Judiciary Statements on Presidential Petition Leave Key Question Unresolved

Zambia’s Judiciary has confirmed that Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila received an email, sent to his private address by a member of the public, containing documents described as “the people’s presidential petition” challenging Hakainde Hichilema’s re-election. In a statement, the…

Zambia’s Judiciary has confirmed that Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila received an email, sent to his private address by a member of the public, containing documents described as “the people’s presidential petition” challenging Hakainde Hichilema’s re-election. In a statement, the Judiciary’s communications office described this mode of communication as “highly irregular,” but confirmed the Chief Justice referred the documents to the Constitutional Court for a determination on whether they constitute a valid filing.

A separate letter from Chief Administrator Nalishebo Imataa to the Secretary to the Cabinet states that, as of 18:00 hours on 24 August, no petition had been recorded at the Constitutional Court Registry. The letter references Article 103(1) of the Constitution, which allows a candidate seven days from the declaration of a President-elect to petition the court. Hichilema was declared winner between 02:00 and 06:00 on 18 August, placing the deadline at 25 August. Imataa’s letter reflects the Registry position as at the close of business the day before that deadline.

Taken together, the two statements address different channels: one confirms a submission reached the Chief Justice directly, while the other reports no filing through the formal Registry as at a stated point in time. Neither statement addresses reports, raised separately by the opposition, that access to court premises was restricted around the same period.

The Tonse Pamodzi Alliance has said the government’s position that no petition was filed should be read alongside those access reports. In a statement, Media Director Brian Matambo said armed security personnel were present at court premises and that access was limited in the period before the petition deadline. He argued that if the ordinary filing channel was unavailable, the use of an alternative channel to reach the Judiciary should not be treated as invalidating the attempt to petition.

Matambo also placed the petition question within the Alliance’s wider account of the 13 August election, referencing the Electoral Commission’s temporary suspension of the results process, the involvement of security services during the count, and what he described as discrepancies between presidential and parliamentary turnout figures. He said Cabinet Secretary Patrick Kangwa’s announcement that the inauguration would proceed came before the Constitutional Court had ruled on whether a valid petition exists.

The government has not yet issued a further response to the Alliance’s statement. Kangwa’s original announcement was made on the basis that no petition had been received within the prescribed period.

The Constitutional Court has not indicated a timeline for its determination on whether the documents received by the Chief Justice amount to a valid filing. That ruling is expected to clarify whether a substantive challenge to the election result will be heard before the planned inauguration.