By 
A leadership dispute in the New Congress Party (NCP) has escalated, with the Lusaka High Court told that Peter Chanda was not recognised in official records held by the Registrar of Societies.
This is in a matter in which Chanda is seeking a declaration that his removal as party president was null and void.
Chanda argued that a sitting party president could only be removed through a vote of no confidence by the general membership.
In a defence filed before the court, Daniel Nyati and four others argued that Chanda was not the party president and that Jonathan Nganga was not secretary general, as their names do not appear on the register of office bearers.
The defendants—Joseph Zuze, Amos Nyirenda, Daniel Nyati, Josephine Chulu, and Jonathan Phiri—maintained that they were the duly registered leaders of the party and legitimate members of the National Executive Committee (NEC).
They submitted that the NCP was a lawfully registered political party and that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to claim leadership positions.
The defence stated that the defendants were not ordinary members but elected officials mandated to run party affairs.
According to court documents, the defendants contended that the powers of a party president were not absolute and are subject to NEC approval, particularly on matters of appointments, suspensions, and expulsions.
They stated that disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiffs were conducted in line with the party constitution.
The court heard that Chanda and Nganga were invited to appear before the NEC on January 29, 2026, and again on February 9, 2026, but failed to attend or submit written responses.
The defendants said this prompted the NEC to proceed with the matter and subsequently expel the plaintiffs for alleged misconduct.
They argued that the NEC, as the party’s highest organ, lawfully acted as a disciplinary committee in accordance with constitutional provisions.
It was further submitted that an extraordinary meeting convened to deliberate on the matter was valid, having met quorum requirements and producing unanimous resolutions.
The defendants added that allowing the plaintiffs to preside over their own disciplinary process would have violated principles of natural justice.
“That the expulsion of the plaintiffs was valid, lawful, and strictly in conformity with the provisions of the party constitution,” they stated.
They further told the court that changes to party leadership were duly filed with the Registrar of Societies in line with the Societies Act and the party constitution, making them valid and enforceable.
The defence maintained that the plaintiffs ceased to be members following their expulsion and that party operations have continued normally under the current leadership.
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