🔴 PF LEADERSHIP FIGHT RETURNS TO COURT
The Patriotic Front’s internal power struggle has taken another sharp turn, with Secretary General Raphael Nakacinda escalating the matter to the Court of Appeal after a High Court ruling recognised Miles Sampa’s October 24, 2023 meeting as valid.
At the centre of the dispute is a judgement delivered on March 27, 2026 by High Court Judge Conceptor Chinyanwa Zulu, which concluded that the Patriotic Front had no functioning Central Committee at the time of Sampa’s Extra-Ordinary Conference. That ruling effectively handed control of the party structure to Sampa and his allies, including Morgan Ng’ona and Robert Chabinga.
Nakacinda has now formally challenged that outcome, filing a Notice of Appeal and supporting affidavit arguing that the court got both the law and the facts wrong. He insists the Central Committee had not ceased to exist and that the party constitution provides mechanisms to maintain continuity and fill vacancies, even during leadership transitions.
A key argument in the appeal is that the court overlooked what Nakacinda describes as critical admissions by Sampa himself. According to the filing, Sampa acknowledged that the October 24 meeting did not qualify as a General Conference under the party constitution, raising fresh questions about the legal basis of the earlier ruling.
The appeal also challenges how the court interpreted the PF constitution. Nakacinda argues the judge focused narrowly on one regulation while ignoring other relevant provisions, including those governing how an Extra-Ordinary Conference should be convened and who has the authority to call it.
Authority is another flashpoint. The appeal claims Sampa did not have the legal standing to convene the meeting unilaterally, an issue Nakacinda says the court failed to address adequately. That omission, he argues, directly affects the legitimacy of the entire process.
Questions over evidence are also central to the case. Nakacinda’s filing points out that the High Court accepted the existence of a properly constituted conference without proof such as delegate lists or attendance registers. He argues the burden of proof was wrongly placed on his side, even after admissions by the opposing party.
The case now moves to the Court of Appeal, where judges will re-examine whether the High Court correctly interpreted the PF constitution and properly evaluated the evidence before it.
For the Patriotic Front, the stakes are high. The outcome of this appeal will determine which faction holds legal control of the party structure, at a time when internal divisions continue to shape its political direction.