Zambia's Democratic Institutions on Trial
· business
Zambia’s Democratic Institutions on Trial
The election in Zambia was meant to be a celebration of democracy, but it has turned into a test for the country’s institutions instead. Weeks after President Hakainde Hichilema declared victory, opposition leader Brian Mundubile continues to dispute the results, and courts remain closed due to security concerns.
The timing is particularly problematic, as it raises questions about access to justice and the independence of the judiciary in Zambia. The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has called for the urgent restoration of access to the courts, emphasizing that security measures must not undermine judicial independence. LAZ President Arnold Kaluba warned that any measures taken by the government should be lawful, proportionate, and implemented in a manner that preserves access to justice.
The Human Rights Commission of Zambia has also expressed concern about the disruption to judicial operations. Chairperson Pamela Towela Sambo noted that if the right to a fair trial is delayed, there is an increased risk of arbitrary detentions and blocked access to remedies. These warnings are not unfounded, as reports of irregularities continue to surface.
A new twist in the saga has emerged with the receipt of documents described as a presidential election petition through Chief Justice Mumba Malila’s private email address. Malila acknowledged that this method of submission is highly irregular but referred the documents to the Constitutional Court to determine whether they qualify as a formal petition. This distinction is crucial, as it raises questions about how election-related cases can be filed and processed.
The government continues to cite security concerns for the court closure, rejecting suggestions that it’s intended to prevent challenges to the election result. However, this explanation rings hollow given Zambia’s history of election disputes. During the election itself, there were suspensions of voting at some ballot boxes amid reports of violence. Questions about the independence of the media also surfaced in the run-up to the vote.
The real test for Zambia’s democratic institutions lies beyond the ballot box. The country needs stronger institutions for resolving political disputes, as emphasized by Transparency International Executive Director Maurice Nyambe: “At this stage of the electoral process, Zambia does not need fewer avenues for resolving political disputes; it needs stronger, accessible, and trusted institutions through which those disputes can be peacefully resolved.”
This is a moment of truth for Zambia’s democratic institutions. The handling of the situation will be observed beyond the country and the region, as democratic institutions across Africa face growing scrutiny over contested elections and transitions. For Zambians, the issue goes beyond the contest between Hichilema and Mundubile; it is about how political disagreements can be resolved peacefully through independent, accessible, and trusted institutions.
The streets of Lusaka reflect this anxiety, with a citizen telling DW: “We are anxious and afraid because we do not know the truth about what is happening.” This uncertainty has implications for public confidence in the country’s institutions, which is essential for a functioning democracy.
As Zambia navigates its democratic challenges, it would be wise to learn from past experiences. The country needs to invest in strengthening its institutions, ensuring that they are accessible and trusted by all citizens. This requires more than just words; it demands action. The closure of courts and the irregular submission of documents have already damaged public trust.
The outcome of this test will be far-reaching, not just for Zambia but also for the region. As Laura Miti, a political commentator and human rights activist, pointed out: “If you are going to unprecedentedly close the courts, you owe the nation an explanation beyond a blanket — there is a security threat.” The lack of transparency is only fueling speculation and mistrust.
Zambia’s democratic institutions are on trial. It remains to be seen whether they will emerge stronger or weaker from this ordeal.
Reader Views
- TNThe Newsroom Desk · editorial
The real question here is what happens next in this constitutional showdown. While the government and opposition continue to squabble over the results, one thing is certain: Zambia's democracy has never been more fragile. The fact that a presidential petition was submitted via Chief Justice Mumba Malila's private email address only adds fuel to the fire. This raises concerns not just about the legitimacy of the electoral process but also about the independence of the judiciary itself. With court access blocked and irregularities surfacing, one wonders if Zambia will find its way back to democratic normalcy anytime soon.
- DHDr. Helen V. · economist
The Zambian government's claims of security concerns ring hollow when juxtaposed with their own selective implementation of justice. The Constitutional Court's willingness to entertain the irregularly submitted election petition via Chief Justice Malila's private email is a stark illustration of this double standard. This development raises more questions than answers about the true motivations behind the court closure and the government's desire to manipulate the electoral process. One thing is certain: if Zambia's democracy is to be preserved, its institutions must be strengthened, not undermined by extrajudicial machinations.
- MTMarcus T. · small-business owner
It's clear that Zambia's democratic institutions are under strain from this election debacle. But we should be cautious not to conflate security concerns with attempts to suppress justice. The government needs to walk a fine line between keeping citizens safe and upholding the rule of law. What I'd like to see more discussion about is how international observers and aid can help facilitate fair elections without being seen as interfering in Zambia's sovereignty.