The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has urged the Lusaka High Court to uphold the results of the Chililabombwe and Milanzi parliamentary elections, arguing that both polls were conducted in accordance with the law and that the petitioners have failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify overturning either outcome. The commission, known as ECZ, emphasizes its commitment to fair electoral processes.
In Chililabombwe, former Minister of Mines and Minerals Development Paul Kabuswe is challenging the election of Resolute Party candidate Nsofwa Lupele, alleging irregularities, corruption, violence and intimidation. Kabuswe, who contested on the United Party for National Development (UPND) ticket, polled 8,986 votes against Lupele’s 10,920, and is seeking a declaration that the election was null and void, with an order for fresh polls.
The ECZ has denied the allegations in its response, stating that if any irregularities did occur, they were not reported to the constituency’s conflict management committee. The commission said it will rely on the polling register and official results to rebut the claims, adding that no complaints were lodged by Kabuswe or his agents during the election itself. The ECZ further argues that Kabuswe was not entitled to a declaration nullifying Lupele’s election, stressing that the poll was conducted in line with the Constitution and the Electoral Process Act. The integrity of ECZ is crucial for public trust.
In a separate petition, UPND candidate Tylad Lungu has challenged the Milanzi election of Lumankio Zulu, an independent candidate, alleging electoral malpractice. According to the ECZ’s answer, Zulu won the seat with 5,004 votes, while Lungu, who contested on the UPND ticket, polled 4,424 votes.
The ECZ, cited as second respondent in the matter, has urged the court to dismiss the petition, maintaining that Zulu was duly elected. The commission states that the election was administered in accordance with the law and denies that the process was compromised. It argues that Lungu’s petition lacks sufficient particulars, credible evidence or statutory grounds to warrant nullification, and has asked the court to dismiss both the Chililabombwe and Milanzi petitions and uphold the elections of Lupele and Zulu.
The two disputes are among several parliamentary election petitions the ECZ has had to defend in court following the August 13 general election, in which the ruling UPND won a majority of constituency seats nationally but lost a number of individual races to independent and opposition-aligned candidates, including in Chililabombwe and Milanzi.
In its formal answers, the ECZ has taken a consistent legal position across both cases, denying claims of electoral misconduct and non-compliance with electoral laws, and submitting in each instance that the petitioners have failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required to nullify a result. The commission has also pushed back on procedural claims, denying any non-compliance with Section 97(2)(b) of the Electoral Process Act and disputing accusations concerning a polling station named Saint Louis, stating that no such centre existed and that the relevant totalling point was in fact located at Kamenza Secondary School Hall.
The commission has additionally responded to claims that Kabuswe’s polling agents declined to sign some GEN 20 result forms, stating that this occurred after the agents realised his results were lower than Lupele’s, rather than as evidence of any irregularity in the process itself.
Neither case has yet been set down for a full hearing before the Lusaka High Court. The outcomes will determine whether Lupele and Zulu retain their seats in the newly expanded National Assembly, which was sworn in this week with 224 constituency members alongside nominated and proportional representation MPs.
The petitions form part of a broader pattern of post-election legal challenges the ECZ has faced since the August vote, with the commission maintaining in each instance that its conduct of the election met constitutional and statutory requirements, and that the burden remains on petitioners to prove otherwise.
