ZIMBA’S ARGUMENT AGAINST A PRESIDENTIAL PETITION MUST BE REJECTED- Michael Zephaniah Phiri

ZIMBA’S ARGUMENT AGAINST A PRESIDENTIAL PETITION MUST BE REJECTEDBy Michael Zephaniah Phiri, Political Activist** Dr Chris Zumani Zimba is entitled to his political opinion, but his call for Brian Mundubile to abandon any intention of challenging the 2026 presidential election results raises a fundamental question: Since when did seeking constitutional justice become an obstacle to […]

ZIMBA’S ARGUMENT AGAINST A PRESIDENTIAL PETITION MUST BE REJECTED
By Michael Zephaniah Phiri, Political Activist**

Dr Chris Zumani Zimba is entitled to his political opinion, but his call for Brian Mundubile to abandon any intention of challenging the 2026 presidential election results raises a fundamental question: Since when did seeking constitutional justice become an obstacle to peace?

Zambia does not preserve peace by asking citizens to remain silent when they believe an election has been conducted irregularly. Peace is built by ensuring that disputes are handled through lawful, constitutional and credible institutions.

If Brian Mundubile believes there were irregularities capable of affecting the presidential result, he has every right to pursue the remedies available to him under the Constitution and electoral law. That is not a declaration of war. It is the exercise of a legal right.

Zimba argues that Zambia should move beyond the election dispute and concentrate on healing the divisions created during the campaign and election. That objective is commendable, but reconciliation cannot mean “accept the result first and ask questions later.”

True reconciliation requires truth, accountability and confidence in the institutions responsible for resolving disputes.

If there is a legitimate legal avenue for challenging an election, discouraging a candidate from using it does not strengthen democracy. It can instead create the impression that citizens should accept an outcome regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

The most important question is therefore this: Who decided that Mundubile must not petition?

Brian Mundubile does not need political permission from Zumani Zimba to exercise his constitutional rights.

If Mundubile chooses to petition, the courts—not political commentators—should determine whether the evidence establishes grounds for intervention.

If he has no case, the court can dismiss it.

If he has a case, the court can grant the appropriate remedy.

That is precisely why courts exist.

The answer to an election dispute should therefore not be: “Do not petition because it will divide the country.”

The answer should be: “If you have evidence, take it before the competent court and allow the law to determine the matter.”

Those who voted for Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu are also citizens of Zambia. Their concerns cannot simply be dismissed because reconciliation is desirable.

If voters believe their votes were affected by irregularities, they deserve to have those concerns properly examined. Likewise, supporters of President Hakainde Hichilema deserve the opportunity to have the declared result defended through lawful processes if it is genuinely challenged.

A court ruling is far more capable of settling an electoral dispute than political rhetoric.

Zimba says he will not participate in a petition and prefers dialogue and reconciliation.the

That is his choice.

But he should equally respect the choice of those who believe reconciliation must follow justice rather than replace it.

The question is not whether Zambia needs peace. Of course Zambia needs peace.

The real question is whether peace requires citizens to surrender their constitutional remedies.

It does not.

And if Zimba genuinely believes that Mundubile has no case, the democratic response is simple: let Mundubile petition and let the courts decide.

There are understandable questions whenever prominent political figures take positions that appear to discourage legal challenges after an election. But political motives should not be asserted as facts without evidence.

What can legitimately be questioned, however, is the principle behind Zimba’s position.

Why should an opposition leader who believes that the election was affected by serious irregularities be encouraged to remain outside the courts?

Why should dialogue be presented as an alternative to a constitutional remedy rather than something that can happen alongside it?

And why should the desire for national healing be interpreted to mean that an aggrieved candidate must surrender his right to seek judicial determination?

These are legitimate questions.

Zambia needs healing. But healing cannot be built on unresolved grievances.

The country needs credible institutions, transparent electoral processes, independent adjudication of disputes, respect for constitutional rights, protection of citizens from political violence, accountability where credible evidence establishes wrongdoing, and genuine dialogue after the legal processes have been exhausted.

That is how a mature democracy should handle a disputed election.

There is a Bemba saying: “Imputi taibula ukubwakeshepo.” In essence, it reminds us that no matter how carefully something is done, questions or criticism can still arise.

Political leaders should therefore be prepared to answer difficult questions rather than attempting to silence them through appeals to political convenience.

If Zimba believes that Mundubile’s petition would fail, let the court determine that.

If he believes the country needs reconciliation, let him promote reconciliation.

But reconciliation must not become a political argument for denying citizens access to constitutional remedies.

The 2026 election has left deep political emotions across the country. Supporters of different political parties hold strongly different views about what happened.

That is precisely why disputes must be handled through institutions rather than through accusations, intimidation or political pressure.

Brian Mundubile should make his decision based on the evidence available to him and the advice of his legal team.

President Hakainde Hichilema’s victory should stand or fall on the strength of the constitutional and electoral process, not on whether a political commentator believes the opposition should challenge it.

Let the evidence speak.

Let the Constitution speak.

Let the courts speak.

And after that, let Zambia reconcile.

Because genuine national unity is not achieved by asking citizens to forget what they believe happened.

It is achieved when citizens have confidence that, when they raise serious concerns, the law gives them a fair hearing.