clarity, not political opportunism, Harvard-based historian Sishuwa Sishuwa has charged.

On Sunday, President Hakainde Hichilema and several UPND politicians such as Minister of Mines Paul Kabuswe and Copperbelt Province Minister Elijah Matambo attended mass at St Joseph Cupertino Catholic Church in Chifubu Parish, Ndola. During the event, the trio were allowed to use the pulpit to address congregants and pledge monetary donations to the Church for the procurement of uniforms for choir members.

Commenting on this development yesterday, Dr Sishuwa, a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University in the United States of America, criticised Archbishop Phiri for allowing politicians to use the pulpit for partisan interests or political agenda.

He said the ZCCB’s guidance on the use of the pulpit by non-priests was clear and the Archbishop, who is a member of the body, should have respected commonly agreed positions.

“Never in the history of the ZCCB has an Archbishop repudiated commonly agreed positions. As you know, I am a historian, so I consider myself sufficiently qualified and competent enough to comment on this matter. [Editor’s note: Dr Sishuwa obtained his PhD in Modern History at Oxford University and is also a Senior Lecturer in History at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.] The last time this happened was in June 2017 after then Lusaka Archdiocese Archbishop Telesphore Mpundu, who was also president of the ZCCB, issued a statement that Zambia was sliding into a dictatorship following the arrest of then opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema on a bogus charge of treason by the previous administration. Bishop Benjamin Phiri, who was then Chipata Catholic Auxiliary Bishop, distanced himself from Archbishop Mpundu’s statement, claiming that it was not approved by the ZCCB. One can excuse Archbishop Phiri’s conduct at the time, especially if it was proved that Archbishop Mpundu’s statement was issued without consultation with the ZCCB membership. His conduct this time around cannot be excused”, Dr Sishuwa said.

“On 30 January this year, the ZCCB issued a Pastoral Letter in which they advised against the use of the pulpit by anyone for partisan interests or political agenda. The Pastoral Letter did not provide for any exemptions. Archbishop Phiri was a signatory to that Letter so it cannot be said that he is ignorant of the Church’s position on this issue.

In addition to defying a collective position, Archbishop Phiri has allowed Hichilema to create a template whereby if the UPND presidential candidate is stopped from addressing the faithful using the pulpit in another parish, he will cry hatred. The conduct of Archbishop Phiri undermines collective positions and the standing of both the ZCCB and the Catholic Church in general.

If individual leaders of the various opposition parties went to the Cathedral in Ndola to pray and request to use the pulpit to address the congregation and pledge financial donations like it was done on Sunday, will Archbishop Phiri allow this since the Catholic Church is known for its impartiality, fairness, and consistency? And where would that leave the ZCCB’s guidance on this issue? Archbishop Phiri may be compromised or sympathetic to Hichilema, but he should have respected the position that was stated by the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops that the pulpit must remain a place of prophetic truth and moral clarity, not political opportunism”, he said.

Dr Sishuwa argued that Archbishop Phiri betrayed not only the ZCCB’s position but also his own stated position on the use of the pulpit.

“Not long ago, Archbishop Phiri issued a statement in which he banned the use of the pulpit by visitors. Let me quote what the same Archbishop wrote on 8 August 2022 in an internal memo addressed to the Vicars Forane, all priests, religious men and women, and all the lay faithful of the Catholic Diocese of Ndola. Here said and I quote: ‘Whenever politicians visit our churches, they should be treated like any other ordinary Christian coming to worship. At no time should they be accorded a chance to speak to the gathered faithful during Mass at the pulpit nor should they be given an audience outside Mass to speak to the parishioners within the church premises. I further admonish all the priests, especially the parish priests and their respective parish leaders, to strictly adhere to my directive without fail.

I am aware that some priests out of courtesy have in the past accorded an opportunity to politicians to speak to the gathered faithful in the name of greeting them during Mass. This is not permitted at all. Our Churches are not political platforms of whatever political pronouncements our brothers and sisters from the political sphere wish to make known to the public. They are instead places of worship and reverence of our Creator.

All the people must be free to come and worship without the worry of the environment or atmosphere whatsoever’, end of quote. This is what Archbishop Phiri said not long ago. What has changed? If the Archbishop could not respect the position of the ZCCB, he should have at least respected his own position on the use of the pulpit”, Dr Sishuwa said.

The political commentator said that while there is nothing wrong in welcoming Hichilema to any church service, it was wrong for Archbishop Phiri to allow Hichilema and his entourage to use the pulpit.

“No person goes to church in their capacity as president, minister, chief executive officer, academic, or representatives of any political party or ethnic group. They all go as ordinary worshippers. The church welcomes everyone regardless of their status in society.

That is why Hichilema, like anyone else, is welcome to attend mass if he wishes to. Indeed, this is what both Archbishop Phiri and the ZCCB have repeatedly told us, that we are all equal before them. The moment a priest treats a person before the congregation differently because of the position that person holds somewhere else, then the priest is creating hierarchies within the Christian faithful that are not provided for in Scriptures.

It is important to note that Hichilema did not attend Mass because he is president of UPND or of Zambia.  He did not attend mass because he is an elder in the SDA Church. He attended mass as a sinner and child of God and should have been treated like anyone else for the duration of the service and the time that he spent within the Church premises. When people appear before a priest in a place of worship, they do so as children of God.

Whatever status they enjoy outside the church service is immaterial when they are in a church. Neither the statement from the ZCCB nor the one from Archbishop Phiri provided any exemptions regarding who is allowed to use the pulpit beyond the priests. Both statements admonished the use of the pulpit by any visitor to the church. Hichilema, Kabuswe, and Matambo are not priests in the Catholic church; they were visitors and should not have been accorded any other status that elevated them over and above that of other worshipers”, added Dr Sishuwa.

The US-based academic argued that Archbishop Phiri exhibited four characteristics of a Judas Iscariot when he betrayed both his own previous position and the position of the ZCCB on the use of the pulpit by church visitors.

“The characteristics of the Judas Iscariot type include being a traitor, hypocrite, liar, and greed. The unacceptable conduct of Archbishop Benjamin Phiri on this subject meets all the four traits. One can say the Archbishop is a traitor because he went against what the ZCCB stated in black and white that the pulpit must remain a place of prophetic truth and moral clarity, not political opportunism.

I doubt that the ZCCB, when they sat to write that Pastoral Letter, knew that there was a traitor in their midst and that he was about to betray them. Archbishop Phiri is a hypocrite because the very things that he told other people not to do are the very things that he did himself: that the use of the pulpit before, during, or after Mass is not permitted at all.

And if a liar is a person whose word cannot be trusted, then Archbishop Phiri fits this description because he has gone against his own word and failed to live up to what he presented to us as the truth. How can anyone including priests under his care, trust what he will say today or tomorrow?’, Dr Sishuwa asked before providing the other trait of a Judas Iscariot that the Archbishop exhibited.

“Archbishop Phiri is greedy because he has betrayed collective positions in exchange for donations from politicians meant to finance the purchase of uniforms for choir members in his Archdiocese. I doubt the Archdiocese of Ndola is in such a financial ruin that it cannot afford to buy uniforms for choir members at any given parish under its care.

Moreover, if choir members at Chifubu Parish need uniforms, then it means the politicians who donated money towards the purchase of unfirms were provided with this information. But this is not the way to go. If the Archdiocese is facing financial difficulties, let the Archbishop publicise this information so that all interested Zambians, including members of the opposition, can make donations and contribute to overcoming the spirit of poverty that appears to have afflicted the Archdiocese of Ndola”, Dr Sishuwa said.
– The Mast

Election Map Showdown: Peter Sinkamba Takes Electoral Commission of Zambia to Court Over Delimitation Battle

A high-stakes constitutional battle has erupted as Peter Sinkamba, president of the Green Party, drags the nation’s electoral boundaries process into court — seeking to halt the ongoing delimitation exercise and declare it null and void.

The petition was heard before the full bench of the Constitutional Court of Zambia, presided over by Deputy President Justice Arnold Shilimi. At the center of the dispute are sweeping allegations that the Electoral Commission of Zambia has failed to properly execute its constitutional mandate.

Sinkamba contends that the Commission misapplied constitutional amendments — particularly Article 13(5) of 2025, which expanded parliamentary representation from 156 to 226 seats — and proceeded in a sequence that undermines the integrity of the electoral framework. He argues that delimitation should precede voter registration and certification of the 2026 voters’ register, warning that the current timeline risks disenfranchising citizens.

The petition further challenges the structure of voter documentation, alleging that the absence of clearly defined ward and constituency boundaries reflects fundamental procedural flaws in the process.

Also cited as a respondent alongside the ECZ is the Attorney General, while the State, through legal representatives, has urged the court to dismiss the case as premature, maintaining that no final determination on boundaries has yet been made.

Heard by a panel of seven justices, the case now stands as a pivotal legal confrontation — one that could reshape the architecture of representation and the conduct of the next general election in Zambia.

Source: Diamond TV

COUNCIL OF ELDERS CALL FOR A FOURTH REPUBLIC

By Brian Matambo | 26 February 2026

Dear Readers,

Yesterday was probably one of the most important days yet this year in Zambia’s political calendar. I was privileged to attend a momentous press conference at which two of Zambia’s decorated leaders of multiparty democracy spoke to the media. The event, organised by the Centre for Policy Dialogue, was held at M’kango Golfview Hotel in Lusaka. The press statement was given by Dr Mbita Chitala, and Prince Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika delivered a powerful keynote.

Dr Mbita Chitala carries a unique credibility in this conversation. He is not theorising about reform from the sidelines. He is one of the men who stood in the furnace of 1991 and helped compel President Kenneth Kaunda to repeal Article 4 of the Constitution, reopening Zambia to multiparty democracy. When such a man stands up and says the job was not finished, we would be foolish not to listen.

https://www.zambiavotes.com/2026/02/26/elders-call-for-a-fourth-republic/

The message delivered yesterday was clear and sober. Zambia is not merely approaching another election. Zambia is approaching a structural reckoning. As we move toward 13 August 2026, the question before us is not simply who will occupy State House. The deeper question is whether the constitutional and governance framework of this Republic can sustain another cycle without collapsing under its own contradictions.

The elders did not dramatise the moment. They diagnosed it. Constitutional contestation has never fully settled since independence. A presidency that has grown stronger through successive amendments. Institutions are drifting from national service into partisan service. The national debt stands at approximately 28 billion dollars. A cost-of-living crisis biting families and businesses alike. Load shedding is crippling productivity. Political competition is increasingly treated as something to be managed rather than embraced.

These are not isolated problems. They are symptoms of a centralised and personalised governance model that has never been fully dismantled. The first republican constitution emerged from consensus but was eroded by selective amendments. The second republican constitution entrenched the one-party state. The third republican constitution restored multiparty politics in 1991 but did not fully uproot the structural dominance of the executive. Over time, instead of diffusing power, amendments have often reinforced it.

Dr Chitala made it plain: those in government rarely complain about a framework that concentrates authority. The discomfort lies with those outside that concentration and with citizens who feel governed but not empowered. That tension has defined Zambia’s political life for decades

Prince Akashambatwa’s keynote cut through the noise of ordinary politics. He reminded us that being non-partisan does not mean being neutral between justice and injustice. That line deserves reflection. In Zambia, we often confuse neutrality with virtue. But neutrality in the face of structural imbalance is not a virtue. It is avoidance.

The National Conference scheduled for 6th and 7th March is therefore not a rally. It is not an endorsement event. It is being positioned as a forum where over twenty political leaders and representatives of civil society will sit as equals to deliberate on what has been described as a minimum program for change. The aim is not to elevate one individual. The aim is to confront the architecture itself.

At the centre of that confrontation is the proposal for a Fourth Republic. This is not a slogan. It is a call for a comprehensive review and reconstruction of the current constitutional order. A genuinely people-driven constitution, not one negotiated solely among elites. A system anchored in power sharing rather than power hoarding. A governance model that reduces personalisation and restores institutional integrity.

When Prince Akashambatwa repeatedly invoked the national anthem and its call to stand up proud and free, it was not ceremonial nostalgia. It was a challenge. How proud can citizens be if their economic survival depends on political alignment? How free can institutions operate if authority remains heavily centralised? How fearless can political actors be in an environment where competition is viewed with suspicion?

The elders are effectively saying that Zambia’s independence remains incomplete if its citizens cannot participate directly in shaping the rules that govern them. That is the moral core of the Fourth Republic argument. It is not about rebellion. It is about reconstruction.

Of course, not everyone will embrace this call. Some are comfortable with the existing framework. Some benefit from its concentration of authority. In a democracy, people are free to endorse what they choose. But comfort cannot be the measure of national progress. Sustainability must be.

What struck me most yesterday was not anger. It was urgency without hysteria. Experience without bitterness. These are men who have seen Zambia at its lowest and its most hopeful. When they speak of structural reform, it is not out of fashion. It is out of memory.

“We stand at a crossroads.” That phrase is easily overused. Yet crossroads are defined by decision. We can continue adjusting personalities within the same structure and hope for different results. Or we can examine the structure itself.

The elders have placed the question before the nation. Will Zambia manage symptoms, or will it treat the root? The coming weeks will reveal whether political leaders are prepared to think beyond immediate advantage and engage in genuine collective reconstruction.

History has a habit of revisiting unfinished business. The conversation about a Fourth Republic suggests that Zambia’s constitutional journey is not yet complete. The choice now is whether we confront that reality deliberately or wait for a crisis to force the matter upon us.

Yesterday was not ordinary. It was a reminder.

Zambia rejects Trump’s $1bn health funding linked to data access
The health ministry said the draft agreement “did not align with the position and interests” of Zambia

Zambia rejects Trump’s $1bn health funding linked to data access
The US previously said it was committed to a plan to give Zambia a “substantial grant package” in exchange for “collaboration in the mining sector”.

Zambia has rejected a more than $1-billion US funding package, saying conditions set by Washington do not align with its national interests.

It has now joined neighbouring Zimbabwe in turning down the Donald Trump administration’s health initiative.

The package aims to fight diseases in African countries, but in many cases, it is tied to granting Washington greater access to mineral resources and sensitive health data of citizens of the African countries.

Reuters news agency reports that under the proposed, controversial deal, the US was expected to provide more than $1 billion while Zambia would give about $340 million over the next five years.

Problematic sections

It was initially due to be signed in November last year, but had to be delayed due to some problematic sections. Now, Zambia has pulled out altogether until the draft is amended.

Reuters quoted a Zambian Ministry of Health spokesperson on Wednesday, 25 February, as saying the draft agreement “did not align with the position and interests” of Zambia, but suggested it is not linked to mineral resources.

‎They are giving us the same delimitation I rejected in Bill 7 – Senior chief Mwamba

‎
‎
‎
‎By Mubanga Mubanga
‎
‎Senior chief Mwamba says the government is giving the people of Northern Province the same delimitation of constituencies he rejected in Bill 7.

‎
‎Speaking during the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) organised consultation meeting in Kasama on Wednesday, the visibly upset chief aid the people of Kasama and Northern were not “fools.

‎
‎He said the same bill 7 which he opposed, contained the delimitation of constituencies.

‎
‎”Let us be the way we are, rather than you coming to mock us, no! No, l have said no! You the media should write that l have said no coming to me and bringing my people in the province, in my district while you have decided already. Don’t

‎
‎Continue reading here: https://dailyrevelationzambia.com/they-are-giving-us-the-same-delimitation-i-rejected-in-bill-7-senior-chief-mwamba/

NYASULU CALLS FOR NAKACHINDA’S IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Immediate past Director General of the Zambia Medicines and Medical Supplies Agency, Victor Nyasulu, has called for the release of Raphael Nakacinda.

Nyasulu declared that custody is meant for hardcore criminals and not for matters of speech.

He stressed that continued detention amounts to judicial abuse.

Nyasulu urged authorities to stop what he described as harassment through the courts.

– Byta FM Zambia

PATRIOTIC FRONT REJECTS “BUREAUCRATIC INTERFERENCE, “SAYS PARTY REMAINS STRONG

By Jack Makayi

Lusaka 25th February 2026

The Patriotic Front (PF) has issued a strongly worded statement accusing unnamed actors of engaging in “propaganda and psychological warfare” aimed at undermining the party’s legitimacy and readiness.

In the statement released by the party leadership, PF maintained that it derives its authority from the Zambian people rather than from administrative institutions such as the Registrar of Societies or other government offices.

“The Patriotic Front is not a creation of the Registrar of Societies, nor of the police, nor of any Ministry,” the statement read. “It was built by the sweat ,sacrifices,and voters of millions of citizens.”

The former ruling party suggested that efforts are being made to shift political competition away from public support and toward what it described as bureaucratic technicalities and delays. While the statement did not directly name any institutions or individuals, it implied that certain processes were being used to weaken the opposition.

PF further asserted that it remains the “single strongest opposition force in Zambia today,” adding that its legal team and leadership are handling ongoing administrative matters with confidence.

The party also referenced past challenges, including arrests and alleged persecution of its leaders, stating that such experiences have strengthened rather than weakened its structures.

Political analysts note that the statement comes amid heightened political activity and growing debate over party structures and compliance processes in the country. However, government officials have not publicly responded to the specific allegations raised in the PF statement.

The Patriotic Front urged its members to remain calm and united, emphasizing that elections are decided by voters rather than administrative offices

As Zambia’s political landscape continues to evolve, observers say developments surrounding party registration and internal compliance may shape the dynamics of the upcoming electoral cycle.

CIC PRESS TEAM

National Turning Point: Council of Elders for Ethical Leadership, Democracy and Development Announces High-Stakes Democracy Conference for Zambia

A pivotal national moment is taking shape as the Council of Elders for Ethical Leadership, Democracy and Development (CEELDD) announces a landmark National Conference of Democracy and Development Change Advocates, set for March 6–7, 2026 — a gathering framed as a decisive step toward confronting Zambia’s most urgent challenges.

Addressing the nation during a press briefing, conference chairperson Prince Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika declared that Zambia stands at a historic crossroads as the August 13 milestone approaches — a moment demanding reflection, unity, and bold direction.

The conference, he explained, will confront the nation’s most persistent fault lines: constitutional disputes, deepening concerns over national unity, governance tensions, economic strain, rising living costs, and entrenched poverty — issues he described as defining the country’s present and shaping its future.

Calling for broad national participation, Mbikusita-Lewanika urged stakeholders across society to rise above division and collectively chart a new path forward.

Reinforcing the call, planning committee member Mbita Chitala emphasized that the initiative is strictly non-partisan — designed as an open national platform where dialogue, reform, and development can converge in pursuit of a stronger, more cohesive nation.

The gathering is being positioned not merely as a conference, but as a forum for national reckoning — and potentially, renewal.

URGENT UPDATE ON PF Judgement

Lusaka High Court Judge Conceptor Chinyanwa Zulu, has summoned lawyers for Brian Mundubile, Matero MP, Miles Sampa and expelled Mafinga MP, Robert Chabinga to be in her Chambers at 09:00hrs.

Yesterday, Judge Zulu deferred delivering the Judgement scheduled for February 2026.

She should have delivered the Judgement in November 2025 but pushed it to February 2026.

But when the matter came up yesterday, the court marshal said the Judge was attending a workshop and could not deliver the Patriotic Front Consent Judgement and deferred it to Friday, 27th February 2026.

But yesterday afternoon, the Court Marshall informed the parties that Judge Zulu would see the parties in her chamber at 09:00hrs.

Update to follow after this.

GUEST ARTICLE: Court Explains Service Via WhatsApp

By Dickson Jere

Since 2020, before one sues in the High Court, you must first serve a “Letter of Demand” on the person to be sued. When filing your case, you must prove that you indeed served the “Letter of Demand” and the person did not heed to your demand.

In this case, lawyers attempted to serve the letter on the Defendant – a Member of Parliament -but was elusive. Even attempt to physically serve the documents at his parliamentary office proved futile as they refused to accept the documents. Left without any options, the letter was served via WhatsApp to the MP after verifying his number.

But when the case was filed in Court, the MP claimed the letter was never served on him and therefore the case should be thrown out. But the Plaintiff argued that the documents were indeed served via WhatsApp after his office refused to accept them.

An affidavit of service was filed explaining why they opted for WhatsApp service and showed “blue ticks” as received.

The High Court heard the case and observed that the was no law on how the “Letter of Demand” should be served because that comes before even one goes to Court. It is pre-litigation procedure that is not covered under service of Court process.

“WhatsApp can be used as an informal or supplementary means to notify a Defendant,” the Court said.

“However, WhatsApp alone is unsafe if you intend to rely on the letter of demand in Court because if the Defendant later denies receipt, the entire action risks being declared irregular or a nullity,” the Judge added.

The Court observed that the Electronic Communications and Transaction Act of 2021 recognizes electronic communications and electronic records generally but does not override the rules of Court on service.

“So it is advisable to serve the letter of demand physically and obtain a written acknowledgment of service or file  an affidavit of service proving delivery of the same, or failure to deliver as was the case in casu,” the Court guided.

“The Plaintiff took steps to personally or physically serve the letter of demand on the Defendant who made himself unavailable,” the Court said, adding that the MP was aware of the letter but was elusive to receive it.

The Court has since condemned the Defendant in costs to be taxed if he cannot agree on the amounts with the lawyers.

Case citation – Mvunga v Sampa – 2025/HP/0188

Lecture Notes;

1. This case underscores the need to amend our Court Rules to matchup with the current trends in electronic communications. Service via Postal Office is acceptable but not through texts and WhatsApp even though recently another Judge accepted email service as perfect for letter of demand.

2. This case also explains that service of letter of demand is not governed by any law or rule as it is done before litigation starts. So you cannot apply to Court for substituted service of letter when matter is not even before Court.