The Lusaka High Court has delivered a pivotal judgment concerning the leadership crisis within Zambia's Patriotic Front (PF) party, a decision that significantly impacts the standing of its acting president and the validity of key party actions. The ruling, presided over by Judge Conceptor Zulu, dismissed a petition brought by Mporokoso Member of Parliament Brian Mundubile and other PF members, who sought to nullify the extraordinary general conference held in October 2023 where Miles Sampa was elected party president.

The petitioners had requested the court to declare the 2023 convention illegal and all subsequent decisions made by Mr. Sampa null and void. Their claims included arguments that Mr. Sampa was unlawfully elected, had been expelled from the PF, and that his appointment of Morgan Ng’ona as secretary general was illegitimate, asserting Raphael Nakacinda as the rightful office bearer. Furthermore, they challenged changes made to PF office bearers at the Registrar of Societies by the Sampa-led faction and sought a restraining order to prevent Mr. Sampa and Mr. Ng’ona from issuing statements on behalf of the party.

Judge Conceptor Zulu dismissed the petition on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. A central point of contention was the plaintiffs' assertion that the extraordinary general conference was not chaired by the Chairperson of the National Council, which they argued contravened Regulation 72 of the party regulations. While the defendants admitted to this, they countered by stating that the Chairperson had resigned prior to the October 24, 2023, conference. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to bring evidence to rebut this assertion, concluding that they could not prove a deliberate contravention of party regulations by the defendants.

A critical aspect of the court's finding was its observation that the PF constitution did not adequately provide guidance for situations involving a vacuum, such as the absence of a Central Committee. Judge Zulu reasoned that actions taken under such circumstances, if deemed necessary and supported by the party’s supreme organ, the General Conference, could not be said to have contravened party rules. This interpretation was instrumental in the court's decision to dismiss the case due to the plaintiffs' failure to substantiate their claims on a balance of probabilities.

In response to the judgment, Robert Chabinga, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, expressed his welcome, asserting that the court's decision legitimizes his position as the acting PF president. Mr. Chabinga declared that the convention was legal and, by extension, all decisions made thereafter are equally lawful. These decisions, he stated on his Facebook page, include the expulsions of figures such as Given Lubinda and Miles Sampa himself. Chabinga is constructing a 'chain of legitimacy,' arguing that the court's validation of the conference, which created a specific party structure, consequently validates all leadership decisions that followed, including his own elevation.

This ruling introduces a new dynamic to the PF’s ongoing leadership struggles, indirectly affecting the "Makebi Zulu convention." While the judgment did not directly invalidate this parallel process, it significantly strengthens the legal argument that any convention held outside the judicially recognized operative framework of the party lacks a firm legal foundation. The court’s criticism of the plaintiffs for failing to bring sufficient evidence for key questions about party processes also implies that future litigants advancing alternative claims will bear the burden of demonstrating stringent procedural legitimacy.

The PF's leadership crisis is now characterized by overlapping claims built on different interpretations of the institutional vacuum. Miles Sampa retains the recognition of his entry into office, while Robert Chabinga now anchors his authority in a court-validated process that followed Sampa’s election. Meanwhile, the Makebi Zulu faction represents a separate political process that now faces indirect legal pressure. These competing claims cannot stand indefinitely. While the courts have begun to delineate the boundaries of legitimacy, a final settlement remains elusive. Given that leave to appeal has already been granted, the matter is poised to escalate further, ensuring that the question of who constitutes the lawful leadership of the PF will remain open in the interim. However, Mr. Chabinga's claim, now rooted in a court-validated process, marks a significant shift in the balance of argument for the next phase of both legal and political contestation.