Court asked to clarify validity of presidential tickets after running mate exits

A governance activist has petitioned the Zambian Constitutional Court to provide an authoritative interpretation of constitutional provisions governing presidential and vice-presidential nominations, particularly concerning the legal consequences when a running mate withdraws after the close of nominations but before the election. The petition highlights a critical lacuna in the Zambian Constitution, as amendments in 2016 introduced the joint presidential ticket, where the Vice-President is directly elected as a running mate, but subsequent 2025 amendments reportedly removed mechanisms for replacing candidates who withdraw before the first ballot. The Court's decision will have significant implications for the validity of presidential candidacies and the integrity of the electoral process in Zambia.

The Republic of Zambia faces a significant constitutional conundrum following the withdrawal of several vice-presidential running mates after the close of nominations for the upcoming general election. This unprecedented situation has prompted governance activist Mr. Mwanza to file an originating summons before the Constitutional Court in Lusaka, seeking an authoritative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions. The core legal question revolves around the validity of a presidential ticket when a running mate exits the race after nominations have closed, a scenario for which the current constitutional framework appears to be silent.

This petition is not merely an academic exercise; it carries profound implications for Zambia's democratic process, the stability of its electoral system, and the certainty required by political parties, candidates, and the electorate. The Constitutional Court's ruling will clarify the legal status of presidential candidates whose running mates have withdrawn, determine whether such withdrawals invalidate the entire ticket, and potentially shape future electoral practices. The absence of clear constitutional guidance on this matter, particularly after recent amendments, necessitates urgent judicial intervention to prevent potential electoral disputes and uphold the integrity of the presidential election.

The central thesis of this article is that the Constitutional Court must provide a robust interpretation that balances the democratic principles of free and fair elections, the intent behind the joint presidential ticket, and the practical realities of electoral administration. The Court's decision will either affirm the indivisibility of the presidential ticket post-nomination or establish a framework for addressing such withdrawals, thereby filling a critical legislative gap.

Zambia's electoral landscape underwent significant changes with the enactment of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016. Prior to these amendments, the Vice-President was an appointed official. The 2016 amendments introduced the concept of a joint presidential ticket, where the presidential candidate and their running mate are elected together. Article 110(1) of the Constitution stipulates that a presidential candidate shall nominate a person to stand with them as a running mate, and if elected, that person automatically becomes the Vice-President. This change fundamentally altered the role of the Vice-President, making them directly elected and irremovable by the President, and positioning them as a 'standby President' in case of a vacancy in the presidency.

The electoral process is further governed by the Electoral Process Act, No. 35 of 2016, and its subsequent amendments, including Act No. 12 of 2026. Article 100 of the Constitution outlines the qualifications and disqualifications for presidential candidates, while Article 101 details the election of the President, requiring a candidate to obtain more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast to be declared President-elect. Crucially, Article 52(4) allows for challenges to a candidate's nomination within seven days of the close of nominations, with the court mandated to hear and determine the case within twenty-one days. However, the current petition arises from a situation where withdrawals occur *after* the close of nominations, but *before* the election, a scenario not explicitly addressed by the Constitution, especially after the reported repeal of previous provisions for fresh nominations by the 2025 constitutional amendments.

The central legal vacuum in this petition stems from the apparent silence of the Zambian Constitution regarding the consequences of a running mate's withdrawal after the close of nominations but before the first round of voting. While Article 102 provides mechanisms for a running mate to assume the presidential candidacy or for fresh nominations in the event of a presidential candidate's death or resignation due to ill-health *before a second ballot*, it does not directly address the present scenario. This gap is exacerbated by the assertion that the 2025 constitutional amendments repealed and replaced provisions that previously permitted fresh nominations in such circumstances, leaving no clear constitutional mechanism for replacement.

Legal commentators, such as lawyer Dickson Jere, argue that the very nature of the joint presidential ticket, introduced in 2016, implies an indivisible candidature. Nomination papers are filed jointly, and voters cast their ballots for a presidential pair. Therefore, a presidential candidate without a running mate, after nominations have closed, should logically be considered to have an invalid candidature. To allow a presidential candidate to proceed without a running mate would, in this view, defeat the purpose of the 2016 constitutional amendment, which sought to ensure a clear line of succession and a directly elected Vice-President.

The Constitutional Court will need to interpret the spirit and intent of the 2016 amendments, particularly Article 110, in light of the current constitutional silence and the reported removal of replacement mechanisms. The Court might consider whether the 'withdrawal' of a running mate is akin to a 'disqualification' or 'resignation' that would necessitate the invalidation of the entire ticket or trigger a fresh nomination process, even if not explicitly provided for. The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has acknowledged this constitutional lacuna, further underscoring the need for judicial clarity. The Court's decision will also need to consider the practical implications for ballot papers already printed and the tight electoral timelines, as seen in previous election petitions like *Hichilema and Another v Lungu and Another (2016/CC/0031)*, which highlighted the challenges of strict timeframes in electoral disputes.

Furthermore, the Court may draw upon general principles of constitutional law, such as the supremacy of the Constitution (Article 1) and the need to uphold democratic values and principles (Article 8). A decision that allows a presidential candidate to proceed without a running mate could be seen as undermining the voters' right to elect a complete ticket and the constitutional design for executive succession. Conversely, invalidating candidacies could lead to significant logistical challenges and potential delays in the electoral process. The Court's interpretation will therefore require a careful balancing act between legal formalism and the practical exigencies of a national election.

The Constitutional Court's impending decision on the validity of presidential tickets following a running mate's withdrawal is a landmark case for Zambian electoral jurisprudence. For legal practitioners, the outcome will provide crucial clarity on the interpretation of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 and subsequent amendments, particularly concerning the indivisibility of the presidential ticket. Should the Court rule that a withdrawal invalidates the entire ticket, political parties will need to meticulously review their nomination processes and internal party rules to mitigate such risks in future elections, potentially requiring more stringent commitments from running mates or exploring legislative amendments to introduce clear replacement mechanisms.

Conversely, if the Court permits a presidential candidate to proceed without a running mate, it could open a Pandora's box of legal and political challenges, potentially undermining the constitutional intent of a jointly elected executive and the principle of a 'standby President.' Practitioners should closely monitor the Court's reasoning, especially its approach to interpreting constitutional silence and balancing competing democratic principles. This ruling will undoubtedly influence future electoral reforms and the strategic considerations of political parties, making it a pivotal moment for Zambia's constitutional democracy.