Kumwesu Opinion: Zambia’s Constitutional Amendment Risks Undermining Electoral Fairness
The proposed amendment to Article 52(6) of the Zambian Constitution has raised significant concerns about its potential impact on electoral fairness, party participation, and the integrity of democratic processes.
While the government’s intention to avoid disruptions in the electoral calendar such as cancellations or postponements due to candidate resignations is understandable, the solution being proposed could introduce deeper problems. Specifically, the amendment does not allow a political party to replace a candidate who resigns or is disqualified after nomination.
In Zambia’s current political context, where resources and influence can be used to manipulate outcomes, this change creates a dangerous loophole. It effectively opens the door for well-resourced actors to “buy out” or coerce candidates into resigning, thereby eliminating competition and leaving rival parties without a representative in an election.
Instead of preventing disruption, the amendment could end up weakening the very democratic competition it seeks to preserve. A more balanced and effective approach would be to allow sponsoring parties to substitute a candidate who withdraws or is removed for any reason.
The risk is further heightened in a system where public trust in the independence of institutions especially the judiciary remains fragile. The possibility of courts disqualifying presidential or parliamentary candidates without recourse to replacement raises serious questions about fairness and inclusivity.
Importantly, this amendment appears to contradict the spirit of Article 45 of the Constitution, which commits Zambia to free and fair elections, accountability, and efficiency. If parties are stripped of the ability to replace a candidate, voters are denied meaningful choices, and the competitive nature of elections is compromised.
What some of us expected from this process was not necessarily a broad-based public engagement, but at least structured dialogue with key stakeholders—political parties, civil society organizations, professional bodies, and other groups with the capacity to add value on behalf of the people. That critical layer of consultation appears to be missing.
Amendments to the supreme law of the land should not be rushed or narrowly defined. A transparent and participatory review process that respects the views of key players would help avoid unintended consequences and foster national consensus.
The government’s effort to enhance electoral efficiency must be guided by the larger goal of preserving democratic principles. Revisiting the wording of Article 52(6) to permit party substitutions could strike the right balance between electoral stability and fairness.
As the country looks ahead to the 2026 elections, safeguarding the integrity of the electoral system is more crucial than ever. A flawed amendment today could lead to a contested election tomorrow something the nation can ill afford.
May 25, 2025
©️ KUMWESU