The Constitutional Court, in a historic ruling, declared him ineligible to contest future elections, effectively ending any prospects of his political comeback.
The court based its decision on the constitutional two-term limit, concluding that Lungu had already served two terms as president.
The ruling, delivered unanimously, marked a departure from the court’s earlier judgments that had allowed Lungu to contest the 2021 elections.
The court now ruled that his first term, which spanned from January 25, 2015, to September 13, 2016, following the death of then-President Michael Sata, constituted a full term.
This interpretation effectively classified his tenure from 2015 to 2016 as one term, and his subsequent term from 2016 to 2021 as his second, rendering him ineligible under Article 106(3) of the Constitution.
The case was initiated by Lusaka resident Michelo Chizombe in October 2023, who argued that Lungu’s candidacy in the 2021 elections violated the Constitution.
Chizombe’s petition highlighted alleged constitutional oversights and new legal interpretations, specifically focusing on transitional provisions between the repealed 1991 Constitution and the 2016 amendments.
He argued that allowing Lungu to run for office again contradicted Zambia’s constitutional principles.
In response, Lungu’s legal team, led by Makebi Zulu Advocates and State Counsel Bonaventure Mutale, argued that the principle of legal finality should prevail.
They contended that the court had already settled the matter of his eligibility in decisions made in 2018 and 2021, which concluded that his first term did not count as a full term due to its abbreviated nature.
Lungu maintained that his tenure from 2015 to 2016 was a transitional term and, therefore, did not violate constitutional limits.
However, the Constitutional Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the transitional provisions of the Constitution do not allow for retrospective reinterpretation of term limits.
The bench, comprising Judges Margaret Munalula, Arnold Shilimi, Martin Musaluke, Judy Mulongoti, Maria Kawimbe, Mudford Mwandenga, and Kenneth Mulife, concluded that the law was clear: a president could only serve two terms, regardless of their duration.
The court said that the Constitution’s transitional clauses, particularly Sections 2 and 7 of the 2016 amendments, explicitly clarified the treatment of inherited terms.
The judges noted that while the Constitution allows for legal finality, exceptions can be made in the interest of justice, especially in cases where previous decisions were made per incuriam—a legal term meaning “through lack of care.”
The court also addressed the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of settled cases.
It held that this doctrine is not absolute and can be set aside under exceptional circumstances, particularly when prior rulings are found to be flawed.
The bench further highlighted the framers’ intent to uphold the constitutional two-term limit, emphasising that no interpretation of the law could create a “third term” exception.
