THE ZAMBIAN ELECTORAL PROCESS BILL, 2026: A COMMENTARY
…The proposed law is not well meant for the progress of democracy and it does not wish
to serve the purpose that any well-meaning law should serve….
● dictators do not rig elections on
election day but manipulate processes long before, creating favorable conditions to
retain power. Amending laws at the last minute raises suspicion.
By Jonas Zimba
18th April, 2026
INTRODUCTION
At the center of any democracy is the act of electing leading is what is commonly called
elections.
Elections are seen as a legitimate way of electing leaders and in Zambia which is as
Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way 2010 describe a competitive autocratic regime, many a time the ruling party participates in elections with both hands while the opposition is tied and receives all the beating.
The leaders seem to submit to multiparty elections but are engaged in serious democratic abuses.
Elections in Zambia are conducted by the Electoral Commission of Zambia2 and this is the body mandated by law to carry out this statutory function of administering election.
Recently, Zambia was engaged in a very vicious debate about what was then known as bill 7 relating to proposed constitutional amendments and this bill is now law and is now
Act No. 13 of 20254.
The vicious debates were largely due to the fact that the process of coming up with the
draft bill was not out of engaging with the citizens and the feeling by civil society was
that the amendments were not as a result of a wider consultation and further the decision
of the Courts in the case of Munire Zulu and Celestien Mukandila v the Attorney
General5 , the petitioners in this case challenged the constitutionality of the
Governments constitutional amendment process which arose from an announcement
de by the Ministry of justice. The Court found that there was no wide consultation and
the Executive was directed to go and engage the citizenry and consult widely.
This paper discuses the proposed amendments to the electoral process Act of Zambia and the implications of such amendments.
The paper further goes on to discuss whether the proposed amendments are made in good taste or not.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE BILL
After the enactment of Act No. 13 of 2025, the government has now embarked on the
process of amending the law on elections and has since taken to parliament the electoral process amendment bill, 2026.
Firstly, the memorandum of the bill sets out what the bill seeks to achieve.
It seeks to provide for inspection of the voters register, to have the adoption certificate
accompany the nomination papers, distribution of seats under the proportional
representation electoral system, appointment of returning officers and set out their
powers, , filling of nominations and provide for powers of the commission to suspend
political party or candidate for breach of the code of conduct as well as any other matters
connected to what is set out in the memorandum.
Firstly, the last point is most interesting. To provide for suspension of a political party or
candidate.
Of all the punishments that may exist, why should the focus be on suspension and not
correction for the sake of allowing smooth participation? Should this be viewed as an
attempt to exclude others from participating in the elections by using the most extreme of measures, which is suspension?
Nick Cheeseman and Brian Clause (2013)7 argue that dictators do not rig elections on
election day but manipulate processes long before, creating favorable conditions to
retain power. Amending laws at the last minute raises suspicion.
The position is that elections are rigged through process and some of these processes go to defeat the very systems that are meant to protect the electoral system such as the law that safeguards the rules that level the playing field. One may ask, why is it that the
government today has decided to change the rules at the very last minute in the game?
Why amend the law this late?
In the proposed law, the drafters have brought in the issue of who should sign the
adoption certificate of a candidate sponsored by a party8.
Whether this is a good proposal or not is yet to be established. It will be recalled that at
the center of confusion created in political parties is the Government of the day which
has been accused of being the one sponsoring confusion in one of the Major political parties the Patriotic front and other political parties around 9. The sponsor may then capture either the president or secretary general of a party, cause confusion in the party
and therefore create a situation where there will be no adoption certificate and as such
none of the candidates will participate making the ruling party the sole candidate. Would
this be the idea behind the proposed amendments? We are yet to see for ourselves.
There is also introduction of the definition of a party list. It is to be prepared for the
purpose of proportional representation and by a political party. This is tied to the
proposed section 36A of the proposed bill10 which is only applicable in the case of a
political party fielding a president. What this means is that if there is no party that fields
a presidential candidate then the only party that will have a list to present will be the
ruling party. This is motivation enough to exclude all other players and have the ruling
party as the sole party on the ballot with a presidential candidate. This provision is not a good provision and the proposed amendment is not properly anchored as it is available
for manipulation and abuse.
Section 12 of the principal Act is to be amended to include the word new in front of
registration. The provision in the principal Act prevents registration of voters whenever
an election is due. What does the Executive wish to do? Make the law clear or continue
re-registration of old voters during the period which is the runner up to the election? Is
this provision clear? Does the provision raise questions without answers? Yes it does if
you look at it clearly for various reasons.
The proposed amendment proscribes registration of ne voters but does not stop the commission from replacing voters cards and all other voter registration activities. This
provision is dangerous and does not meet the needs of leveling the playing field in a
democracy.
The proposed amendment also seek to amend section 1311 of the principal Act. It wishes
to place the determination of the period for inspection of the voters register within the
administrative limits of the commission. The commission under this amendment will have
the power to determine how long the public can inspect the register.
Normally, procedures leading to elections ought to be legislated and time frames must be in then law itself and not left to the discretion or power of an individual or administrative body.
This is so because such power can be abused to disadvantage others. Why is the
commission trying to give itself power to either allow or deprive persons of some right
through an administrative procedure? The right to inspect the voters register is a matter
of law and must not be subject to the whelms and caprices of officers employed by the
executive.
The proposed law seeks to reduce the period for raising any issue to do with correction
of names from ninety days to fourteen days under section 17 (10) of the principal Act12.
Firstly, there is nothing said about the reason for such reduction in time and this time
11 Section 4 of the bill 12 Section 5 of the bill.
frame is most inconsistent with other provisions which either provide for seven or
fourteen days. No justification or research has been provided for proposing such a
reduction and the drafters have not taken into account some important matters such as
what kind of a society Zambia has.
The population distribution and how many People live in villages and what the illiteracy levels are coupled with the fact that the Electoral Commission only has its central office in Lusaka. Can this may be an attempt todisenfranchise citizens on a technical premise? Why the rush?
The proposed bill introduces an amendment to section 27(1) of the principal Act and tries
to replace section 20 with section 2413. On the face of it, the provision is harmless but a
detailed consideration will show that this is a dangerous provision.
Section 24 of the principal Act14 provides for establishment of a poling station. This
presupposes that there was no polling station and now the commission is introducing
one, whereas section 27(1), speaks to relocating an existing polling station. These two can not speak to the same thing. Relocation and establishment by their definition are two different matters.
The provision is therefore not properly thought through and may be a source of problems
in an election.
The proposed law seeks to amend section 28 of the principal Act and it is a well thought
out provision save to state that leaving the commission to determine what electronic
media they should post a timetable on is dangerous. They may put it on social media i.e., Facebook and later U-turn and say it was not their post. This has happened before15.
There is need to relook at the last aspect of the proposal his problem also manifests in the proposed section 30 (b)(1)(2) of the bill16,and section 31 (a)(1)(2)17.
Section 33 of the proposed bill18 introduces the term subscribed. Why should a
nomination form be subscribed to and not signed? Terminologies may say a lot of things but the drafter may need to explain by they used the work subscribed as opposed to any
other word.
Section 33(6) of the proposed bill also brings back the problem of discretion of which
electronic media the commission should use.
The proposed law now inserts a new phenomenon all together in what is to be called part IVA.
The proposed section 36A ties contesting of a seat under proportional representation to
one who contests for a seat as President. What about independent candidates? Why is
proportional representation tied to presidency?
You will notice that Article 2(4) 20 ties proportional representation to presidency.
This means that proportional representation only kicks in when there is a president contesting on a political party. This is a dangerous provision.
The party in power can decide to exclude anyone that wants to contest as president so that the ruling party is the only one contesting and everyone lese is excluded.
The net result here is that the ruling party will
gain control of parliament and thereby entrench itself in power and do whatever they
want with the law. This proposed law creates a problem and as such, there is a danger of having the national assembly taken over by the ruling party if the opposition don’t
wake up and see what is happening.
The propose section 36B (1) provides for a time line within which to submit a list, this
being five days. What is the justification for such a period?
The proposed section 36B(7) gives uncontrolled power to the commission to allow for remedial measures and they will determine the period. Isn’t it that such a period must be determined by the law?
Further under subsection 8, the commission has been given power to reject a list and
disadvantage a participant. Is this a fair provision?
Subsection 9 now brings it to a close by providing that a party may loose their right and it uses the term forfeiture of a right. Can a right be forfeited like this?
The proposed section 36G provides for a challenge to a list and the same is to be
determined within twenty one days.
Section 36 H now provides replacement of a person on a list with the net available
candidate. Who determines this candidate?
The proposed section 60 of the bill now introduces section 6 (e ) which requires people to leave the voting station as opposed to try and stay to protect their vote as the current government under UPND did in 2021.
It uses the words, “without delay leave the
voting station”.
The proposed section 68 proposes the amendment of the marginal note. The marginal note of the current section 68 provides for counting and announcement of provisional results. It now should read counting and announcement of results.
Why remove the word provisional? Is it to create a debate around the word results and
create confusion? All results are provisional not until validated as it ought to be. This is
meant to remove any challenge on any results as the argument will be that these results
are final and can’t be challenged. We need to be careful.
The proposed law under part VIIIA seeks to introduce what is to be called a nomination
petition. This issue has been a thorn in the process of elections and does not yield any
tangible result. If anything, there can be no appeal against such a process as well held
in the case of George Muhali imbuwa v Enock Kaywala Mundia where the constitutional Court considered the question of an appeal stemming from nomination petition and guided that there can be no appeal against such a process.
So why insist on such a process when such a process may not even lead to anything. There is even an attempt to give power to the Chief Justice to promulgate law by way of a statutory instrument on procedure etc.
In a system like ours, it is dangerous to have such a provision as the laws that may come
out of such a process may be inimical to some if not many political players who may want to have a say on such laws.
CONCLUSION
The above discourse shows that there is something seriously wrong with the proposed law and it needs interrogation to its fullest.
The law is firstly ill timed, not properly thought through and mainly has mathematical
precision which seeks to exclude other political players.
The proposed law is not well meant for the progress of democracy and it does not wish
to serve the purpose that any well-meaning law should serve.
There is only one course, this law must be rejected and or refined with extensive
consultation with stake holder involvement so as to save the democracy that this nation
fought for fervently otherwise, we are losing it by the day.
Promotional representation is now a form of mathematical precision in a society which
has a lot of illiterate people.