By EditorZambia
The decision by the so-called People’s Pact to rush to the Constitutional Court seeking a stay of the ongoing constituency and ward delimitation exercise raises fundamental questions about mandate, legitimacy and respect for Zambia’s democratic order.
As the Court prepares to hear the application on January 21, 2026, Zambians must pause and ask a simple but critical question: who exactly does the People’s Pact represent, and on whose authority does it claim to speak for the nation? 
In a democracy, mandate is everything. Power does not fall from the sky, nor is it self-assigned through press statements and alliances of convenience. It is granted by the people through the ballot. In August 2021, Zambians overwhelmingly elected President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND, not merely as individuals, but as a governing authority entrusted with steering the country’s political, economic and institutional direction. That mandate includes overseeing lawful reforms and administrative processes carried out by constitutional bodies such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ).
Delimitation is not a novelty invented by the current administration. It is a constitutional requirement intended to ensure fair representation by adjusting electoral boundaries in line with population changes. The ECZ, an independent body established by the Constitution, is carrying out this exercise within the legal framework and timelines prescribed by law. To suggest that this process lacks legitimacy is, in effect, to cast doubt on the very institutions that underpin Zambia’s democracy.
The People’s Pact argues that it is acting in defence of “the will of the people.” Yet this claim collapses under minimal scrutiny. The Pact is not a political party with an electoral mandate, nor is it a mass movement born out of a popular vote. It is a loose coalition of individuals and minor political actors who have failed, repeatedly, to secure national endorsement at the ballot box. To cloak such a grouping in a name that implies representation of more than 20 million Zambians is not only misleading but intellectually dishonest.
Democracy does not operate on the basis of who shouts loudest or who files the most urgent court applications. It operates on choices made by citizens during elections. The UPND and President Hichilema won that choice decisively. The People’s Pact did not. It therefore has no moral or political authority to present itself as a parallel voice of the people, let alone to seek to override a constitutionally mandated process through judicial intervention.
It is also important to distinguish between the right to access the courts and the abuse of that right. Any citizen or organisation may approach the courts, but doing so does not automatically confer legitimacy or righteousness. The Zambian courts exist to interpret the law, not to validate political grievances rooted in electoral failure. When litigation is used as a substitute for popular support, it risks undermining public confidence in both the judiciary and democratic governance.
The composition of the People’s Pact further weakens its claim to national relevance. Its leading figures are well-known for their political marginality rather than broad-based support.
Their ideas, while sometimes provocative, have not resonated with the electorate in any meaningful way. Zambia is not governed by pressure groups or personal crusades but by leaders chosen through transparent and competitive elections.
By contrast, President Hichilema’s administration has consistently emphasised the rule of law, institutional independence, and constitutionalism. Allowing the ECZ to carry out delimitation without political interference is part of restoring credibility to public institutions after years in which such bodies were widely perceived as captured or compromised. Halting this process at the behest of a self-appointed pact would set a dangerous precedent, signalling that any disgruntled group can stall national processes simply by invoking “the will of the people.”
Zambians should, therefore, be clear-eyed about what is at stake. This is not a heroic struggle to protect democracy, as the People’s Pact would like to portray it. It is a political manoeuvre by actors who lack electoral backing and seek relevance through the courts. While the Constitutional Court will, rightly, hear the matter and make its determination, public opinion must not be swayed by grand claims unsupported by democratic legitimacy.
Ultimately, sovereignty lies with the people, and the people have already spoken through the ballot. They entrusted President Hakainde Hichilema with the responsibility to govern and to guide the country’s direction within the bounds of the Constitution. That mandate cannot be second-guessed by a small group claiming to speak for millions without evidence.
Respect for democracy demands that we honour electoral outcomes, allow independent institutions to perform their functions, and reserve the language of “the people” for those who have actually earned it at the polls. The People’s Pact has no such mandate, and Zambians should see its court action for what it truly is: politics without popular consent.
