By 
Welcome to Justice O’ Metre, an independent tracker on high-profile cases affecting mostly politically exposed persons within the Zambian judicial system, the rule of law, and the administration of justice for the common good.
MARCH REVIEW
March marked a decisive turn in Zambia’s legal landscape, with landmark rulings and high-stakes prosecutions shaping the political and judicial environment ahead of the August 13, 2026 general elections.
MUNDUBILE v SAMPA, NG’ONA, CHABINGA
A protracted legal battle that exposed deep divisions within the Patriotic Front ended with the High Court affirming Miles Sampa’s rise to the party presidency.
High Court Judge Conceptor Zulu ruled that the controversial October 24, 2023 conference was lawful, finding that the challengers, Brian Mundubile, Mutotwe Kafwaya, Stephen Kampyongo and others, had failed to prove that the gathering breached the party constitution.
The ruling effectively validated the conference outcome, which led to the appointment of Robert Chabinga as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and Morgan Ng’ona as Secretary General.
This was despite Sampa having previously filed a consent with the MPs admitting that the conference was illegal. The consent was not adopted, as Ng’ona and Chabinga contested its validity and maintained that the conference was legitimate.
The court acknowledged gaps in the Patriotic Front constitution, particularly regarding how the party should operate in the absence of its Central Committee, but held that these shortcomings did not invalidate the conference.
“As much as the Party Constitution is the supreme law… it seems not to have provided adequately as to what should happen in some of the eventualities,” Judge Zulu observed.
The court ultimately dismissed the action, describing the evidence presented by the petitioners as insufficient. The decision settled the legal dispute surrounding the conference and cemented Sampa’s leadership from a judicial standpoint.
THE PEOPLE v KELVIN SAMPA
A Lusaka court sentenced former Kasama Member of Parliament Kelvin Sampa to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour in a case involving a failed gold transaction and counterfeit currency.
Sampa, 52, was convicted of theft, possession of forged banknotes, and possession of materials used in forgery. However, he was acquitted on a separate charge involving US$70,000 due to insufficient evidence.
The case centred on a gold deal in which two foreign investors travelled to Zambia seeking to purchase gold through Sampa, who acted as their local contact.
Court findings showed that one of the japanse investors, Satoshi Sakamoto, entrusted Sampa with US$80,000, which was kept in a safe at his residence pending completion of the transaction.
However, when the safe was later opened, the money was missing and had been replaced with forged US$100 notes.
In her judgment, Acting Chief Resident Magistrate Ireen Wishimanga held that Sampa’s role went beyond that of a facilitator and amounted to that of an agent entrusted with custody of the funds.
“Once he accepted to keep the money for purposes of purchasing gold, he assumed responsibility over it,” she said.
The court rejected Sampa’s defence that third parties could have interfered with the safe, citing inconsistencies in his account and his control over both the keys and the contents.
The magistrate further noted that the presence of 110 counterfeit notes and more than 7,600 cut paper pieces resembling US$100 bills demonstrated knowledge and intent.
“The accused’s conduct before and after the discovery of the forged notes demonstrates awareness of their nature,” she said.
In mitigation, Sampa’s defence urged the court to consider his status as a first offender, former lawmaker, and businessman, arguing that the matter arose from a commercial arrangement rather than criminal intent.
However, the court held that the offences were serious and warranted a custodial sentence. He was subsequently sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
THE PEOPLE v GIFT MIYANDA & FIVE OTHERS
Six men appeared before the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court accused of possessing 94 pieces of elephant ivory weighing 471.8 kilograms and valued at K2.64 million.
The accused,Gift Miyanda, Mugundumu Miyanda, Mark Mukanya, Babou Awazi Selemani, Malikiso Inambao and Webster Muzyamba—denied the charge before Resident Magistrate Peter Mungala.
They were charged with illegal possession of a prescribed trophy contrary to Section 130(2)(a) of the Zambia Wildlife Act.
It was alleged that on March 9, 2026, officers from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife acted on intelligence and conducted a search at a property in Chandamali compound in Lilayi.
During the operation, officers reportedly discovered seven wrapped boxes and two black polythene bags containing the ivory.
Two suspects were apprehended at the scene, while subsequent investigations led to the arrest of four others, including a Congolese national.
Through their counsel Sophia Kapapa, the accused applied for bail pending trial.
The matter was adjourned to April 9, 2026, for a ruling on the bail application.
PETER SINKAMBA v ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Constitutional Court dismissed a petition challenging the Electoral Commission of Zambia’s delimitation exercise, ruling that the process did not violate the Constitution.
The petition was brought by People’s Pact chairperson Peter Sinkamba, who sought to halt the implementation of the proposed 211 constituencies and stop certification of the voters’ register.
In a judgment delivered by a seven-member bench presided over by Deputy President Arnold Shilimi, the court found that the petition lacked merit.
“There is no constitutional or statutory provision explicitly prescribing the sequence in which voter registration and delimitation must be undertaken,” the court held.
The judges explained that Article 46 of the Constitution, which governs voter registration, operates independently from Article 58, which deals with delimitation.
They ruled that the two processes were distinct and could be conducted in any order.
The court rejected arguments that delimitation after voter registration could lead to voter disenfranchisement, stating that no constitutional breach had been demonstrated.
“We find that the petition is essentially seeking to restrain the commission from performing its constitutional mandate,” the court said.
It further held that grievances relating to delimitation should be addressed through mechanisms provided under Article 58.
Following the ruling, Sinkamba maintained that the process could still affect voters’ ability to choose preferred leaders but stated that he would respect the judgment.
TASILA LUNGU v ATTORNEY GENERAL
Tasila Lungu cleared the first legal hurdle in her challenge against the loss of the Chawama parliamentary seat after the Lusaka High Court granted her leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
High Court Judge Sharon Newa ruled that the application raised serious issues deserving judicial scrutiny.
However, the court declined to stay the Speaker’s decision declaring the seat vacant, noting that the matter had already been overtaken by events following the conduct of a by-election.
Justice Newa acknowledged the doctrine of exclusive cognisance, which grants the National Assembly authority over its internal affairs, but emphasised that such authority is subject to constitutional limits.
“Where there is an alleged breach of the Constitution, the courts have jurisdiction to scrutinise the actions of the Speaker or the National Assembly,” she stated.
The application arose from Speaker Nelly Mutti’s November 2025 decision to declare the seat vacant under Article 72(8) of the Constitution, citing absenteeism.
The court indicated that determination of the matter would require examining whether the decision was lawful and reasonable.
Justice Newa further stated that any constitutional questions arising would be referred to the Constitutional Court.
LAZ v ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Law Association of Zambia launched a fresh petition seeking the removal of Auditor General Dr Roy Mwambwa, arguing that his continued stay in office was unconstitutional.
In the petition before the Constitutional Court, LAZ sought an order compelling Dr Mwambwa to vacate office and refund salaries and benefits earned during his tenure.
The association had previously filed a similar petition in March 2025 but withdrew it after entering into a consent arrangement with Dr Mwambwa and Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha.
LAZ contended that the appointment by President Hakainde Hichilema did not follow constitutional procedure, as it lacked recommendation from the State Audit Commission and was not ratified by the National Assembly.
It further argued that Dr Mwambwa had exceeded the retirement age at the time of his appointment in 2023, rendering him ineligible.
“The continued occupation of office by the second respondent is illegal and in direct contravention of the Constitution,” LAZ stated.
The petition also highlighted the failure to operationalise key laws governing the Auditor General’s office, including the establishment of the State Audit Commission.
LAZ argued that this legal vacuum undermined accountability and risked eroding public trust in governance systems.
The association urged the Constitutional Court to declare the appointment null and void.
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