The Electoral Commission of Zambia has declared incumbent President Hakainde Hichilema winner of the August 13 presidential election.
His closest challenger, Brian Mundubile, received 38% of the vote, according to official results published last week. However, Mundubile has since announced on several occasions that he would be challenging that result, and that his National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity (NRPUP) “shall not relent” in the face of any obstacle.
That challenge, however, comes as Zambia’s courts have all remained closed since August 24 until further notice, with officials citing “security concerns.”
The timing of this closure has raised questions about opposition voices having access to judicial election safeguards during this crucial stage of the post-election process, as random reports of irregularities continue to surface.
Election dispute continues to unfold
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has called for the urgent restoration of access to the courts and for alternative arrangements to be enacted for urgent cases.
LAZ President Arnold Kaluba said security measures must not undermine any access to justice or judicial independence.
“Such measures must be lawful, proportionate and implemented in a manner that preserves access to justice and respects the constitutional independence and autonomy of the judiciary,” he stressed.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission of Zambia has also expressed concern; its chairperson, Pamela Towela Sambo, warned that disruption to judicial operations could affect fundamental rights in the country, including access to a fair trial and legal remedies.
“[If] the right to a fair trial is delayed, there is increased risk of arbitrary detentions, while access to remedies is effectively blocked,” she said.
‘Irregular’ submission of petition documents
However, the ongoing election dispute has taken a new turn: Zambia’s Chief Justice Mumba Malila, acknowledged on August 25 that he had received documents described as a presidential election petition through his private email-address.
Malila described the method of submission as “highly irregular” —despite the current circumstances allowing no access to legal procedures. He said he nevertheless referred the documents to the Constitutional Court to determine whether this qualified as a petition having been formally filed.
The distinction here is important: The receipt of such documents does not confirm that a presidential election petition has been formally lodged per se.
The latest development comes as the courts remain closed, adding to questions about how election-related cases can be filed and processed.
Our time is now: Zambia’s youth running in elections
Government continues to cite security concerns for court closure
Meanwhile, the presidency has rejected suggestions that the court closures were intended to prevent and intervene with any challenges to the election result.
Hichilema’s chief communications specialist Clayson Hamasaka said the security measures were of a “intelligence-led and preventive” nature, adding that they involved several government institutions beyond courts, and that they were intended to protect officials, institutions and members of the public.
He also maintained that people with legitimate grievances remained free to pursue remedies provided by law.
But during the election itself, there had already been suspensions of voting at some ballot boxes amid reports of violence. Questions about the independence of the media had also surface in the run-up to the vote.
Concerns about access to justice and public confidence remain strong, especially against this backdrop; the Zambia Executive Director Maurice Nyambe of Transparency International said in this context the country needs stronger institutions for resolving political disputes.
“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.”
Political commentator and human rights activist Laura Miti meanwhile questioned the lack of a fuller public explanation for the closure, writing on Facebook that “if you are going to unprecedentedly close the courts, you owe the nation an explanation beyond a blanket — there is a security threat.”
A test beyond the ballot box
Zambia has long been regarded as one of <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/southern-african-development-community-sadc/t-70775837″ rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>Southern Africa‘s more stable multiparty democracies with a reputation for political stability and peaceful transfers of power.
But the current dispute comes at a time when democratic institutions across the region keep facing growing scrutiny over contested elections and political transitions. Therefore, the handling of situation will likely be observed beyond Zambia and the southern African region.
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.
That notion is perhaps best reflected on the streets of Lusaka; a citizen of the capital simply told DW: “We are anxious and afraid because we do not know the truth about what is happening.”
Can Zambia trust election referee?
