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.
January Review
Zambia’s courts opened 2026 with contrasting outcomes, reflecting the uneven fortunes of accused persons as some walked free while others were convicted. These early decisions set the tone for the administration of justice in the new year. This review examines key January cases.
Morgan Ng’ona v Brenda Nyirenda
The Patriotic Front’s protracted internal power struggle deepened after the Kabwe High Court blocked the Given Lubinda-led faction from holding its anticipated elective convention, further entrenching legal uncertainty within the former ruling party and raising fresh questions about its electoral future.
In a ruling delivered on January 27, 2026, High Court Judge Kelvin Limbani granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the Robert Chabinga-led faction, freezing the February 13 convention and restraining the Lubinda group from acting in the name of the party.
Read more: Justice O’ Metre: Recap of cases involving politically-exposed persons, others; November, 2025
The court found that the matter did not require a full trial before interim protection could be granted. Judge Limbani held that the applicants had demonstrated a “clear right deserving of protection” and that the dispute raised serious issues requiring judicial determination.
He warned that parallel operations by rival factions posed a real risk of irreparable harm, including unlawful occupation of party premises, unauthorised use of party symbols and the convening of a contested elective conference whose legitimacy would likely be challenged.
“The balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction,” the judge ruled, restraining the Lubinda faction and its agents from convening meetings, occupying party offices or presenting themselves as the lawful leadership pending final determination.
Addressing arguments that similar matters were already before the Lusaka High Court, including a judicial review by Miles Sampa challenging the Registrar of Societies’ actions, Judge Limbani rejected claims of abuse of process. He held that the Lusaka matters involved different parties, causes of action and reliefs.
“I find that the plaintiff did not fail in its duty to make a full, fair and accurate disclosure of all material facts,” the judge said, noting that any perceived overlap could be raised through appropriate applications.
The action was brought by PF faction secretary general Morgan Ng’ona against Brenda Nyirenda in her capacity as acting secretary general of the Lubinda-led faction.
The People v Harry Findlay
Lusaka businessman Harry Findlay avoided imprisonment after paying a K240,000 fine following his conviction on two immigration-related offences: holding more than one Zambian passport and possessing a forged immigration endorsement.
Chief Resident Magistrate Sylvia Munyinya found that the State had proved both charges beyond reasonable doubt. She imposed fines of K180,000 and K60,000 respectively, with default sentences of six and four months’ imprisonment, to run cumulatively.
The court established that Findlay was issued a second Zambian passport in November 2019 despite already holding a valid one issued in 2017. Immigration records revealed no lawful justification for the additional passport.
Findlay’s explanation that his earlier passport was full was rejected, with the court noting that the visas in that document had expired by the time the second passport was issued.
“The accused’s argument does not hold water,” Magistrate Munyinya said, adding that evidence showed Findlay knowingly possessed and used more than one passport.
On the forged endorsement count, the court found that the immigration stamp was fake and that Findlay was aware of its falsity. All elements of the offence under the Immigration and Deportation Act were satisfied.
In mitigation, his wife and counsel, Dessislava Findlay, urged the court to impose a non-custodial sentence, citing his status as a first offender, employer, taxpayer and family man with health challenges.
Morgan Ng’ona v Attorney General, Miles Sampa
The Constitutional Court ruled that Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti acted lawfully in declining to declare the Matero parliamentary seat vacant, holding that only the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of an MP’s expulsion from a political party.
In its majority judgment, the Court emphasised the distinction between political assertions and justiciable disputes, noting that Section 96 of the Electoral Process Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court to determine questions relating to the validity of parliamentary seats.
The Court observed that Matero MP Miles Sampa had already challenged his alleged expulsion from the PF before the High Court. Whether that challenge met procedural requirements, the judges held, was a matter solely for that court.
“This Court cannot pre-empt that process,” the majority stated, adding that until a final determination is made, the legal status of the alleged expulsion remains unsettled.
The Court clarified that a parliamentary seat becomes vacant only upon expiry of the review period or following a final court determination. In the absence of such a ruling, no vacancy could arise under Articles 52(e) and 72.
The petition, which sought to compel the Speaker to declare the seat vacant, was dismissed in its entirety.
Munir Zulu v Attorney General
Former Lumezi MP Munir Zulu challenged his continued incarceration beyond his expected release date of December 7, 2025, arguing that the forfeiture of 60 days’ remission exceeded statutory limits.
Zulu contended that Section 75 of the Correctional Service Act caps forfeiture at 30 days and that the additional period rendered his continued detention unlawful.
He accused correctional authorities of acting illegally, irrationally and in bad faith, and sought an order setting aside the forfeiture, compelling his release and awarding compensation for unlawful detention.
The People v Three Zambians, Three Ugandans
Six individuals were convicted for orchestrating a K14.3 million cyber-heist targeting Atlas Mara Bank, highlighting the growing judicial focus on cybercrime and financial system vulnerabilities.
The court found that the accused acted in concert, using insider access and sophisticated digital tools to bypass security systems and divert funds into controlled accounts.
The convicts are Patrick Kafula, Makhosana Ndolo, Austin Daka, and Ugandan nationals Vincent Ssempijja, Rashid Kyagulanyi, and Sylvester Apuli.
Prosecutors presented evidence linking them to three hacking incidents that resulted in losses of K6.2 million and K8.1 million, with a third attempted breach failing.
Magistrate Ngobola dismissed attempts to deflect blame, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing has been deferred to the High Court.
The People v Miles Sampa
Matero MP Miles Sampa was released on K1 million bail after pleading not guilty to a cyber-related offence stemming from social media posts alleging electoral misconduct.
This is over allegations that he falsely claimed the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) had established a fake polling station in Chawama.
He pleaded not guilty to one count of unauthorised use of a computer or computer system, contrary to Section 20 of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025.
Sampa, 55, was arrested on January 20, 2026. The State alleges that on January 15, 2026, he used a Facebook page bearing his name to post claims that ECZ had opened an illegal tent polling station along Lilayi Road in Chawama and that a known Member of Parliament was ferrying voters from Chilanga.
Violet Zulu v The People
In a significant ruling on procedural justice, the High Court quashed the conviction of Violet Zulu , a maid of Ngombe compound after finding that her plea was improperly taken.
The court held that essential elements of the offence were not explained or admitted, rendering the plea equivocal. Given the time already served, a retrial was declined, bringing the matter to a close.
Zulu, a mother of two, reportedly wept as the ruling was delivered.
Zulu had been serving the sentence under Section 151 of the Penal Code since December 2023. However, the High Court found that essential elements of the offence were neither explained to her nor admitted by her on record.
Judge Newa observed that although Zulu acknowledged taking herbs, the trial court failed to establish whether she did so with the intention of procuring an abortion—an essential ingredient required to sustain a conviction.
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