Source here
Jonas Zimba
INTRODUCTION
Zambia being a
Constitutional Democracy is governed by the Constitution which is Chapter 1 of
the laws of Zambia
The Zambian
system also sits under what is known as a direct and indirect or representative
democracy where the Zambian people can elect official to the National Assembly
who are referred to as Members of Parliament.
Under the said
Constitution is the process and the law for electing Members of Parliament
which starts with process of nomination set out in Article 52(6)[1].
Under the said
provision, the constitution provides as follows:
“6) Where a candidate dies, resigns or
becomes disqualified in accordance with Article 70, 100 or 153 or a court
disqualifies a candidate for corruption or malpractice, after the close of
nominations and before the election date, the Electoral Commission shall cancel
the election and require the filing of fresh nominations by eligible candidates
and elections shall be held within thirty days of the filing of the fresh
nominations”
The provision as
it is currently, is one provision.
The constitution
starts with a preamble and says:
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF ZAMBIA:”
There is now a
proposal to amend this provision as contained in bill No. 7 of 2025.
WHAT IS PROPOSED
The proposal
under bill number 7 of 2025 has now split the provision into three parts and
has created three scenarios under Article 52(6) as a proposal for curing a
defect well understood by the proposer as opposed to what it is currently.
Clause 4 of the
bill as proposed now states as follows:
“Article
52 of the Constitution is amended -
(c) by the deletion
of clause (6) and the substitution therefor
of the following:
(6) Where a candidate-
(a) resigns after having been nominated 30 in accordance with this Article, the
candidate shall not be eligible to contest
the election, and the election
shall proceed to be held on the date prescribed for holding the election;
(b) has been disqualified by a court, after close of nominations, the candidate
shall not be eligible to contest the elections, and the
election shall proceed to be held on the date prescribed for holding the
election; or
5 (c) dies before the date prescribed for the holding of the election, the
Electoral
Commission shall cancel the election, and call for the filing of fresh
nominations, and the election shall be held within thirty days of receipt of
the fresh nominations."
The provision as proposed now creates
three scenarios. These include:
1.
Where a candidate resigns,
2.
Where a candidate is disqualified by the Court
3. Where
a candidate dies
Under the first
two scenarios, the Electoral Commission will proceed with the election without
giving a chance to the affected political party to either replace the candidate
or even field another candidate. In short, they will not call for fresh nominations.
Whereas under the third scenario they will call for fresh nominations and hold
the election within thirty days of receiving such nominations.
This creates a big problem.
What will happen to political parties affected by the resignation of a candidate who, as a result of a fault not of their own, just sees a candidate jump ship and resign from the said party? Will they not be disadvantaged by such an act?
How will the law
protect such parties from the game of buying candidates by the wealthiest
political party which will aim at disadvantaging the other players?
In the event
that a candidate is disqualified by the Court, what happens to the Political
party that fielded such a candidate?
Where a
candidate dies, who proposed the one month as the one to be followed as the
period suitable for replacement of a candidate and proceeding with the
elections?
CONCLUSION
There are
proposals on the table, and these are in now bill 7 of 2025. What the effect of
Article 52(6) as proposed seems to be is clear.
The position
seems to be that political parties who suffer resignations and whose candidates
are disqualified by the Courts are likely to be disenfranchised and as the
proposed law appears now, there is no protection for such players.
One would
wonder, would this not be a situation that may require wider consultation and refining
of such a provision so that stakeholders can voice out what their views on the
subject would be?
We the people of
Zambia may need to have a say on this matter, and this seems to be the way out.
How will these
views be protected?
These seem to be the important questions that may need to
be resolved before any progress in made in this process but what seems to be
the case is that it is darker than expected as we go into this process.
