Lillian Mutambo lawyers demand passport restoration… Aongola & Co says cancellation is unlawful, procedurally improper and unconstitutional, gives Government seven days to act

Mutambo lawyers demand passport restoration… Aongola & Co says cancellation is unlawful, procedurally improper and unconstitutional, gives Government seven days to act By EMV REPORTER LAWYERS representing UK-based Zambian content creator Lillian Mutambo have demanded the immediate restoration of her Zambian passport. The lawyers have argued that the cancellation of the passport was unlawful, procedurally […]

Mutambo lawyers demand passport restoration
… Aongola & Co says cancellation is unlawful, procedurally improper and unconstitutional, gives Government seven days to act

By EMV REPORTER

LAWYERS representing UK-based Zambian content creator Lillian Mutambo have demanded the immediate restoration of her Zambian passport.

The lawyers have argued that the cancellation of the passport was unlawful, procedurally improper and unconstitutional.

In a September 21, 2026 letter to the Chief Passports and Citizenship Officer, copied to the Registrar General and the Attorney-General, Aongola & Co said the passport was  cancelled under Government Gazette Notice No. 1421 of 2026 dated September 11.

The lawyers said their client had not been given a proper statutory basis for the cancellation, which they said was undertaken on unspecified ‘security reasons’.

“Our Client’s position is that the decision, and the manner in which it was made and communicated, is unlawful, ultra vires, procedurally improper and unconstitutional. Unless the decision is immediately withdrawn and our Client’s passport restored, our instructions are to institute appropriate proceeding without further recourse to yourselves,” Aongola& Co said.

The lawyers argued that the power to cancel a passport was a statutory power that had to be exercised strictly within the provisions of the Passport Act No. 28 of 2016.

They cited Section 12(1) of the Act, which provides that the Chief Passports and Citizenship Officer may cancel a passport or travel document, and argued that the law sets out specific grounds upon which such cancellation may occur.

Aongola & Co contend that the law does not give the Registrar General an unqualified power to cancel a passport merely by citing ‘security reasons’.

The lawyers said Section 11, which is incorporated into Section 12 for purposes of permissible grounds for cancellation, identifies specific circumstances in which a passport may be confiscated, including wrongful possession, fraud or misrepresentation, deportation or repatriation at Government expense, and a warrant of arrest coupled with a risk of absconding.

They said Section 12 provides additional specific grounds for cancellation and that the decision-maker should identify the statutory provision relied upon, the precise statutory ground applicable to Mutambo and the facts relied upon to bring her within that ground.

Aongola & Co also challenged what it described as a lack of apparent statutory authority, saying the Gazette Notice appeared to attribute the cancellation to the Registrar General.

The lawyers argued that Section 12(1) expressly vests the cancellation power in the Chief Passports and Citizenship Officer.

They therefore demanded that Government identify any statutory provision, delegation, appointment, statutory instrument or other lawful authority under which the Registrar General was empowered to exercise the cancellation power.

The lawyers complained that Ms Mutambo had not been informed of any specific ground under Sections 11 or 12 of the Act which allegedly justified the cancellation.

They said if Government’s position was that national security constituted an independent statutory ground for cancellation, it should identify the exact section, subsection and paragraph being relied upon.

The letter also cited Section 12(2), which the lawyers said required a passport holder to be informed of a cancellation and given reasons for it within 14 days.

“Our Client has not been furnished with adequate written reasons identifying the factual and statutory basis for the cancellation. A bare reference to ‘security reasons’ does not, in our Client’s estimation, satisfy the statutory and constitutional requirement for reasons,” the lawyers said.

Aongola & Co further argued that the cancellation interfered with Ms Mutambo’s constitutional right to freedom of movement under Article 22 of the Constitution.

The lawyers noted that Article 22 protects the right of citizens to move freely throughout Zambia, reside in any part of the country, and leave and return to Zambia.

They acknowledged that the Constitution allows restrictions on freedom of movement in certain circumstances, including in the interests of defence, public safety and public order, but argued that such restrictions must have a lawful statutory basis and meet constitutional requirements.

The lawyers said the decision was also challengeable on grounds including illegality, procedural impropriety, failure to consider relevant matters, and unreasonableness or disproportionality.

They said Ms Mutambo had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to know the case against her and make representations before the adverse decision was taken, based on the circumstances known to them.

Aongola & Co has demanded that Government immediately withdraw or revoke the passport cancellation, restore and recognise Ms Mutambo’s passport as valid, and confirm that she will not face adverse immigration, passport, border-control or other administrative consequences arising from the purported cancellation.

The lawyers have given the authorities seven days from receipt of the letter to comply with the demands.

They warned that failure to comply within that period would result in the commencement of appropriate legal proceedings without further recourse to the authorities.

“We trust that you will treat this matter with the urgency warranted by the continuing infringement of our Client’s rights,” the lawyers said.