ZANAMACA: Lusaka City Council Demolitions Lacked Consultation

• Zambia National Marketeers Credit Association (ZANAMACA) president Mupila Kameya stated the Lusaka City Council (LCC) did not engage his association before demolishing makeshift market stalls.
• ZANAMACA's grievance centers on the lack of prior consultation for these specific demolitions.
• The association, however, supports the LCC's demolition of illegal structures located outside designated market areas.
• This highlights a procedural concern regarding stakeholder engagement in municipal actions affecting marketeers.

The reported failure of the Lusaka City Council to engage with the Zambia National Marketeers Credit Association prior to these Mupila Kameya demolitions carries significant legal and administrative implications.

The Lusaka City Council (LCC) has recently initiated a series of demolition exercises, targeting makeshift stalls situated within various markets across the city. These actions, aimed at regulating urban market spaces, have elicited a strong and critical response from the Zambia National Marketeers Credit Association (ZANAMACA), a prominent body representing the interests of marketeers nationwide. Mupila Kameya, the president of ZANAMACA, has publicly asserted that the LCC proceeded with these specific ZANAMACA Lusaka City Council demolitions without any prior consultation or engagement with his association.

Kameya's statement underscores a significant procedural concern regarding the LCC's operational methodology in managing public market infrastructure. The reported absence of dialogue with ZANAMACA before the commencement of these particular demolition activities suggests a potential oversight in the council's approach to stakeholder communication. This is particularly salient given that the livelihoods and operational stability of numerous marketeers are directly and profoundly affected by such municipal interventions. The core of the association's grievance centers on this perceived lack of due process and engagement.

The implications of such unilateral action extend beyond immediate physical removal. It touches upon the established norms of administrative governance, where bodies representing affected populations are typically afforded the opportunity to discuss, understand, and potentially influence decisions that directly impact their constituents. ZANAMACA's protest highlights a perceived breach of these expected engagement protocols by the Lusaka City Council.

It is important to clarify that ZANAMACA's stance is not an outright rejection of all municipal efforts to enforce urban planning regulations or maintain order. President Mupila Kameya has explicitly articulated a nuanced position, indicating that the association, in fact, supports and welcomes the demolition of illegal structures that are located *outside* the designated boundaries of established markets. This distinction is critical, as it demonstrates ZANAMACA's willingness to collaborate with the Lusaka City Council on broader issues of urban legality and order, provided that appropriate procedures and engagement mechanisms are respected.

This differentiated approach reveals a pragmatic understanding from the association: while they endorse the removal of genuinely unauthorized structures operating beyond formal market perimeters, their primary concern specifically targets the makeshift stalls situated *within* existing markets, which are often operated by their registered members. The fundamental issue, therefore, is not a general opposition to enforcement against illegal structures in Lusaka markets, but rather a specific objection to the process and communication surrounding the targeted Lusaka City Council market stalls that directly impact their constituency.

The association's willingness to support certain demolitions, while protesting others, frames the dispute not as one against urban development or regulation itself, but as one centered on the principles of fair administration and the recognition of stakeholder rights. This distinction is vital for understanding the precise nature of the disagreement between ZANAMACA and the LCC.

The reported failure of the Lusaka City Council to engage with the Zambia National Marketeers Credit Association prior to these Mupila Kameya demolitions carries significant legal and administrative implications. For a representative body like ZANAMACA, which advocates for a substantial segment of the informal economy, prior consultation is not merely a matter of courtesy; it is often considered a fundamental component of administrative fairness and due process, ensuring that the rights and livelihoods of affected individuals are properly considered.

The absence of such dialogue can precipitate considerable socio-economic disruption and potentially expose the municipal authority to legal challenges. Affected stakeholders, particularly those whose economic activities are directly curtailed, may contend that their rights to be heard, or to receive adequate notice and opportunity to respond, were violated. This scenario underscores the critical importance of adhering to established administrative procedures, including robust stakeholder engagement, for municipal entities like the LCC.

Effective engagement is crucial not only for mitigating potential disputes but also for fostering trust and cooperation within the communities that local governments are mandated to serve. When implementing actions as impactful as Zambia market demolitions, ensuring transparency and participatory processes can significantly reduce the likelihood of litigation and enhance the legitimacy of municipal decisions.

Lawyers should advise clients on potential legal challenges against the Lusaka City Council for lack of due process in market demolitions, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement and proper notice. This highlights the importance of adhering to administrative procedures to avoid litigation.

Source: Original reporting on market demolitions.