Zambia's Democracy Under Strain as Courts Close, Election Dispute Deepens

On August 13, Zambia held a presidential election. The Electoral Commission declared incumbent Hakainde Hichilema the winner with 62 percent of the vote. His closest challenger, Brian Mundubile of the National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity, received 38 percent. Within days, Mundubile announced he would contest the result, vowing his party would not relent in pursuing the challenge.

But on August 24, all of Zambia's courts closed. The government cited security concerns and said the closure would remain in effect until further notice. The timing created an immediate problem: the opposition had no legal venue to file their election petition, no court to hear their case, no judicial mechanism to challenge the official results. The closure raised a stark question about whether the closure itself was designed to prevent such challenges, or whether it was genuinely a security measure—and whether the distinction mattered when the practical effect was the same.

On August 25, Chief Justice Mumba Malila disclosed that he had received documents described as a presidential election petition through his private email address. He called the submission method "highly irregular" and said he had referred the documents to the Constitutional Court to determine whether they constituted a formally filed petition. The distinction was crucial: receiving documents was not the same as formally lodging a case. The courts remained closed. No one could file anything through normal channels.

The Law Association of Zambia demanded the courts reopen. Its president, Arnold Kaluba, stated that security measures must not undermine access to justice or judicial independence. "Such measures must be lawful, proportionate and implemented in a manner that preserves access to justice and respects the constitutional independence and autonomy of the judiciary," he said. The Human Rights Commission of Zambia echoed the concern. Its chairperson, Pamela Towela Sambo, warned that disruption to judicial operations could affect fundamental rights, including access to a fair trial and legal remedies. "If the right to a fair trial is delayed, there is increased risk of arbitrary detentions, while access to remedies is effectively blocked," she said.

The government rejected the suggestion that court closures were intended to block election challenges. Clayson Hamasaka, the president's chief communications specialist, described the security measures as "intelligence-led and preventive" in nature, involving multiple government institutions beyond courts, and aimed at protecting officials, institutions, and the public. He maintained that people with legitimate grievances remained free to pursue remedies provided by law—though what those remedies were, with courts closed, remained unclear.

This was not the first sign of strain during the election itself. Voting had been suspended at some ballot boxes amid reports of violence. Questions about media independence had surfaced in the run-up to the vote. Now, as the post-election period unfolded, those concerns deepened.

Maurice Nyambe, executive director of Transparency International Zambia, said the country needed stronger institutions for resolving political disputes. "At this stage of the electoral process, Zambia does not need fewer avenues for resolving political disputes. It needs stronger, accessible, and trusted institutions through which those disputes can be peacefully resolved." Political commentator and human rights activist Laura Miti questioned the lack of a fuller public explanation for the closure. "If you are going to unprecedentedly close the courts, you owe the nation an explanation beyond a blanket—there is a security threat," she wrote on Facebook.

Zambia has long been regarded as one of Southern Africa's more stable multiparty democracies, known for political stability and peaceful transfers of power. But the current dispute arrives at a moment when democratic institutions across the region face growing scrutiny over contested elections and political transitions. How Zambia handles this situation will likely be watched beyond its borders. For Zambians themselves, the issue transcends the contest between two candidates. It is about whether political disagreements can be resolved peacefully through independent, accessible, and trusted institutions. On the streets of Lusaka, a citizen told Deutsche Welle: "We are anxious and afraid because we do not know the truth about what is happening."