Election Petitions in Zambia: When Can an Election Be Challenged?

The votes have been counted, winners have been declared, and the campaign period may be over — but for some candidates, the election is far from finished.

With the conclusion of Zambia’s General Elections, attention now turns to the courts as unsuccessful candidates and other eligible parties consider challenging results they believe were affected by irregularities, misconduct or breaches of electoral law.

But when can an election legally be challenged? Is every irregularity enough to overturn a result? And what does a petitioner actually have to prove?

An election petition is not simply a way for a losing candidate to dispute an unfavourable result. It is a legal process governed by specific grounds, strict procedures and demanding evidentiary requirements.

So, what is an election petition?

An election petition is a formal legal challenge to the validity of an election.

For parliamentary elections, a petition may be brought before the High Court to challenge the election of a Member of Parliament. Local government election disputes are dealt with by Local Government Elections Tribunals, while presidential election petitions fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

The important question is therefore not simply whether a candidate believes an election was unfair. The question is whether there is a recognised legal ground for challenging the election, supported by evidence.

On what grounds can an election be challenged?

For parliamentary and local government elections, the Electoral Process Act provides several grounds upon which an election may be challenged.

1. Corrupt or illegal practices and other misconduct

An election may be challenged where corrupt practices, illegal practices or other misconduct occurred in connection with the election.

This could include conduct such as bribery, unlawful influence or other prohibited electoral practices.

Zambian courts have considered these issues in a number of election petitions. In Mlewa v Wightman [1996] ZMSC 29, the Supreme Court considered allegations of widespread corrupt and illegal practices, violence and intimidation. The Court recognised that where wrongdoing is of such a scale or nature that it adversely affects an election, the election may be void even where the successful candidate was not personally involved in the wrongdoing.

The courts have also dealt with the misuse of public resources during election campaigns. In Mabenga v Wina & Others [2003] ZMSC 75, the Supreme Court considered, among other things, the use of government resources and facilities for electoral purposes and emphasised the serious consequences that may follow where corrupt or illegal electoral practices are proved.

More recently, however, the Constitutional Court has emphasised the particular requirements of section 97 of the Electoral Process Act. In Chrispin Siingwa v Stanley Kakubo [2018] ZMCC 269, the Court stressed the need to establish the necessary connection between corrupt or illegal conduct and the candidate or election agent, as well as the statutory requirement concerning the effect of the malpractice on voters.

This means that the question is not merely:

“Did something improper happen?”

It is also:

“Who was responsible, can the conduct legally be attributed to the candidate, and was it sufficiently widespread or significant to satisfy the statutory test?”

2. Non-compliance with electoral law

An election may also be challenged where there was a failure to comply with the law governing the conduct of the election.

This could involve failures to follow prescribed electoral procedures or other statutory requirements.

But not every administrative error will invalidate an election.

This distinction can be seen in Sibongile Mwamba v Kelvin Sampa and Another [2017] ZMCC 87. The Constitutional Court considered allegations both of corrupt practices and of non-compliance by electoral officials. The case illustrates that identifying an irregularity is only part of the inquiry: the petitioner must satisfy the applicable statutory test, including, where required, demonstrating its effect on the election result.

Similarly, in Nkandu Luo & Another v Mwamba & Another [2018] ZMCC 254, allegations included irregularities relating to election result forms. The Constitutional Court held, in substance, that omissions by election officials would not justify nullification where they did not affect the result.

The court must therefore consider the nature and significance of the non-compliance and whether it affected the result. This is an important distinction because elections involve numerous administrative processes, and an isolated technical error will not automatically justify overturning the will of the electorate.

3. The elected candidate was not qualified

An election may also be challenged where the person declared elected was not legally qualified to stand for election or was disqualified from being elected.

Unlike allegations concerning conduct during the election, this ground focuses on whether the candidate was legally eligible to contest or be elected to the office.

Questions of eligibility have featured prominently in Zambian presidential election litigation. In Lewanika & Others v Chiluba [1998] ZR 49 (SC), for example, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider a challenge involving, among other matters, the constitutional qualifications of the successful presidential candidate.

Although the constitutional and statutory framework applicable to particular offices must always be considered, the broader point remains: an election petition may concern not only how an election was conducted, but also whether the successful candidate was legally entitled to be elected in the first place.

What about presidential elections?

Presidential election petitions are governed by a separate constitutional framework.

Under Article 103 of the Constitution, a person may petition the Constitutional Court within seven days of the declaration of a President-elect where they contend that the President-elect was not validly elected, or that a provision of the Constitution or another law relating to the presidential election was not complied with.

The Constitutional Court is required to hear an election petition within 14 days of its filing.

The importance of these constitutional timelines was demonstrated in Hakainde Hichilema and Another v Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Others [2016] ZMCC 9. Following the 2016 presidential election, the petitioners challenged the election of the President-elect. The Constitutional Court treated the constitutionally prescribed period as mandatory and held that it had no power to extend the period beyond the constitutional deadline.

Earlier presidential election cases also demonstrate the demanding nature of the evidentiary burden. In Mazoka & Others v Mwanawasa & Others [2005] ZMSC 25, which arose under the constitutional framework then in force, the Supreme Court emphasised the high standard of proof applicable to allegations made in a presidential election petition and ultimately dismissed the petition for insufficient proof.

Presidential election petitions are therefore particularly time-sensitive and constitutionally distinct from challenges involving parliamentary and local government elections.

Losing an election is not, by itself, grounds for a petition

This is perhaps the most important point for anyone considering an election petition.

A candidate cannot successfully challenge an election simply because they believe they should have won.

A petitioner must establish a recognised legal ground and support the allegations with evidence.

The Constitutional Court’s decisions following the 2016 parliamentary elections illustrate this clearly. In Shabula v Monde [2018] ZMCC 16, the Court accepted that misconduct had been established and could be attributed to the candidate, but held that the evidence did not establish the further statutory requirement that the misconduct was sufficiently widespread to prevent, or potentially prevent, the majority of voters from electing their preferred candidate. The nullification was therefore reversed.

Similarly, in Chrispin Siingwa v Stanley Kakubo [2018] ZMCC 269, the Court emphasised that proof of an isolated inducement was insufficient without satisfying the statutory requirements concerning attribution and the effect on the majority of voters.

In practical terms, a petitioner needs to answer three questions:

What went wrong?

The alleged irregularity, misconduct, non-compliance or disqualification must be clearly identified.

What law was breached?

The allegation must be connected to a specific constitutional, statutory or electoral requirement.

Why does it matter?

Where the law requires it, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alleged conduct was sufficiently significant or widespread to satisfy the statutory test for invalidating the election.

An election petition is therefore an evidence-driven legal proceeding, not simply an extension of the political contest.

The importance of evidence

Election petitions often involve serious allegations, but allegations alone do not determine the outcome.

Zambian courts have consistently applied a demanding standard of proof in election cases. In Mabenga v Wina & Others [2003] ZMSC 75, the Supreme Court described the applicable standard as higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities, although not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

That approach has continued to influence election jurisprudence. In cases such as Richwell Siamunene v Sialubalo Gift [2017] ZMCC 86 and Shabula v Monde [2018] ZMCC 16, the Constitutional Court emphasised the need for cogent evidence, particularly where serious electoral misconduct is alleged.

A petitioner may therefore need to produce documents, witness testimony and other evidence capable of establishing what occurred, who was responsible and, where relevant, how the conduct affected the election.

This is why the preparation of an election petition requires urgency. Evidence may need to be identified and preserved while events are still recent, witnesses are available and relevant electoral materials can be obtained.

There are strict deadlines

Election petitions are also subject to strict procedural requirements.

Under the current 2026 High Court (Election Petition) Rules, parliamentary election petitions must set out the relevant election, the result being challenged, the grounds of the petition and the relief being sought, together with the required supporting documentation and affidavit.

The Rules also prescribe timelines governing the filing and subsequent conduct of the proceedings.

For local government elections, the 2026 Local Government Elections Tribunals Rules provide for a petition to be filed within seven days of the declaration of the result.

These deadlines matter. A potentially strong case can still fail if the applicable procedural requirements are not met.

The 2016 presidential petition in Hichilema v Lungu provides a particularly striking illustration of the importance of electoral timelines. Although presidential petitions are governed by their own constitutional regime, the case demonstrates a broader lesson applicable to election litigation: electoral disputes operate within unusually strict time limits, and those limits cannot be treated as ordinary procedural deadlines.

What is the purpose of an election petition?

Election petitions are not intended to give unsuccessful candidates a second opportunity to contest an election.

Their purpose is to provide a legal mechanism for determining whether an election was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the result should stand.

That distinction is important.

The courts are not being asked simply to decide who should have won. They are being asked to determine whether the election was legally valid.

The jurisprudence reflects the balance involved. On the one hand, courts will intervene where the legal requirements for nullification are established. On the other, as decisions such as Shabula v Monde, Siingwa v Kakubo and Sibongile Mwamba v Kelvin Sampa demonstrate, proof that an irregularity or instance of misconduct occurred does not automatically mean that an election must be overturned.

Conclusion

As Zambia moves beyond the General Elections, the attention of many candidates may now shift from the campaign trail to the courtroom.

For those considering an election petition, the starting point should not simply be whether they are dissatisfied with the result. It should be whether there is a recognised legal ground, credible evidence and a sufficient basis for challenging the validity of the election.

Zambian election cases demonstrate that courts look closely at the precise legal ground relied upon, the quality of the evidence, the connection between alleged misconduct and the candidate or election agent, and — where the statute requires it — the effect of the conduct or irregularity on voters or the election result.

Ultimately, an election petition is about more than disputing a result. It is one of the mechanisms through which the integrity of Zambia’s electoral process can be tested and protected through the rule of law.