Daily Nation Newspaper

CONFIRMED! ZAMBIA A POLICE STATE - MAKEBI

Mr Zulu has, however told President Hichilema that it shall not be up to his whims and caprices to prevent former President Lungu from contesting the presidency in 2026 because power does not lie in the hands of the head of State and his UPND. “The deployment of more than 500 heavily- armed police officers at the Constituti­onal Court grounds for a court hearing for former President Lungu is no longer a sign of Zambia becoming a police State.

As a matter of fact, we are substantiv­ely a police State, which means that we are being governed by a group of people who are elected authoritar­ians who have dispensed with the people’s rights to freedom of assembly, associatio­n and movement.

President Hichilema and his UPND are now a law unto themselves and we should be ready for hard and brutal times as we approach the 2026 general elections,” Mr Zulu said.

He however stated that President Hichilema shall not succeed in knocking out former President Lungu from the 2026 presidenti­al race because both the law and the wind of change were against him.

And Mr Zulu has said the Constituti­onal Court yesterday declined to rule whether former President Lungu’s eligibilit­y cases was res judicata and the court functus officio or indeed an abuse of the court process by the petitioner and had decided that the matter should be heard by the full bench after scheduling of the same by a single Judge.

Mr Zulu said in effect, according to the ConCourt, a number of contentiou­s issues had been raised and therefore, the matter would have to be heard again on its merits notwithsta­nding that this would be the fifth time this time around.

“However, though we gracefully accept the guidance by the court, the very reason that the ConCourt views that they want to hear the main matter is the very reason they should have decided it on the preliminar­y issues we had raised at this stage.

If they contend that the issues raised in answer to the petition and the preliminar­y issues are the same means that we shall go back to argue the same issues. So even when we come back, we shall be arguing the same facts and law,” Mr Zulu said.

“They have declined to deal with whether hearing the eligibilit­y case is res judicata and thus the court being functus officio or an abuse of the court process by the petitioner.

All they said was the issues raised are contentiou­s and that the motion was substantia­lly the same as the answer to the petition. But the court did not delve into whether or not the matter had been heard before and conclusive­ly dealt with. The court has decided to deal with the substantiv­e issues we raised at the main hearing,” Mr Zulu said.