06/05/2026
THE PRICE OF SHORTCUTS: WHY THE COURT OF APPEAL DISCHARGED THE PF INJUNCTION
By Bwembya Mwaume
In Bemba, we say “Amano mambulwa”—wisdom is gathered from others. In politics, one lesson stands above the rest: the law rewards procedure, not speed.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Morgan Ng’ona v. Miles Bwalya Sampa (CAZ/08/151/2026) makes that point with unusual clarity. What looked like a tactical legal move collapsed on a simple but decisive error—procedure.
A bench comprising Mchenga, DJP, Majula, and Muzenga, JJA dismissed Ng’ona’s application for an injunction pending appeal, declaring it incompetently before the Court. The reason was straightforward: the appellant bypassed the High Court and went directly to the Court of Appeal.
That shortcut proved fatal.
The consequences are immediate and significant. The ex parte injunction granted on March 19, 2026 has been discharged. With it goes the legal restraint on Miles Sampa, effectively restoring his authority as Patriotic Front president—at least for now. The court, notably, ordered each party to bear its own costs.
This was not a judgment on the broader political dispute. It was a judgment on discipline—legal discipline. Courts are not arenas for improvisation; they are systems governed by sequence. Miss a step, and the entire case can unravel.
As the Bemba saying goes, “Nangu kashila katali, nshila tayafya”—the destination may be far, but the path is clear. In this instance, the path was ignored.
For Sampa, the ruling is a strategic victory at a moment when PF leadership remains contested and fragile. For his opponents, it is a reminder that political battles fought in court demand more than urgency—they demand precision.
Whether in football or law, you cannot win with an illegal formation. Procedure is not a technicality; it is the game itself.
As Zambia’s political currents continue to shift, this case underscores a broader truth: institutions hold when rules are respected. And when they are not, even strong cases can fall on weak foundations.