YESTERDAY’S ruling by the Constitutional Court declaring former President Edgar Lungu ineligible to contest future presidential elections marks a significant moment in Zambia’s democratic journey. This judgment, though contentious, represents a necessary reset—a correction of judicial precedence that had previously bent under political pressure. It is regrettable that the court found itself in an awkward and, quite frankly, embarrassing position of overturning its earlier decision, but this outcome underscores a critical truth: when justice strays, a course of correction is imperative for the integrity of the nation’s laws and institutions.
In our opinion, the court’s willingness to depart from its previous decision is commendable and indicative of a judiciary that is striving to restore its independence and credibility. As Judge Arnold Shilimi rightly noted, an apex court must have the latitude to correct past errors, especially when the “interest of justice” demands it. This departure is not a sign of weakness or inconsistency but a reflection of a judiciary that recognises its past weaknesses and the duty to uphold the Constitution above all else.
The earlier ruling that allowed Mr. Lungu to stand in the 2021 elections was deeply flawed. It created a precedent that threatened to undermine constitutional term limits—a cornerstone of Zambia’s democratic framework. By affirming that Mr. Lungu’s two terms disqualify him from future presidential bids, the court has safeguarded the spirit of the Constitution and protected the principle that no individual should cling to power indefinitely.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lungu’s reaction to the ruling has been predictable. His accusations of political manipulation and judicial interference reflect a glaring irony. During his presidency, the judiciary faced allegations of intimidation and undue influence, particularly concerning rulings that favored his political interests. His lament about “specific judges” being expelled to facilitate this decision raises questions about his own relationship with those same judges as well as the judiciary when he held power. If judges were indeed compromised, as his statements imply, it is worth asking: Who benefitted from this compromise during his tenure?
It seems Mr. Lungu recognises that the scales of justice may have tilted in his favor in the past. His reluctance to accept the court’s decision now highlights a fundamental inconsistency. Why did he expect Zambians to accept controversial rulings during his time in office, yet now cries foul when the judgment does not suit his ambitions?
We are eager to see how Mr. Lungu’s Plan B will work. But we must say that his declaration of a “Plan B” is a cause for concern. While he claims this plan is rooted in democratic principles, the language of his statement hints at potential destabilisation. His supporters, including PF faction vice-president Given Lubinda, have made bold claims about defying the ruling and ensuring Lungu’s presence on the 2026 ballot “come rain, come thunder.” Such rhetoric risks inflaming tensions and undermining the rule of law.
In a democratic society, court decisions must be respected, even when they are unfavorable. The insistence on pursuing political power through defiance of legal rulings sets a dangerous precedent. Zambia cannot afford to descend into lawlessness fueled by political grievances. We applaud Mr. Lungu for, thus far, refraining from inciting violence among his supporters. However, his “Plan B” must remain within the bounds of legality and constitutional order.
There are lessons to learn from this development. This case serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of judicial compromise. Had the Constitutional Court acted with impartiality and professionalism during Mr. Lungu’s presidency, this embarrassing reversal might not have been necessary. The judiciary must learn from this episode: consistency, integrity, and independence are paramount. Judges must resist political pressures and remember that their ultimate duty is to the Constitution and the Zambian people, not to transient political powers.
We join the Law Association of Zambia in calling for calm and adherence to the ruling, regardless of the misgivings we may have about what has transpired. Democracy thrives on the rule of law, not on the whims of individuals or parties.
Mr. Lungu’s political future may have reached a constitutional dead end, but Zambia’s democracy must forge ahead. This moment offers an opportunity to strengthen our institutions, reaffirm judicial independence, and ensure that no one is above the law.
