The Editor Zambia
Constitutional lawyer Jonas Zimba’s criticism of the proposed Electoral Process Amendment Bill, 2026, deserves attention, as all democratic societies benefit from scrutiny of laws affecting elections.
However, many of his concerns appear exaggerated, speculative, and detached from the practical need to modernise Zambia’s electoral system. 
First, the claim that the Bill is “ill-timed” ignores the reality that electoral reforms cannot be postponed indefinitely. If changes are delayed until after elections, critics would still argue that reforms were avoided.
Governments are elected to govern, legislate, and improve institutions throughout their term. Updating electoral laws ahead of future polls is not suspicious in itself—it is responsible governance.
Second, Zimba alleges that the Bill is designed to exclude opposition parties and independent candidates. Such assertions require evidence, not political rhetoric. Electoral laws exist to create order, fairness, and predictability.
If the Bill introduces clearer nomination procedures, candidate requirements, and party accountability measures, these are not anti-democratic actions. They are standard practices in functioning democracies.
The issue of adoption certificates, for instance, should not be controversial. Political parties must be able to formally confirm who their legitimate candidates are.
Without such documentation, chaos, duplicate nominations, and endless court disputes can arise.
Requiring proof of adoption strengthens internal democracy by compelling parties to organise themselves properly rather than relying on confusion and last-minute claims.
Similarly, objections to powers granted to the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) overlook the necessity of a strong and empowered referee.
No electoral body can function effectively if every operational decision is micromanaged or endlessly litigated.
The ECZ must have discretion to manage voter register inspections, candidate compliance, and party lists within the law.
What matters is accountability and transparency, not paralysis.
Zimba’s concern that proportional representation mechanisms may favour larger parties also misses the point of electoral systems worldwide: they are meant to balance governability with inclusion.
Smaller parties are not entitled to parliamentary seats simply by existing.
They must persuade voters, build structures, and earn support.
If a system encourages coalition-building, seriousness, and national appeal, that can strengthen democracy rather than weaken it.
The criticism of reducing correction periods for voter details from 90 days to 14 days also assumes inefficiency should be preserved.
Modern technology, digital systems, and decentralised registration processes mean long delays are no longer always necessary. Faster timelines can improve certainty and allow the ECZ to prepare cleaner voter rolls in time for elections.
Where access challenges exist, solutions should focus on outreach and mobile registration—not automatically retaining outdated timeframes.
Most importantly, Zambia’s democracy is not so fragile that every reform must be described as a threat. Democracy depends on institutions, courts, voters, and constitutional checks—not fearmongering over every legislative amendment.
If any clause is flawed, Parliament has room to debate, amend, and improve it through normal democratic processes.
Calls to reject the Bill outright are therefore premature and unhelpful. Zambia should encourage constructive engagement, not blanket resistance.
Reform is necessary as populations grow, technology evolves, and electoral disputes become more complex.
Rather than portraying every proposal as an attempt to rig the system, critics should present specific alternatives. Zambia needs progress, not perpetual suspicion.
The Electoral Process Amendment Bill should be debated calmly, refined where necessary, and judged on substance—not alarmist predictions.
