Why the 10th December Eligibility Judgment to Bar Former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu is Legally Flawed-

Give Zambians a chance-HARRY KALABA
…why give concessions to foreigners when ZRA can do the job? 

Why the 10th December Eligibility Judgment to Bar Former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu is Legally Flawed

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

The Constitutional Court’s judgment of December 10, 2024, barring former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu from contesting the 2026 elections, has sparked intense debate. While President Hakainde Hichilema and his UPND officials view the ruling as a reinforcement of constitutionalism, many patriotic Zambians see it for what it truly is: a legally flawed decision that undermines justice, constitutional interpretation, and Zambia’s democratic principles.

This judgment is deeply problematic for several reasons, the most prominent being its disregard for the principle of non-retroactivity, its inconsistency with prior rulings, its violation of fundamental rights, and its overtly political implications.

1. The Principle of Non-Retroactivity

The cornerstone of any fair legal system is the principle of non-retroactivity. This principle prohibits the retrospective application of laws or legal interpretations in ways that negatively impact individuals. Simply put, one cannot be punished under a new legal standard for actions that were lawful under previous interpretations.

The Constitutional Court had ruled on former President Lungu’s eligibility on no fewer than three occasions. The court—the final authority on constitutional matters in Zambia—had consistently reaffirmed that the two years Dr. Lungu served after President Michael Sata’s death did not constitute a full presidential term. According to Article 106(6)(b) of the Constitution, a term served for less than three years cannot be counted as a full term.

These rulings established a clear precedent: Former President Lungu, having only served one full term between 2016 and 2021, remains eligible to run for another term. This legal foundation is firm, clear, and based on constitutional provisions that should guide any future deliberations.

Now, a few years later, the Constitutional Court’s December 10, 2024, ruling attempts to reinterpret the same provision to disqualify Dr. Lungu retroactively. This reversal violates the principle of non-retroactivity and undermines the predictability of the law. Decisions like this send a dangerous signal that settled legal matters can be revisited and altered at will, destabilizing the legal system and creating uncertainty for all citizens.

2. Inconsistency in Legal Interpretation

A stable judiciary relies on consistent legal interpretations. In previous rulings, the Constitutional Court concluded that Dr. Lungu’s first term, lasting less than three years, did not meet the constitutional threshold of a full term. This interpretation was based on Article 106(6) and was widely accepted as a settled legal precedent.

The 2024 ruling overturns this precedent without providing adequate justification, raising questions about the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. Such inconsistency erodes public confidence in the courts and creates a perception that the judiciary can be manipulated for political ends.

Judicial consistency is essential for protecting the rule of law. By reversing its earlier position, the Constitutional Court not only undermines its credibility but also casts doubt on the reliability of its decisions in future cases.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights

The December 10 judgment potentially infringes upon Dr. Lungu’s constitutional rights, including his right to equal treatment under the law and his right to participate in the political process.

By applying a new legal standard to disqualify him after he served under a previously accepted interpretation, the court has denied Dr. Lungu the fair and predictable legal processes guaranteed by the Zambian Constitution. This selective application of the law raises concerns about judicial impartiality and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

4. Political and Social Implications

The ruling’s timing and context suggest a politically motivated attempt to eliminate a key political figure rather than a genuine effort to uphold constitutional principles.

For many Zambians, the judgment appears to be less about legal reasoning and more about sidelining a former president who remains influential and capable of mobilizing significant public support. This perception is dangerous, as it deepens political divisions, fosters mistrust in state institutions, and undermines Zambia’s democracy.

Furthermore, allowing legal interpretations to be retroactively applied to disqualify candidates sets a dangerous precedent. If the judiciary can be weaponized to settle political scores, Zambia risks sliding into authoritarianism, where the courts become tools for suppressing dissent and manipulating democratic processes.

5. As Things Stand: Dr. Lungu is Eligible

Despite the December 10 judgment, Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu remains legally eligible to contest the 2026 elections. The Constitutional Court’s previous rulings remain binding precedents, and its clear interpretation of Article 106(6) cannot be undone retroactively without violating fundamental legal principles.

This recent judgment is a politically motivated maneuver that well-meaning Zambians should reject outright. It represents a troubling departure from constitutional fairness and threatens the foundations of democracy in Zambia.

All things being equal, Dr. Lungu should appear on the ballot in 2026. The court’s decision to bar him is not only legally questionable but also raises profound concerns about the politicization of the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court’s December 10, 2024, judgment barring Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu from contesting the 2026 elections is legally indefensible. By violating the principle of non-retroactivity, reversing established precedent without adequate justification, and infringing upon Dr. Lungu’s rights, the court has undermined the rule of law and cast doubt on its own integrity.

If Zambia is to remain a beacon of democracy in Africa, it must ensure that its judiciary remains independent, impartial, and guided by principles of fairness and justice. Well-meaning Zambians must reject politically motivated judgments and demand that Dr. Lungu be given his rightful place on the ballot in 2026.

Ultimately, the people—not the courts—should decide Dr. Lungu’s political fate through free and fair elections.