2. The Petition seeks the indulgence of the Court to overturn the decision which it rendered on 10th December 2024 in the Michelo Chizombe matter, in which the Court had ruled that Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu is not eligible to contest future presidential elections. Today’s petition is premised on three key factors.

3. Firstly, our Petition argues that the Michelo Chizombe decision should be vacated because it contravenes the Constitution. Specifically article 52(4) which compels Courts not to determine the eligibility of a candidate to contest a future election, unless the candidate has filed in his nomination with the Electoral Commission. This position has previously been reiterated by the Court itself in the Christopher Shakafuswa case in which the Petitioner had approached the Court for a determination on whether he was eligible to stand as Lusaka Mayor while he was still a Councillor in Mandevu Constitutency in 2018. The Constitutional Court refused to make a determination in that matter on the basis that Mr. Christopher Shakafuswa had not yet filed in his nomination, therefore the Court had no power to make such a determination. It is common knowledge that Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu has not yet filed in his nomination to stand as a presidential candidate in the 2026 general elections, but the Constitutional Court nonetheless proceeded to determine his eligibility in the Michelo Chizombe matter on 10th December 2024, which was both a contravention of the Constitution and a departure of the Court’s own precedent with no explanation given. In short, the Constitutional Court contravened the Constitution.

4. Secondly, our Petition filed today argues that the Michelo Chizombe decision of 10th December 2024 should be vacated because it is per incuriam in two ways. Firstly, it is per incuriam because the Court failed to take into account the provisions of article 267(3)(b) and 267(3)(c) as these critical provisions where not cited anywhere in the Judgement of the Court. It is our considered view that, had the Court taken into account the provisions of article 267(3), then it would not have arrived at the decision that Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu was not eligible to contest future presidential elections. In other words, the decision of the Court in the Michelo Chizombe matter is per incuriam.

5. Lastly, in it’s judgement in the Michelo Chizombe matter, the Constitutional Court stated that it had decided to vacate it’s position previously held in two previous matters on the ECL eligibility, in Legal Resources Foundation and Dr. Dan Pule because the Court said it did not consider section 2 and 7 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2016. However, a perusal of the said judgements shows that the Court did in fact consider the said section 2 and 7, on pages J35 and J45 of the Dr. Daniel Pule judgement, and on pages J70-J71 in the Legal Resources Foundation judgement. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had no valid basis to vacate it’s decisions in these established precedents as there was no per incuriam whatsoever.