By 
The High Court has clarified that a public officer can only act on a directive or instruction from the President if it is in writing and signed by the Head of State, as prescribed under Article 93(1) of the Constitution—reaffirming that verbal presidential instructions have no force of law.
A three-member bench comprising Judges Pixie Yangailo, Ian Mabbolobbolo, and Anna Malata-Ononuju made the ruling in a case involving former Commissioner of Lands and former High Court Judge, Wilfred Kopa Muma, who had sought a constitutional reference.
The court ruled that “verbal instructions by the President are not legally binding,” and emphasised that all presidential directives must be documented and signed to carry legal authority.
Muma, who served as Commissioner of Lands from November 2015 to March 2019, faces two charges before the Economic and Financial Crimes Court—willful failure to comply with the law and abuse of authority of office—linked to the alleged political allocation of public land.
He told the court that he had acted on verbal instructions from then-President Edgar Lungu to allocate land belonging to the Zambia Army in Arakan area to the Patriotic Front (PF) party, with the understanding that the army would be compensated with alternative land near the airport.
However, the High Court dismissed his argument, noting that Article 93(1) of the Constitution explicitly requires that any presidential decision or instruction be in writing to have legal effect.
“The President’s decisions or instructions must be reduced into writing and signed to have legal effect,” the judges said, adding that Muma’s application to refer five constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court was unnecessary, as the issues had already been settled by precedent.
Citing the Constitutional Court’s earlier decision in Isaac Mwanza v The Attorney General, the bench noted:
“The exercise of the President’s delegated authority is prescribed by law and must be exercised within the specific powers granted by the enabling legislation.
However, in terms of instructions or decisions of the President as provided for under Article 93 of the Constitution… they have to be issued in writing to have legal effect.”
The court ruled that none of the five questions posed by the defence raised any novel or unresolved constitutional issue warranting referral to the Constitutional Court, as existing jurisprudence already addressed them. Judgment has been set for March 26, 2026.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments