26/08/2026
ARBITRARY BEHAVIOUR OF GOVERNMENT: CLOSURE OF ZAMBIAN COURTS RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
By Zytomir Media Networks – CDN News, Lusaka, Zambia
The closure of courts across Zambia on 24 August 2026, coinciding with the final day of the constitutional window for challenging the presidential election, has created an unprecedented and deeply troubling situation for Zambia's constitutional democracy. Reports indicate that the Lusaka High Court and several other judicial facilities were sealed off by security personnel, with the authorities citing security concerns.
The timing is particularly disturbing because Article 103(1) of the Constitution provides that a person may, within seven days of the declaration of a President-elect, petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the presidential election on specified constitutional or legal grounds. Closing access to the courts at the very point when that constitutional right was due to be exercised inevitably raises serious questions about whether citizens were effectively deprived of meaningful access to the judicial process.
The Constitution further provides in Article 118(1) that judicial authority derives from the people of Zambia and must be exercised in a manner that promotes accountability, while Article 118(2) requires justice to be done and not delayed and requires the courts to protect and promote constitutional values. These principles cannot be treated as optional whenever the Government faces a politically sensitive moment.
It is important, however, to distinguish between the Government being responsible for a court closure and the broader constitutional concern arising from the closure itself. State House has denied that President Hakainde Hichilema ordered the courts closed to prevent an election petition, saying the Judiciary is constitutionally independent and that security assessments were being conducted at several government premises.
Nevertheless, the Government bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure that security measures do not unnecessarily interfere with fundamental institutions of democracy. A security explanation cannot automatically extinguish legitimate questions about access to justice, particularly when the closure occurs on the final day of a constitutionally prescribed election-petition period.
The danger of such conduct is enormous: if citizens begin to believe that courts can be physically inaccessible precisely when they need constitutional remedies, confidence in the Judiciary, elections and the entire constitutional order will inevitably suffer. Zambia's democracy cannot be reduced to the casting and counting of ballots; it must also include the right to challenge an election through an independent judicial process where the Constitution permits such a challenge.
The Law Association of Zambia has itself warned that the timing of the closures carries serious implications for access to justice and has demanded an explanation for the circumstances surrounding the shutdown.
EDITORIAL NOTES
We strongly condemn and deeply regret this unprecedented situation, because no government should create circumstances in which the public reasonably fears that access to the courts has been compromised at a critical constitutional moment.
We warn that the continued normalization of executive or security measures that interfere, directly or indirectly, with access to judicial remedies could set a dangerous precedent in Zambia and weaken the separation of powers.
The courts are not a playground for political tricksters, nor are they institutions that should become inaccessible when citizens most urgently require constitutional protection; they must remain open, independent and capable of holding every person and institution—including Government—to account.
Zambia's constitutional democracy must be protected not merely when it is convenient, but especially when the political stakes are at their highest.
