By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma
The debate around former President Dr Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s eligibility to contest in the 2026 elections has reignited deep divisions within Zambia’s political and legal landscape. UPND sympathizers have repeatedly argued that it is the Constitution—and not President Hakainde Hichilema (HH)—that has barred Dr. Lungu from seeking a return to office. However, this narrative does not hold water when examined against the backdrop of the Constitutional Court’s precedents and the suspicious circumstances surrounding this latest ruling.
The Constitutional Court’s Previous Rulings on Dr. Lungu’s Eligibility
The Constitutional Court, Zambia’s ultimate authority on constitutional matters, had on several occasions unequivocally ruled that Dr. Lungu was eligible to run for office. These rulings were based on Article 106(6)(b) of the Constitution, which states that a presidential term served for less than three years does not count as a full term.
1. The 2015-2016 Term: After the untimely death of President Michael Sata, Dr. Lungu served as President for less than two years. This period did not meet the constitutional threshold to qualify as a full term.
2. Clear Legal Precedents: The court repeatedly affirmed that Dr. Lungu’s short tenure did not disqualify him from contesting the presidency in 2016 or 2021.
3. 2021 Eligibility: Following these precedents, Dr. Lungu was deemed eligible to run in 2021, where he faced and lost to President Hichilema.
These rulings were consistent and firmly rooted in the Constitution. For the court to reverse its own established precedents now—without any changes to the constitutional framework or compelling new arguments—is deeply troubling.
Political Pressure: A Possible Catalyst for Reversal
The decision to bar Dr. Lungu from contesting in 2026 cannot be separated from the political context surrounding it. President Hichilema, long a critic of his predecessor, vowed to ensure that Dr. Lungu would never return to power. His infamous statement, “we will play iming’alato,” was not just rhetoric but a clear indication of his intent to use every available means to neutralize his predecessor politically.
Fast-forward to the current scenario, UPND surrogate Michelo Chizombe an ally of President Hakainde Hichilema spearheaded a legal petition questioning Dr. Lungu’s eligibility. This petition, however, brought no new evidence or arguments to the table—only recycled claims that the Constitutional Court had already addressed. The court’s decision to entertain this petition and reverse its earlier rulings raises serious questions about judicial independence and political influence.
Unanswered Questions About the Reversal
The court’s latest ruling on Dr. Lungu’s eligibility is riddled with contradictions and lacks a transparent legal basis:
What Changed Between 2021 and 2026? The Constitutional Court previously ruled that Dr. Lungu was eligible in 2021. The Constitution itself has not been amended since then, so on what basis did the court determine that Dr. Lungu is now ineligible for 2026?
Failure to Justify the Reversal: The court has not provided a clear explanation for reversing its own precedent. This unexplained decision undermines its credibility and fuels perceptions of political interference.
Judicial Manipulation: A Threat to Democracy
Further compounding these suspicions is the controversial replacement of three Constitutional Court judges who had previously ruled on Dr. Lungu’s eligibility. These judges were removed under opaque circumstances and replaced with individuals perceived to be aligned with the ruling UPND.
When Dr. Lungu’s legal team raised concerns and requested the recusal of these judges, their plea was ignored. This refusal has further eroded public confidence in the judiciary and bolstered claims that the court’s independence has been compromised.
Does President Hichilema Have the Power to Bar Dr. Lungu?
Constitutionally, President Hichilema does not possess the authority to directly bar a political rival from contesting elections. However, the reversal of Dr. Lungu’s eligibility raises serious concerns about indirect interference. The judiciary, meant to serve as an impartial arbiter, appears to have been swayed by political pressure—a dangerous precedent for Zambia’s democracy.
This leads to a critical question: If HH lacks the legal authority to bar Dr. Lungu, how else could this sudden reversal have occurred if not through political influence over the judiciary?
The Bigger Picture: Implications for Zambia’s Democracy
The barring of Dr. Lungu is more than a political maneuver—it is a direct assault on Zambia’s democratic institutions. By undermining the judiciary’s independence, this decision has eroded public trust in the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent for the future.
Even Zambians who are not supporters of Dr. Lungu are troubled by these developments. Their concerns are not about Dr. Lungu’s political fate but about the integrity of the country’s institutions. A judiciary that is perceived to be politically compromised is a judiciary that fails to serve justice.
The Constitution is meant to be a guiding document, protecting democracy and ensuring fairness. However, the handling of Dr. Lungu’s eligibility case has turned the Constitution into a political weapon, manipulated to serve partisan interests.
Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Integrity
The claim that the Constitution barred Dr. Edgar Lungu from contesting the 2026 elections is misleading. The same Constitution and its provisions were used by the Constitutional Court to declare him eligible in 2021. The court’s unexplained reversal not only undermines its own credibility but also casts a shadow over Zambia’s democracy.
For Zambia to move forward, it is imperative that the judiciary reasserts its independence and integrity. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The handling of this case has left the courts exposed and raised serious doubts about their impartiality. Zambians deserve better, and the restoration of trust in the judiciary is essential for the nation’s democratic future.
Justice must serve the people, not political agendas. Let this be a wake-up call to protect the sanctity of Zambia’s institutions for generations to come.
