The Editor Zambia
Questions are increasingly being raised over the manner in which a purported petition challenging President Hakainde Hichilema’s re-election was submitted by former Law Association of Zambia president Linda Kasonde, governance activist Brebner Changala and LCK Freedom Foundation Limited.
The controversy is not simply about the substance of the allegations contained in the documents but also about the procedure reportedly followed in attempting to bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. 
The Judiciary has confirmed that Chief Justice Dr. Mumba Malila received an email sent to his private email address containing documents described as a “people’s presidential petition”.
The Judiciary subsequently described the method of submission as highly irregular, although the Chief Justice referred the documents to the Constitutional Court to determine whether they constituted a valid filing.
That raises a fundamental question: why would experienced legal practitioners and governance activists seeking to challenge a presidential election send a petition to the Chief Justice’s personal email address rather than submit it through the prescribed court registry?
A separate communication from Chief Administrator Nalishebo Imataa to the Secretary to the Cabinet indicated that, as of 18:00 hours on August 24, no petition had been recorded at the Constitutional Court Registry.
This is significant because Article 103(1) of the Constitution provides a seven-day window within which a presidential election may be challenged.
President Hichilema was declared president-elect in the early hours of August 18, meaning the constitutional deadline fell on August 25.
The petitioners have cited a long list of issues, including reports by the Christian Churches Monitoring Group, the deployment of the Zambia Defence Force during the electoral process, the suspension of the counting and announcement of results, alleged political violence and other civil society reports.
Those are matters that can properly be tested in court if they have been brought before the court in accordance with the law.
But the seriousness of an election petition also demands seriousness in following the procedures established for bringing such a matter before the Judiciary.
It is, therefore, difficult to avoid the impression that the manner in which this petition was handled may have been designed to generate publicity rather than secure a substantive judicial hearing.
The involvement of prominent lawyers and activists makes the choice of communication channel even more difficult to understand.
If the objective was genuinely to have the election results judicially scrutinised, the obvious course would have been to ensure that the documents were properly lodged with the Constitutional Court Registry within the prescribed period.
Instead, the controversy has now shifted from the alleged electoral irregularities to the question of whether a petition was filed at all.
There is also a broader concern about the internationalisation of Zambia’s political disputes. Publicising an alleged petition through unusual channels can attract considerable attention from foreign governments, international organisations, diplomatic missions, and donor-funded institutions.
That inevitably raises questions about whether the exercise is primarily intended to obtain a judicial remedy or to create an international narrative around Zambia’s elections.
Critics may reasonably wonder whether some actors are seeking to attract donor funding for another prolonged political campaign under the banner of defending democracy, even when the legal prospects of the exercise remain uncertain.
That does not mean allegations concerning the election should be dismissed. Every credible allegation deserves to be examined through the appropriate constitutional and judicial mechanisms. But democracy is strengthened by institutions and procedures, not by political theatre.
If Kasonde, Changala, and their colleagues genuinely believe that the August 13 election was unlawfully conducted, they should allow the courts to determine the matter. The appropriate place for an election petition is the court registry, not a private email inbox.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court must decide whether the documents received by the Chief Justice amount to a valid petition.
Until then, it would be premature for anyone to present the purported submission as though it were already a properly instituted constitutional case.
Zambia needs serious electoral accountability, but accountability must itself be pursued seriously, lawfully and transparently.
