Zambia’s judiciary’s unprecedented political court cases happened just before and after the introduction of multiparty system politics. The country’s judicial system became, as Hon. Justice Ernest Linesi Sakala, a former Chief Justice of the Republic of Zambia, described, ‘the focal point and battlefield of political cases.’ The nature of the cases tested the independence and resilience of Zambia’s judges, as judges were given different labels depending on the outcome of given judicial decisions. Judges were attacked or celebrated, criticized or defended, condemned or acclaimed. The criticisms or celebrations of judges’ decisions were largely influenced by, arguably, political leanings. To this effect, ‘some judges were labelled ‘gallant’ while others were labelled ‘pro-government’, depending on the outcome of a given case. There was also a far cry from neutral parties on the condition of Zambia’s judicial independence.

60 years after Zambia’s independence, we have Zambia’s sixth President, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, barred from seeking re-election as a presidential candidate in the 2026 elections, and beyond. On 10th December 2024, the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), Zambia’s top constitutional court, disqualified him. The 68-year-old politician was first elected as president of Zambia in 2015 after the demise of President Michael Chilufya Sata. Having been elected, he served the remaining (what has been variously referred to as the ‘inherited’) period before the next 5-year term general election scheduled for 2016, in fulfilment of Zambia’s constitution. Mr Lungu was sworn into office as president on the 13th of September 2016, after his re-election. After he resumed office, Mr Lungu signed the 2016 Constitution Bill into law, which among other things, introduced changes as to when an inherited presidential term would constitute a term of office.

Before the 2021 General elections, Mr Lungu expressed profound interest to re-contest as a presidential candidate in the 2021 elections. He argued that his 18-month presidential term was an ‘inherited’ term from Mr Sata and that it should not count as a full term. In a case brought before the court of law by Daniel Pule and others versus the Attorney General and others, the petitioners prayed to the court to determine in Mr Lungu’s favour his eligibility to stand for re-election. Before the court ruling, Mr Lungu, among other pronouncements, cautioned Zambia’s judges from ‘copycatting’ Kenya’s judges who had earlier annulled Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta’s putative election victory. Addressing his supporters before the pending ConCourt ruling, Mr Lungu warned Zambia’s judiciary, inter alia, that “don’t become a copycat and think that you are a hero if you plunge this country into chaos… I am just warning you because I have information that some of you want to be adventurous. Your adventure should not plunge us into chaos, please… The most important thing I can say now is, 2021, I am available to stand if my party chooses me.”

Subsequently, the ConCourt, Judgment No. 60, 2018, declared that Mr Lungu’s inherited tenure of office between 25 January 2015 and 13 September 2016 ‘cannot be considered as a full term.’ He subsequently stood for the 2021 elections, after another 2021 dismissed court challenge from a Lusaka youth activist, Michelo Chizombe. Mr Hakainde Hichilema, the current president of Zambia, eventually defeated Mr Lungu. After his election defeat, Mr Lungu announced his retirement from active politics, but dramatically re-entered politics in October 2023.
His return and declaration of his intentions to stand as a presidential candidate in 2026 apparently triggered Michelo Chizombe to petition the ConCourt to bar Mr Lungu from contesting the election, citing Zambia’s two-term constitutional presidential limit of office.

Edgar Lungu disqualified – the Constitution versus the ConCourt ruling

According to Zambia’s 1991 constitution, an incumbent president can only be re-elected once: it entails that a person cannot serve more than two presidential terms of office. Note too that there was a constitution amendment in 1996 for the 1991 constitution. In the 1996 amended constitution with reference to articles 35(1) and 35(2), every president was expected to hold office for a period of five years, adding that no person who has twice been elected as President shall be eligible for re-election. Amendment Act No.2 of 2016 with reference to Article 106(1) still maintained that the term of office for a President is five years which shall run concurrently with the term of Parliament, except that the term of office of the President shall expire when the President-elect assumes office in accordance with Article 105. It adds in 106(2) that a president shall hold office from the date the president-elect is sworn into office and ending on the date the next President-elect is sworn into office. In article 106(3) of the Amendment Act No.2 of 2016, a person who has twice held office as president is not eligible to stand for re-election. The Amendment Act No.2 of 2016, in accordance with article 106(3), uses a phrasing that is different from the amended 1996 constitution. According to 106(3), a person who has twice held office as president is not eligible for re-election. The new phrase used in the 2016 amendment is “twice held office”, while the 1996 amended constitution in accordance with article 35(2) uses the wording, “twice been elected”. The new provision in Amendment Act No.2 of 2016, Article 106(3), introduces the running mate clause in accordance with Article 106(5). This means that if the office of the president becomes vacant, the vice president automatically assumes office, thereby eliminating the need for elections.

According to 106(5) When a vacancy occurs in the office of the President, except under Article 81— (a) the Vice-President shall immediately assume the office of President; or (b) if the Vice-President is unable for a reason to assume the office of President, the Speaker shall perform the executive functions, except the power to— (i) make an appointment; or (ii) dissolve the National Assembly; and a presidential election shall be held within sixty days (60) after the occurrence of the vacancy. In so far as Article 106(6) is concerned, if the Vice-President assumes the office of President, in accordance with clause (5)(a), or a person is elected to the office of President as a result of an election held in accordance with clause 5(b), the Vice-President or the President-elect shall serve for the unexpired term of office and be deemed, for the purposes of clause (3)— (a) to have served a full term as President if, at the date on which the President assumed office, at least three years remain before the date of the next general election; or (b) not to have served a term of office as President if, at the date on which the President assumed office, less than three years remain before the date of the next general election.

When Mr Lungu re-emerged from his retirement and declared his strong intent to re-contest the 2026 general elections as presidential candidate, on October 9, 2023, Michelo Chizombe, filed a petition against Mr Lungu, the Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Attorney General, challenging Lungu’s participation as a presidential candidate in 2026 and in future presidential elections. This was on the ground that he already served two presidential terms of office. Firstly, as President under the 1991 Constitution of Zambia and secondly under the Constitution of Zambia as amended by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016.

The petitioner argued that Mr Lungu’s participation in the August 2021 election was unconstitutional and that Article 106 of the Constitution as amended by Act No. 2 of 2016 did not apply to Mr Lungu’s served presidential term between 25th January 2015 and 13th September 2016. (For the sake of the current article, we have restricted our analysis to the case brought against Mr Lungu as the first respondent). The petitioner among other remedies, sought a declaration from the ConCourt that Mr Lungu’s previous 2021 election participation was unconstitutional, and consequently he is not eligible to contest the 2026 general elections or other future elections, as a presidential candidate.

In his response, the first respondent (Mr Lungu) argued that the petition in this matter was res judicata and an abuse of the court process as the interpretation of Article 106 (3) of the Constitution which the petitioner sought was rendered by the Constitution Court in the cases of Daniel Pule and others versus the Attorney General and others. All of which challenged the eligibility of Mr Lungu to stand as a presidential candidate in 2021, having served less than three years in his first term. Mr Lungu argued that the judgments in those cases were conclusive and final thus barring the issue from being relitigated. Mr Lungu urged the Constitution Court to dismiss the petition as it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

The petitioner argued that his petition is not res judicata as the petitioner was not a party to the previous cases against the first respondent. The petitioner further argued that the doctrine of res judicata is not absolute but has exceptions which include mistake or per incuriam. He contended that the decisions in the Daniel Pule and related cases were arrived at per incuriam as the Court did not consider sections 2 and 7 of Act No. 1 of 2016 which are relevant as they guide that Article 35 of the Constitution of Zambia 1991 as amended in 1996 applied to the 1st respondent’s first term and not Article 106 of the Constitution, which does not have a retrospective effect. He therefore submitted that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the current petition in consideration.
The court dismissed Mr Lungu’s objection, allowing the petition to proceed to a full trial, citing that it had jurisdiction over the matter according to Order 14A of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1999 edition (the White Book).

The Court declared its judgment on the matter on 10th December 2024. Its deliberations were followed live on radio and Zambia’s national television (ZNBC). The Court considered the facts of the case and held that according to its combined interpretation of sections 2 and 7 of the Act of 2016 and the repealed Article 35 of the constitution, Mr Lungu’s term of office which ran from 25th January 2015 to 13th September 2016 constituted a term of office. And the term from 2016 to August 2021 constituted a second term. The Court asserted that Mr Lungu therefore had been elected twice and consequently held office twice and was therefore not eligible to participate in future elections as a presidential candidate according to article 106(3) of the Zambian constitution. The ConCourt accepted the petitioner’s per incuriam argument. The judges ruled that Mr. Lungu’s 2021 election candidacy was based on flawed legal interpretations, characterized by a lack of due regard to the law or the facts.

Mr Lungu defiantly condemned the ruling, accusing the ConCourt’s decision against him as manipulated by reigning ‘political forces sponsored by political players.’ He invoked the earlier dismissal of three ConCourt judges as evidence for what he considered a pre-determined outcome against him. In his own words, the removal of the three judges constituted ‘the narrowing of judicial voices to fit a predetermined script.’

A step back, on 20th October 2024 three ConCourt judges; Mungeni Mulenga, Palan Musonda and Annie Sitali were relieved of their duties as judges, by President Hichilema. The removal of the judges was based on a recommendation submitted by the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC). According to JCC, the three constitutional judges had violated judicial ethics, leading to concerns about their ability to interpret the Constitution impartially. The judges’ suspension happened barely 48 hours before the ConCourt sat to hear Mr Lungu’s 2026 eligibility case. These same fired court judges had presided over a presidential petition in 2016 in which they dismissed Hichilema’s challenge against the election victory of former President Lungu. Subsequently, these three judges prominently issued a ruling allowing Mr Lungu to contest as President in the 2021 general elections.

The dismissal of these judges stirred up controversy in the political arena as critics lamented that the president’s involvement in the appointment and removal of judges compromises the independence of the judiciary, with other sectors of society calling it an act of retribution. According to Articles 143 and 144 of Zambia’s Constitution, a judge can be removed from office for reasons of incompetence, gross misconduct, mental or physical disability, or bankruptcy. The process involves the JCC initiating the removal that leads to investigation of a judge in dispute. Once investigations have been concluded, the president then suspends the judge if the investigated judge is found wanting. Then a hearing is held within 30 days of suspension to decide on the removal of a suspended judge. If the allegations against the judge are substantiated, the JCC then recommends to the president the removal of the judge.

Does winning Zambia’s presidential elections two times equate to two terms?

Some sectors of society have commended the decision by the seven-judge panel and others have condemned it. The Court’s decision stirred up a lot of discussions and high emotions; where certain commentators viewed it as a victory for constitutional integrity and the rule of law, while other parties suggested that it was a politically motivated decision. Some commentators, including academics and politicians, have even levelled allegations of judicial incompetence and/or interference. The validation and condemnations even began before the 10th of December 2024 ConCourt decision was pronounced. In a LinkedIn post shared on 23 October 2024, Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa, a prominent academic and activist, argued that the JCC which recommended the three ConCourt judges’ removal “has gone rogue”. He accused the institution, among other things, of double standards, inconsistencies, overstepping its mandates, and unlawfully interpreting constitutional provisions.

Dr Sishuwa indicated that he was concerned about the integrity and stability of Zambia’s constitutional system, as well as its stability and integrity, due to such decisions. This was in response to an article where he was accused of double standards regarding an earlier article he authored, published on 13 March 2020 in the New Diggers, where he argued for the removal of the ConCourt judges, including the three judges who were subsequently relieved of their duties by Mr Hichilema. In the said 2020 article, Dr Sishuwa called the judges “an incompetent bunch”. Dr Sishuwa was in this case commenting on one of Zambia’s prominent constitutional lawyers, Mr. John Sangwa’s, SC, observation that Mr Lungu appointed unqualified individuals to serve as ConCourt judges.

And speaking of Mr Sangwa, after Mr Lungu’s 2026 election candidature was challenged before the ConCourt, he argued that the court could not decide on a similar case where it had already made a decision. He had concerns with Mr Chizombe’s petition as he believed that reversing the earlier 2021 ConCourt’s decision, where the same court ruled that Mr Lungu was eligible to stand as a presidential candidate, would compromise and undermine the ConCourt’s integrity and authority. His primary concern was the preservation of the court’s credibility and the rule of law. To achieve this, the court needed to uphold its own earlier decisions, he believed. A step back, in the 2021 Edgar eligibility case, Mr Sangwa, SC, represented Dr Sishuwa and Chapter One Foundation before the ConCourt arguing that Mr Lungu was not eligible to stand in 2021 as a presidential candidate, in accordance with Zambia’s 1991 Constitution, as amended in 1996 and 2016. He held that allowing Mr Lungu to stand for re-election would be unconstitutional.

Mr Sangwa, submitted to the ConCourt on 02 June 2021, arguing, inter alia, that Mr. Lungu ‘having been elected, sworn into office and held the office of President from 25th January 2015 to 13th September 2016, and having been declared winner of the 2016 election, sworn into and having held the office of President from 13th of September 2016, until the next President is elected under the 2021 election is not eligible for nomination for election as President in the election set for 12th of August 2021.”

In a 2019 article published in SAIPAR Case Review after the ConCourt ruled that Mr. Lungu was eligible to stand as a presidential candidate in 2021, Mr Elias C. Chipimo, a renowned Zambian lawyer, termed the ConCourt’s decision to stand for 2021 elections awkward, backdating, misdirected, and a fabrication. He argued that by declaring Mr Lungu eligible, the ConCourt ‘effectively backdated the application of the ‘New [2016] Clauses’ to a time when there was already a law governing: (a) the eligibility of a person to stand again as a presidential candidate who has twice been elected as president (he or she would be disqualified); and (b) how long a presidential term needed to be in order to count as a full term under the law (there was previously no minimum period, meaning prior to the 2016 amendment to the Constitution, a person could technically be president for less than a year and still be deemed to have served a full term)’.

Equally, ahead of Mr Lungu’s eligibility ruling scheduled for 10th December 2024, debates had risen in legal and political spaces. For example, Prof. Munyonzwe Hamalengwa argued that the third-term precedent established in the Danny Pule and Others v. Attorney General was “erroneous ab initio”. He argued that Mr Lungu was sworn in under the 1996 constitution and that the Constitution Amendment No. 2 of 2016 cannot be applied to his case retroactively. In another article published in the Zambian Observer on 22nd of December 2024, after the ConCourt decision barring Mr. Lungu from standing as a presidential, Prof. Hamalengwa provided what he termed the “ five “principles” that are revealed that underpin a vacated precedent”. He argued that the ConCourt was justified in vacating its earlier 2021 decision on Lungu’s eligibility.

Prof. Hamalengwa’s article received criticism from Dr. Lawrence Mwelwa who argued that the third-term precedent in Danny Pule and Others v. Attorney General is not a violation of fundamental rights nor is it a miscarriage of justice. “It was a reasoned interpretation of the Zambian Constitution, particularly Article 106(3) of the 2016 amended constitution, which defines a presidential term.” He adds, “The court clarified that serving less than three years of a term does not constitute a full term. This was a constitutional question, not an issue of human rights deprivation.” Dr Mwelwa accused Prof. Hamalengwa’s article on Mr Lungu’s eligibility as a politically motivated position, as opposed to being supported by objective legal analysis. He posited that Prof Hamalengwa’s lauding of the ConCourt decision “arguments expose a reliance on political expediency rather than a principled commitment to constitutional fidelity.” Prof. Hamalengwa earlier dismissed Dr. Mwelwa’s criticism by advancing that his analysis was not a product of political experience, but rather premised on informed scholarly research and robust legal precedents. He accused Dr Mwelwa’s criticism of lacking an understanding of the theoretical basis of his analyses. He insisted that the Dan Pule precedent undermined constitutional fidelity, as it was flawed. Citing international cases such as Dred Scot (1857); Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Korematsu v. US (1943), the academic argued that such cases lend support to his analysis that Mr. Pule’s case should be vacated.

Emmanuel Mwamba, a Patriotic Front Party spokesperson in a call with Voice of America (VOA) complained that the court had ruled over this matter four times, and it’s not possible to produce erroneous judgments four times. He alleged that the reason for the ConCourt decision that vacates the 2021 Dan Pule decision is politics at play, arguing that the ConCourt decision was used as a tool to exclude a political opponent. Other critics have added that it is concerning that the judiciary has not only abandoned all pretence of constitutional delinquency but has made its disregard for the rule of law a fundamental part of its character.

According to the Chief Government Spokesperson, Mr Cornellius Mweetwa, serving under the current UPND government, “The Constitutional Court’s decision is the result of diligent and thorough research, providing clarity on the matter of Mr. Lungu’s eligibility.” He adds that the “ruling sets an important precedent, ensuring that future presidents cannot manipulate the judiciary or undermine the law. It underscores that the law is supreme and accountable to citizens.”

In an article published on 10th December 2024 after Mr Lungu was declared ineligible, a commentator, Habeenzu Clive, observed that the 10th December 2024 “ruling on Edgar Lungu’s eligibility is as much a reckoning with the past as it is a statement about the future.” He argues that “While the decision closes one chapter in Zambia’s political history, it opens new discussions about the role of judicial accountability, electoral integrity, and constitutional clarity.” He adds: “Moving forward, the nation must grapple with these lessons to build a more robust democratic framework.”

“The Emperor’s New Clothes”

The “Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson, a Danish author, is a fairy tale about a vain Emperor who only cares about the clothes he wears. Due to his obsession with new fancy clothes at the expense of the common good and well-being of his people and the State, he finds himself exposed (naked) before his subjects. His nudity was exposed when he was deceived by con men who posed as weavers. They lied to him that they had magnificent clothes which are invisible to people who were either stupid or incompetent. The emperor upon hearing this hires the con men (unknown to him that they were con men) to weave for him a magnificent invisible suit. After the con men pretended to set to work to weave the emperor’s ordered attire, a succession of his ministers and advisors went to inspect the progress made in fashioning the suit, ending with the emperor himself.

Each of the suit-inspecting parties (the emperor’s ministers and advisors, and the emperor himself) saw that the devices (looms) used to weave the emperor’s suit were empty, but each one of them pretended otherwise to avoid being seen as incompetent or stupid. After the weaved suit was completed and handed over to the emperor, the emperor set off in a magnificent procession before the whole city where a lot of people were gathered. He was wearing his magnificent invisible suit. The people were horrified to behold that their emperor was not wearing anything at all; but they all went along with the pretense fearing that they may be seen to be stupid or incompetent. It was only until a child shouted out that ‘the emperor is not wearing anything at all’ that all the people who went along with the procession realized that each one of them was fooled into believing the emperor was wearing something. The emperor then also uncomfortably realized that he was naked, but instead of asking for clothing to cover his nudity, he continued ‘the procession, walking more proudly than ever’.

What is the future of Zambia’s judicial standing?

The “Emperor’s New Clothes” is not merely another fable. It can apply as a powerful analogy for governance, greed and vanity, power, corruption, democracy, separation of powers, judicial independence, the rule of law, and societal dynamics. It calls upon individuals holding judicial and political power, and the citizens to take caution. This story enjoins each one of us to flee from the temptation of insatiable power possession, the pursuit of vanity, and blind praise.

Dear reader, if you are going to be disappointed with the ending of our article, our primary aim in piecing this article together was not to determine whether Zambia’s judiciary is compromised but to share a few facts with you from which you can draw your own conclusions. We also appeal to you to conduct further research that would inform our people, the citizens – the owners of Zambia, to make future political decisions that do not lead to having an elected ‘emperor without clothes’, who when possessed by power threatens or undermines your judiciary in an effort to retain power.

As you embark on this journey to diagnose the root cause of the validation or condemnation of the ConCourt decisions on Mr. Lungu’s eligibility, we implore you to also consider the following questions: Could the ConCourt have ruled differently if Mr Lungu was still in power? Was the ConCourt’s 2024 ruling barring Mr Lungu res judicata and an abuse of the court process? Did ‘political forces’, as alleged by Mr Lungu, manipulate and influence the decision? How did Mr Lungu know that ConCourt judges can be manipulated; does he have his experience as a former president to inform this allegation? In other words, if ConCourt judges are manipulatable, how does he know that it works? Did the firing of the three ConCourt judges before the hearing of the case on 10th of December 2024 pre-determine the outcome against Mr Lungu? Is there any evidence to show that Zambia’s judiciary is independent or can be compromised by governments in power, as implied by Mr Lungu? Is the doctrine of separation of powers real in Zambia?
On the other hand, are judges victims of the executive body of the government that wields so much more power and influence regarding the appointment, retention, and removal of judges? How come every political party that is elected to office in Zambia seeks to amend the Constitution? What is always wrong with the Zambian constitution that has never been addressed despite so many amendments by political parties in power? Are we, as Zambians, victims of a political and constitutional system that plays lip service and mimics the separation of powers, at best? What can be done to ensure that the ConCourt and other courts of justice will be considered an independent branch of the State?

Writing on judicial independence in Zambia, Chipasha Mulenga (Professor of Law) and Milambo Chibbota (Lecturer of Law) argue that ‘the provisions on judicial independence under the Constitution (amendment Act 2 of 2016) Act are not only a façade but have also been crafted in a disguised manner to end executive powers.’ In an essay, Hon. Justice Sakala, inter alia, argued that while all of Zambia’s constitutions include judicial independence provisions, the courts still face intimidation and attacks, making the whole concept of judicial autonomy and independence laughable and elusive. He suggested that the problem of questioning Zambia’s judicial independence emanates from the premise that the judiciary has not been assertive enough, and as a result, the executive, among other players, ‘have not refrained from apparent, direct and indirect attacks on judges… with a clear motive of intimidating the judiciary in politically sensitive cases before and after judgment.’

In an article titled “Judicial Reform, Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law in Zambia: From a Justice System to a Just System” Prof. Muna Ndulo underscores that an independent judiciary is a prerequisite to sustaining a democracy in the modern world. It ensures that justice is served, independent of influences from other branches of the government. That is, judicial power must be exercised independently of executive and legislative powers. In a submission to Parliament, ActionAid Zambia highlights that the question of judicial independence is a real problem in light of the issues around the appointment and removal of judges. ‘A look at the mechanism for appointment of judges in Zambia demonstrates that the process leaves a lot of room for the appointment of executive-minded judges as the President has a free hand at the appointment of judges. ActionAid further observes: ‘the appointment process [of judges] lacks transparency. Vacancies are never advertised and the whole recruitment and appointment process is shrouded in secrecy.’

Dear reader, are we to agree with Mr Habeenzu Clive, who commenting on the 10th of December 2024 ConCourt decision argued that the “ruling on Edgar Lungu’s eligibility is as much a reckoning with the past as it is a statement about the future’? He added that “While the decision closes one chapter in Zambia’s political history, it opens new discussions about the role of judicial accountability, electoral integrity, and constitutional clarity.’

Dear Reader, do you have hope that should we have another Edgar Lungu with immense powers to appoint and remove judges, as Zambia’s republican president, who later expresses interest in standing as a presidential candidate for a third time; do you have faith or trust that our ConCourt will be able to stop him/her, or are you afraid that we will have another Danny Pule outcome type of situation? If on a balance of probabilities, it is possible to have a future Dan Pule-type outcome scenario, what are we as a country actively doing to prevent this?

Epilogue

Dear reader, Zambia needs a leadership comprising servant-leaders who aim to serve and leave behind a legacy where the judiciary is not only treated with contempt or the rule of law is denied, but justice is seen to be served. Zambia needs a servant-leader who does not surround himself with opportunists who (to preserve their appointed positions) feed him/her ego. Zambia needs ministers and advisors who dare speak the truth to the servant-leader, to ensure that we have a judiciary that is not vilified because of the power-hungriness of any given incumbent president. Zambia belongs to all, dear reader; the judiciary belongs to all Zambians to respect, protect, and promote their dignity and human rights. Zambia deserves strong institutions of governance to provide checks and balances to maintain democratic governance, prevent abuses of power, ensure accountability, promote the rule of law, and foster public trust.

On the other hand, Zambia needs an informed electorate that rejects the violations of its rights, fear, apathy, and embraces truth for positive change to become possible. After 60 years of independence, Zambians should fire any ‘emperors’ who are possessed by power and seek praise at any cost: leaders who prioritize personal glory over service to the suffering, disempowered, dehumanized, and perishing Zambians.

Over 60% of Zambia’s population lives under the poverty line (40% live on under $1.25 per day). In a country endowed by God with so many natural resources, Zambia’s medical facilities to a large extent are death chambers because they lack basic diagnostic equipment, life-saving infrastructure, and medicine. 60 years after ‘independence’, we read in the news of prominent politicians being flown ‘wearing the emperor’s new clothes’ to South Africa, India, the UK, France, and many other affluent destinations for medical attention. It’s only the poor who cannot afford private medical services within Zambia who die of preventable and curable illnesses in Zambian hospitals and clinics. The poor (who are dehumanized even in death) are only remembered during the elections. Without shame, our politicians still proudly wear the emperor’s new clothes walking with aplomb and ‘more proudly than ever’!

About the authors:

Dr Kasoka Kasoka, a Zambian, holds a PhD in Law, Ethics, Human Rights, Policy and Public Health from Birkbeck, University of London, UK, as well as a Master’s degree in Law, Forensics and Criminology from Maastricht University, the Netherlands, and a Law degree from the University of London, UK. With a strong foundation in law, human rights and ethics, he has contributed to global initiatives, working with international organizations like the United Nations. He has also published in international prestigious journals, including The Lancet. Kasoka is deeply committed to addressing issues at the intersection of politics, law, human rights, and human suffering, guided by principles of fairness, the common good, human dignity and thriving.

Dacious Kasoka is a Zambian economist, poet, and writer known for his thought-provoking works published in leading literary magazines such as World Voices Magazine, The Kalahari Review, The Shallow Tales Review and Writers Space Africa Magazine, among others. He explores themes of identity, society, and justice. He is passionate about combining creative writing and scholarly analysis to engage with contemporary legal and socio-economic issues.