Judicial lawlessness: Why Chief Justice Mumba Malila administered an illegal oath of office
By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma
THE ceremonial swearing-in of Hakainde Hichilema and Vice President Mutale Nalumango stands as one of the most egregious constitutional violations in Zambia’s democratic history. Under Article 105 of the Zambian Constitution, the swearing-in of a president-elect is strictly contingent upon the absence of a pending presidential election petition. By proceeding to administer the oath of office, Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila SC executed an act that was legally baseless, unconstitutional and utterly null and void.
The strategy of judicial obstruction
Following the deeply compromised presidential election, main opposition presidential candidate Hon Brian Mundubile sought to exercise his constitutional right by filing a presidential election petition within the mandatory seven-day window. In a move calculated to thwart this legal challenge, Chief Justice Malila ordered the nationwide closure of court premises, physically sealing off the Supreme Court, High Court and Constitutional Court facilities across the country behind police tape and armed security personnel.
This lock-out made physical filing impossible. However, to preserve the constitutional timeline and ensure the legal challenge was formally served, prominent lawyer and civil rights advocate Linda Kasonde filed the presidential election petition directly to Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila through his private email address.
Swearing-in despite direct knowledge of the petition
Chief Justice Malila acknowledged receipt of the filed presidential petition from Linda Kasonde and confirmed in writing that he had equally communicated and forwarded the document to the Constitutional Court for processing.
Under explicit constitutional mandates, once a presidential petition is filed and brought to the knowledge of the Judiciary, the swearing-in process must immediately be halted until the Constitutional Court hears and determines the matter. The Chief Justice possessed direct, unassailable written proof that the election results were legally contested.
Yet, despite confirming that the petition was officially transmitted to the Constitutional Court, Dr. Mumba Malila ignored his sacred constitutional duty. He stepped onto the ceremonial stage and administered the oath of office to Hakainde Hichilema and Mutale Nalumango.
An illegal oath = null and void
By administering an oath of office while a valid petition was active and acknowledged within the judicial apparatus, the Chief Justice acted without a constitutional mandate:
No legal basis: The Constitution forbids the administration of the presidential oath while a petition remains unresolved.
No constitutional mandate: The Chief Justice operates under the law, not above it; ignoring a pending petition strips the oath of any legal validity.
No public trust: Weaponising court closures and proceeding with a contested swearing-in destroys the fundamental integrity of the judiciary.
No Justice, no legitimacy: A presidency inaugurated through the deliberate violation of constitutional procedures cannot claim legitimate authority. Since there was no justice and no legitimacy in the presidential inauguration, Hakainde Hichilema remains an illegitimate president.
Chief Justice Mumba Malila did not uphold the Constitution – he violated it. Zambia deserves absolute adherence to the rule of law and democratic justice, not state-sponsored judicial lawlessness.
