The Editor Zambia
The growing chorus of deliberate misinformation surrounding the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ)’s candidate adoption requirements must be called out for what it is: a reckless attempt to confuse the public and deflect from basic legal failures.
Let us be absolutely clear. The ECZ has not barred candidates simply because their names do not appear on the Registrar of Societies records.
That is not the issue, and those peddling this falsehood know better. 
The matter is far more elementary. It concerns who has the lawful authority to sign adoption certificates on behalf of a political party.
The legal position is straightforward and hardly complex. Any candidate sponsored by a political party must present adoption papers signed by persons whose authority can be verified through authentic and legally recognised party leadership records lodged with the Registrar of Societies.
This is not some novel invention by the ECZ; it is a standard compliance requirement grounded in basic administrative and electoral law.
To pretend otherwise is either intellectual dishonesty or legal illiteracy.
That is precisely why both Makebi Zulu and Brian Mundubile have no one to blame but themselves for the predicament in which they now find themselves.
Makebi Zulu, being a lawyer, should know this better than most. These are not obscure procedural technicalities buried deep in constitutional jurisprudence. They are among the most basic legal principles governing corporate and political entity representation in Zambia.
A first-year law student would understand that an institution can only act through duly recognised office bearers whose authority is properly recorded and legally verifiable.
For an experienced legal practitioner to now feign surprise at such elementary compliance requirements is astonishing.
Equally, Mundubile can not credibly plead ignorance. Political leadership carries with it the duty to ensure that all party processes are lawful, properly documented, and administratively sound. Attempting to shift responsibility onto the ECZ merely exposes a failure of internal legal diligence.
The Electoral Commission cannot be expected to validate signatures from individuals whose authority is not supported by official records. To demand otherwise would be to invite institutional chaos and legal uncertainty into Zambia’s electoral process.
The truth is uncomfortable for some, but it remains the truth: this is not political persecution, nor is it administrative overreach. It is simply the law being applied as it should be.
Those now crying-foul are not victims of the ECZ injustice. They are casualties of their own failure to respect basic legal procedure.
Zambians deserve facts, not manufactured outrage. The public must reject attempts to weaponise misinformation for political sympathy.
The law has always been clear. Those who ignored it must live with the consequences.
