In a significant legal development impacting Zambian politics, High Court Judge Kelvin Hancubwili Limbani, in a ruling dated 27th January 2026, upheld an injunction he had initially granted ex-parte in November 2025. This order specifically restrains the Patriotic Front (PF) faction led by Given Lubinda and Miles Sampa from undertaking several critical party activities. The plaintiff in this case is Morgan Ng’ona, associated with the Robert Chabinga-led faction of the Patriotic Front.

The comprehensive injunction explicitly bars the Lubinda/Sampa-led faction from holding its General Conference, convening any meetings in the name of the Patriotic Front, occupying the PF Secretariat, or utilizing any party materials. Most critically, the order prevents this faction from purporting to act on behalf of the PF or holding an elective convention until the substantive matter has been heard and finally determined in a full trial. This ruling immediately invalidates any prior public statements made by PF officials regarding preparations for a February 2026 General Conference, as such an event cannot legally proceed and any attempt to do so would constitute contempt of court.

Judge Limbani's reasoning for upholding the injunction was clear and decisive. He determined that the plaintiff, Morgan Ng’ona, had demonstrated “a clear right to the relief sought” and established that “there is a serious question to be tried.” Consequently, the court found that “the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction,” emphasizing the necessity of protecting the plaintiff from “irreparable injury” that could arise if the restrained faction continued to operate in the name of the Patriotic Front while the leadership dispute remains unresolved. The costs of the injunction were set to be in the cause.

The political ramifications of this judgment are severe, especially given the upcoming general elections scheduled for August 13, with Parliament expected to dissolve in May. Political parties are already entering the crucial phase of candidate selection and mobilization, processes that rely heavily on legally recognized party structures for adoption papers, endorsements, and authorizations. The court order now poses a fundamental and destabilizing question for sitting PF Members of Parliament and aspiring candidates: who possesses the legitimate authority to adopt candidates on behalf of the Patriotic Front?

This ruling places the Lubinda-led faction in an extremely constrained position, as it is legally incapacitated from acting, regardless of its perceived grassroots strength or historical claims to legitimacy. Conversely, the injunction safeguards the procedural standing of Morgan Ng’ona and the Robert Chabinga-led faction, whose rights the court has chosen to protect pending the trial. It is crucial to note that this judgment does not definitively declare who leads the PF; courts typically do not settle internal party politics at an interlocutory stage. Instead, it defines who must cease their activities and whose position cannot be interfered with while the dispute is being resolved.

For sitting PF MPs, the situation is precarious. Aligning with a faction currently restrained by a court order carries the risk of invalidating future political actions, including crucial adoption and nomination processes. While aligning with the faction perceived to hold interim legal standing might be politically uncomfortable, it offers a degree of procedural certainty in an electoral environment characterized by unforgiving timelines. The judgment also highlights a profound contradiction within the PF's current strategy, where public pronouncements of unity and readiness for government clash with the party's legal immobilization due to unresolved leadership litigation. The electoral reality in Zambia, with 226 elective parliamentary seats, sharply rising campaign costs, and strict candidate filing deadlines, underscores that parties failing to swiftly resolve internal legitimacy disputes often face elimination not from voters, but from procedural hurdles. This judgment, therefore, does not determine who will lead the Patriotic Front into the 2026 elections, but rather, who is legally prohibited from acting now, leaving the party legally constrained, internally divided, and strategically exposed, with clarity only expected from the courts.