The Editor Zambia
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) is entitled to raise questions about access to justice, but its latest intervention over the temporary closure of courts risks creating a constitutional crisis where none needs to exist.
The tone of the statement issued by LAZ president Arnold Kaluba suggests that the closure of the courts should automatically be interpreted as an attack on democracy and an attempt to frustrate an election petition. 
That is an extraordinarily serious conclusion and one that should not be reached without compelling evidence.
There is an important distinction between questioning a security decision and deliberately presenting that decision as an assault on constitutional rights.
Zambia has just emerged from a fiercely contested election. Tensions are high, emotions are running deep, and the security situation surrounding certain political actors has been a matter of public concern.
In such circumstances, the authorities have a responsibility to protect public institutions, judicial officers, court staff, and members of the public.
The presence of security personnel around court premises does not, by itself, constitute an attack on judicial independence. Nor does a temporary closure of a public institution automatically amount to a suspension of constitutional rights.
Security measures must be assessed on the basis of their purpose, necessity, proportionality, and duration—not simply on the basis of the political controversy surrounding them.
LAZ is correct that Article 103(1) provides a seven-day period within which a person may petition the Constitutional Court against the election of a president-elect.
That constitutional right is beyond dispute. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for such a remedy, and the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) itself recognises that presidential election disputes are brought before the Constitutional Court within seven days.
But Article 103 does not mean that the State must keep court buildings physically open under every conceivable circumstance, irrespective of security considerations.
The Constitution cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean that security concerns suddenly disappear simply because a statutory or constitutional deadline is approaching.
It is also important to remember that a presidential election petition is not an entitlement to have an election overturned simply because a losing candidate is dissatisfied with the result.
Article 103 establishes a legal avenue for challenging an election, but the petitioner must still demonstrate grounds recognised by the Constitution.
There is consequently nothing wrong with demanding that access to justice be protected. What is wrong is the rush to portray every security intervention as evidence of democratic collapse.
LAZ, as a professional body, should be especially careful not to allow itself to become another political actor in an already polarised environment.
Its responsibility is to defend the rule of law impartially—not to amplify political suspicions or create the impression that the courts belong to one political camp or another.
The closure of courts may legitimately require explanation. But an explanation is not the same thing as an admission of wrongdoing.
While constitutional rights must be protected, at the same time, national security can not simply be dismissed whenever it becomes politically inconvenient.
LAZ should, therefore, lower the temperature because that would be a far more responsible defence of the Constitution than turning a temporary security measure into yet another battlefield in Zambia’s post-election politics.
It is surprising that LAZ is deliberately displaying ignorance of filing documents electronically. The question is: Why did the petitioners lodge their petition electronically?
Was LAZ also not aware Michaelmas vacation, which is an annual court recess in Zambia that runs from August 8 to September 6?
