Power, integrity, and the missing law: The case for presidential asset disclosure
By
Prof. Cephas Lumina
FEW democratic principles are more important than the requirement that public officials, especially the Head of State and Government, must not profit privately from public office. Yet nearly a decade after Zambia amended its Constitution to include an explicit requirement for public officials to declare their assets and liabilities, no law has been passed to make this happen. This failure is not just a legal and moral abdication by successive governments; it is a serious weakness in Zambia’s fight against corruption.
Article 263 of the Constitution of Zambia states in perspicuous terms: “A person holding a public office shall, before assuming office or leaving office, make a declaration of their assets and liabilities, as prescribed.”
The Constitution is clear: anyone holding public office, including the President, must declare their assets and liabilities before the start or end of their term. This is not a matter of political preference. It is a constitutional obligation.
The President holds a “public office” — By constitutional definition
Some have tried to cast doubt on whether the President is a person holding a “public office.” However, Article 266 of the Constitution erases any ambiguity. It defines a “public office” as: “…an office whose emoluments and expenses are a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other prescribed public fund and includes a State office…” It then defines “State office” to include: “…the office of President, Vice-President, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Member of Parliament, Minister and Provincial Minister.”
There is no room for confusion: the President holds a public office and is therefore bound by Article 263. The obligation to declare assets before assuming or leaving office is not optional, nor is it extinguished just because a candidate once filed a declaration with the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) during elections.
Dispelling a flawed argument: The nomination declaration and the Article 263 declaration
A common but flawed argument suggests that the President has already declared his assets and liabilities when filing nomination papers with the ECZ and therefore has no further obligation.
This argument is both legally and logically incorrect.
The declaration submitted to the ECZ is required under the Electoral Process Act, 2016 and relates solely to the process of vetting candidates for eligibility to contest elections. It is a procedural condition to run for office, not a constitutional obligation associated with holding that office.
In contrast, Article 263 of the Constitution imposes a separate and distinct obligation on anyone who holds a public office — including a President — to declare their assets and liabilities after election but before assumption of office, or vacating office. The two obligations arise under different legal provisions, serve different purposes, and occur at distinct stages of the political process.
One is about eligibility to run. The other is about integrity in office. Conflating the two is legally flawed and constitutionally irresponsible.
The Sean Tembo case: What it says — and does not say
In debates around asset declarations, reference is often made to the case of Sean Tembo (Suing in his capacity as party President of the Patriots for Economic Progress) v Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Attorney-General (2022), in which the Constitutional Court ruled that the ECZ did not violate Article 52(3) of the Constitution (mandating the publication of election candidates’ asset declarations) by not publishing presidential candidates’ asset declarations since there was no law prescribing such publication.
However, this case is often misunderstood. It addressed a narrow procedural question: whether the ECZ was legally required to publish presidential candidates’ asset declarations as part of the election process. The Court decided that, since there was no law requiring publication, the ECZ was not obligated to do so.
Importantly, the Court did not address or invalidate the broader and substantive constitutional obligation imposed by Article 263 on all public office holders, including the President, to declare their assets and liabilities before assuming or leaving office. That duty exists independently of the ECZ’s procedures and concerns all public office holders, not just election candidates.
To sum up, the Sean Tembo case dealt with whether presidential candidates’ asset declarations should be published, not whether public officials must make these declarations in the first place.
No law after nine years: A constitutional failure
Article 263 ends with the phrase “as prescribed,” indicating that Parliament is required to enact a law to operationalise this provision. Parliament is yet to enact that law. But the absence of legislation cannot be used as a perpetual shield against accountability.
Where the Constitution does not specify a timeline for enacting legislation, it is broadly accepted under constitutional law that Parliament must act within a “reasonable time.”
It has now been nine years since the 2016 constitutional amendments. In that time, two presidents have been elected and served, but no asset disclosure law has been passed. In any legal or political context, nine years is much longer than what would be considered “reasonable.”
In the Sean Tembo case, the government contended that there had been “a lack of political will by the previous administration” to give effect to Article 52(3) of the Constitution and that, because the current administration recognized that “transparency and accountability are very important for people to make informed decisions,” it would begin the process to bring the Electoral Process Act into conformity with the Constitution. However, there is no evidence indicating that the government has embarked on this process or prepared any legislative proposal to give effect to Article 263 of the Constitution.
The continued failure to pass legislation implementing Articles 52(3) and 263 is not an oversight. It is a deliberate failure to uphold the Constitution and a sign of poor governance. It undermines not only Article 263, but also Article 1, which asserts the supremacy of the Constitution, and Article 8, which lays the nation’s ethical foundation by articulating core values like morality, good governance, transparency, and integrity.
Even worse, it has enabled a culture of silence and secrecy about wealth acquired in office, which undermines public trust and damages the moral authority of our leaders.
Upholding the Constitution is not optional – especially for the President
The Constitution is more than a technical document. It is a pact between the governed and those who govern. Article 91(3)(a), requires the President to: “respect, uphold and safeguard (the) Constitution.” Further, Article 92(1) enjoins the President to perform his or her executive functions “with dignity, leadership and integrity.”
Leadership is not only about pronouncements and programmes. It is about example. In a country where corruption remains a chronic threat to development and public trust, nothing signals seriousness more powerfully than the President publicly declaring his or her assets, liabilities, and business interests. This is precisely what Namibia’s late President Hage Geingob did. In an act of transparency and political courage, Geingob and his wife, Monica, made a voluntary public disclosure of their assets, liabilities, and business interests, even in the absence of statutory compulsion (“Namibian President voluntarily declares assets,” Corruption Watch, 28 May 2015). This act sent a clear message: public office is not for private enrichment. It also demonstrated a fundamental truth: implementing law or not, leadership by example is always possible.
Our President should do the same. Leading by example is the most important kind of leadership.
International standards require asset declarations
Zambia is a party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. Both instruments explicitly identify declaration of assets by public officials as an essential tool for promoting transparency and preventing illicit enrichment.
The UNCAC (Articles 8 and 52) and the AU Convention (Article 7) both call on States parties to require their public officials to disclose assets and potential conflicts of interest — not at the discretion of individual politicians, but as a matter of enforceable legal obligation. Article 8(5) of the UNCAC enjoins States parties to “endeavour” to establish systems that require public officials to make declarations regarding outside activities, employment, investments, assets and gifts or benefits from which a conflict of interest may result with respect to their functions as public officials. Article 7 of the AU Convention obliges States parties to require all public officials to declare their interests.
As a party to both instruments, Zambia is obliged to implement these standards — yet it continues to lag. The absence of asset declarations by Zambian presidents not only violates the spirit of these conventions; it makes Zambia a weak link in regional and international efforts against corruption.
Lessons from Kenya and Malawi: Legislative models Zambia can emulate
Zambia has options. What is missing is the political will to act.
Both Kenya and Malawi have enacted strong asset declaration laws. Malawi’s Public Officers (Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Business Interests) Act, 2013 compels specified officers — including the President — to declare assets upon taking office, every three years, and when leaving office. The declarations are publicly accessible, subject to reasonable safeguards. The Act also establishes an Office of the Director of Public Officers’ Declarations to oversee compliance.
Kenya’s Public Officer Ethics Act, passed in 2003, requires comprehensive financial disclosures and establishes an enforcement framework under the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. The Act includes punitive sanctions for false declarations and has been used to hold high-level officials accountable.
These laws are not perfect, but they offer important ways to enforce rules, ensure transparency, and hold officials accountable. Zambia urgently needs to pass similar laws before the next general election. This is the only way to ensure those seeking public office understand that they will be held to the highest ethical standards. Delaying any longer only means pretending to care about accountability while allowing opacity to continue.
Why asset declarations matter
Asset declarations serve multiple public interest goals. First, they deter corruption by exposing illicit enrichment. By comparing pre- and post-office declarations, authorities and the public can assess whether a public officer has improperly gained wealth while in office. Second, declarations expose potential conflicts — such as interests in companies seeking government contracts — that could compromise the decision-making process. Third, they enhance public trust in the integrity of public officials. In societies where corruption is rampant, public trust in institutions is eroded. Asset disclosure restores some of that trust by demonstrating transparency. Fourth, they empower oversight bodies, civil society, and the media to hold leaders accountable.
Without these disclosures, the door remains wide open to grand corruption — unchecked, unmonitored, and unpunished. Also, when public asset disclosures are missing, it creates suspicion, increases cynicism, and enables the accumulation of unexplained wealth, often at the public’s expense.
The consequences of continued delay
The continued failure to pass asset declaration laws sends a dangerous message: that accountability is optional, and that constitutional obligations can be ignored. This weakens the rule of law and emboldens corrupt actors at all levels of government.
Moreover, each new president who enters office without declaring their assets sets a precedent for opacity — one that could lead to a culture of impunity at the highest levels of the state.
Worse still, the constitutional ambiguity created by the failure to enact a supporting law makes enforcement of Article 263 virtually impossible. In turn, this weakens public trust in the Constitution and the way the country is governed.
What needs to be done now?
There are several things that need to be done – now. First, there must be immediate voluntary declarations by the President and Cabinet. The President should emulate President Geingob and declare his income, assets, liabilities, and business interests immediately. So should all Ministers and senior public officers. Leadership starts at the top. Second, before the next election, Parliament must pass a Public Officers (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Act, modelled on Kenya and Malawi’s examples. Civil society, the opposition, and the media should demand this as a non-negotiable electoral reform. Third, an oversight mechanism, such as an Integrity Commission, should be established within the framework of the asset disclosure law. Such body should have the power to receive, verify, and publish declarations, and to enforce non-compliance. Alternatively, the law must empower an existing body (such as the Auditor General) to receive, verify, and publish declarations. Fourth, declarations must be accessible to the public, with strong sanctions — including removal from office and criminal prosecution — for false or incomplete declarations.
Conclusion: Transparency is not a luxury — It is a constitutional duty
Zambia’s Constitution demands integrity. The country has international commitments that require transparency. There are examples from neighbouring democracies to follow. Most importantly, Zambians deserve to know that those they have entrusted with power are not abusing it for personal gain.
The only thing missing is the political will to act.
Presidential asset declarations are not about political theatre. They are about transparency, leadership, and respect for the Constitution. They are about reminding every Zambian that no one — not even the President — is above the law.
Declarations made during nomination are not enough. They are not a substitute for what the Constitution clearly requires. The President must declare assets before taking office and before leaving office, as required by Article 263.
Zambians have waited long enough. It is time to stop making excuses. It is time to publicly declare.
