Zambia's post-election developments should concern every democrat in Southern Africa

The developments unfolding in Zambia should concern every democrat in Southern Africa.

On 24 August 2026, Zambia's courts, including the Constitutional Court, were closed on security grounds at an extraordinarily sensitive moment in the country's electoral process. The closure occurred during the constitutionally prescribed period within which the outcome of the presidential election could be challenged. 

Reuters confirmed that the gates to the Supreme Court premises in Lusaka, which also houses the Constitutional Court, were closed and police were deployed inside the premises.

Whatever security considerations may have existed, courts occupy a special place in a constitutional democracy. 

They are the final refuge of citizens who believe that their rights have been violated. 

Their doors should therefore never become inaccessible at precisely the moment when citizens are required by law to approach them.

We now have an extraordinary situation.

The Judiciary has stated that no presidential election petition was formally filed with the Constitutional Court Registry within the period it recognised for filing. 

At the same time, Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila has confirmed that he received documents described as the "People's Presidential Petition" through his private email address. 

While describing that method of transmission as highly irregular, the Chief Justice nevertheless referred those documents to the Constitutional Court for consideration of the issue of filing.

That leaves an important constitutional question requiring resolution.

I do not wish to prejudge either the merits of the intended petition or the motives behind the closure of the courts. 

There is presently no credible evidence establishing that President Hakainde Hichilema personally ordered the closure of the courts for the purpose of preventing an election petition from being filed. 

Official explanations have attributed the restrictions to security assessments affecting several government institutions.

But motive does not dispose of the more fundamental question of access to justice.

The principle should be straightforward: no citizen should lose a constitutional right because the doors of a court were closed.

Where exceptional security circumstances make physical access to a court impossible, the justice system has a corresponding responsibility to ensure that effective alternative arrangements exist through which citizens can exercise rights that are subject to strict constitutional deadlines.

It follows, in my view, that if the affected parties make the necessary submissions upon restoration of normal access to the courts, those submissions should not be treated as late merely because the prescribed period elapsed while the courts themselves were inaccessible.

The delay was not wilful.

A citizen cannot reasonably be penalised for failing to enter a building whose doors were closed by the State. 

Neither should a litigant lose a constitutional remedy because the institution before which that remedy had to be exercised was unavailable.

The appropriate course would be to allow the affected parties to place their case before the Constitutional Court. 

The Court can then independently determine questions of filing, competence and ultimately, if appropriate, the merits of the challenge according to Zambian law.

This is particularly important in light of the regional and continental framework within which Zambia's election took place.

The African Union–COMESA Election Observation Mission recognised Zambia's judicial mechanisms for resolving electoral disputes and specifically the role of the Constitutional Court in determining presidential election petitions.

Meaningful access to that Court is therefore not peripheral to the integrity of the electoral process; it is part of the architecture through which electoral legitimacy is tested and protected.

That principle extends beyond Zambia.

Across our region, we consistently encourage political actors who dispute election outcomes to reject violence and pursue constitutional and judicial remedies. 

That democratic compact only works if the courts to which citizens are directed remain independent, accessible and capable of providing an effective remedy.

We cannot tell citizens to take their grievances to court and then permit circumstances in which access to those courts becomes impossible during the very period prescribed for doing so.

Zambia has long occupied an important place in Southern Africa's democratic tradition. What happens there therefore matters beyond its borders.

The credibility of an election is not diminished when its outcome is subjected to judicial scrutiny. It is strengthened. 

A government whose electoral mandate withstands independent judicial examination emerges with greater legitimacy, while citizens who challenge an election are afforded the peaceful constitutional avenue that democracy promises them.

The reopening of Zambia's courts should therefore be accompanied by clarity from the Judiciary regarding what occurred, what arrangements existed for urgent constitutional matters during the closure, and how the documents already referred to the Constitutional Court by the Chief Justice will now be dealt with.

Ultimately, this is larger than the fortunes of any particular candidate.

It is about preserving a simple but indispensable democratic principle: political disputes must be capable of resolution through institutions governed by law.

Democracy is safest when disputes over political power are settled through open courts, independently and according to law.

-----------
Senator Jameson Z. Timba is a former Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office of Zimbabwe (2009–2013), Founding Principal of Sungano yeVanhu – Ubumbano Lomphakathi (The People's Coalition), Convenor of the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), a Presidium member of the Progressive Alliance, and a political leader.