State House has rejected claims that President Hakainde Hichilema ordered the closure of Zambia’s courts on Monday, 24 August 2026, to prevent opposition parties from filing election petitions. The allegations have raised questions about judicial independence, the separation of powers and the constitutional processes available to parties challenging election results. However, a statement issued by State House Chief Communications Specialist Clayson Hamasaka described the claims as inconsistent with Zambia’s constitutional order and the available facts. The statement maintains that the President has no constitutional authority to determine when, how or from whom the courts receive filings. It further argues that the security measures implemented at selected government premises on Monday were part of a broader preventive operation and were not directed at the Judiciary or any particular political party.
Hamasaka said President Hichilema remains committed to good governance, the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers. Under Zambia’s constitutional framework, the Judiciary operates as an independent arm of the State and is not subject to direction from the President on matters concerning the administration of justice. State House therefore says it would be constitutionally incorrect to suggest that President Hichilema could order the courts to close for the purpose of preventing an opposition party from exercising its legal rights. The statement stresses that the President neither controls the courts nor has the authority to determine who may submit legal filings. This position places the controversy within the broader constitutional debate about the independence of state institutions and the protection of judicial remedies after elections.
According to State House, the measures implemented on Monday were not limited to the Judiciary. Inspector General of Police Lemmy Kajoba reportedly confirmed that security risk assessments were being conducted at selected key government premises in different parts of the country. The institutions affected included facilities under the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security, the National Prosecution Authority and the Attorney General’s Chambers. State House described the operations as intelligence-led and preventive measures intended to safeguard government institutions, public officers and members of the public accessing those premises. The statement argues that because the security measures applied across several government departments and institutions, they cannot reasonably be characterised as an operation designed specifically to prevent one litigant from accessing the courts.
The timing of the security operations has nevertheless become a major part of the political debate because it coincided with the period in which election petitions could be filed. Electoral disputes are particularly sensitive because they involve constitutional deadlines and can determine whether election results are subjected to judicial scrutiny. Opposition parties and other interested parties have a legitimate interest in knowing that they can access the courts without interference when they believe an election has been conducted unlawfully. State House, however, argues that the existence of security measures at government premises does not automatically amount to a denial of access to judicial remedies. The statement maintains that the legal avenues available under Zambian law remain intact and that anyone with a legitimate electoral grievance is entitled to pursue the remedies provided by the Constitution and other applicable laws.
State House also pointed to previous instances in which court operations in Zambia were suspended or disrupted for reasons unrelated to individual cases before the Judiciary. The statement specifically referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, when court sittings were curtailed and court calendars were disrupted nationwide because of public health concerns. It argues that such measures demonstrate that interruptions to normal court operations are not necessarily evidence of political interference. In the statement’s view, administrative responses to circumstances affecting public safety can occur without undermining the constitutional independence of the Judiciary. State House therefore considers the Monday measures consistent with a precedent in which court operations have been affected by circumstances unrelated to the merits of cases awaiting consideration.
Another important issue raised by the statement concerns the timeline for filing a presidential election petition. State House said the Electoral Commission of Zambia declared the presidential election result on Tuesday, 18 August 2026, and that the constitutional period for challenging the result opened on the same date. According to the statement, courts sat, received filings and conducted business during the working days that followed the declaration. State House says no petition challenging the presidential result was lodged during that period. It argues that while the law establishes an outer limit for filing a petition, it does not require a prospective petitioner to wait until the final hours of the available period before approaching the court.
The statement has challenged those alleging that a prepared petition was prevented from being filed to provide evidence supporting their claims. Hamasaka said anyone making such a serious allegation should produce the petition and demonstrate when and how an attempt was made to lodge it. This demand for evidence reflects the government’s position that accusations involving constitutional institutions should not be based solely on political assertions or speculation. A claim that an individual or institution was deliberately prevented from exercising a constitutional right can have significant implications for public confidence in the electoral and judicial systems. State House is therefore calling for concrete evidence to establish whether any genuine attempt to file a petition was made and whether that attempt was actually obstructed.
The controversy also highlights the distinction between physical access to government premises and access to judicial remedies. Security restrictions at particular buildings can affect how people move through government facilities, but State House argues that such restrictions should not automatically be interpreted as a denial of the right to seek legal redress. The statement maintains that the remedies available under Zambian law have not been removed or altered by the security measures. This distinction could become particularly important if individuals or political parties believe their ability to file legal documents was affected by circumstances surrounding the security operations. Ultimately, any dispute over whether a constitutional right was obstructed would need to be assessed on the basis of the specific facts and the applicable law.
Hamasaka also criticised what he described as selective respect for the Judiciary among some of the President’s political opponents. The statement notes that some individuals who are now seeking protection through the courts have previously left Zambia or sought refuge in foreign jurisdictions after being summoned to appear before the courts. State House used this point to argue that respect for judicial institutions should not depend on whether court decisions or processes favour a particular political position. The statement suggests that those who rely on the Judiciary when seeking remedies should also respect its authority when they are required to appear before it. This part of the response adds a political dimension to the debate by questioning the consistency of some critics’ commitment to the rule of law.
The wider issue remains important for Zambia because confidence in electoral institutions and judicial independence can influence the credibility of the democratic process. Elections do not end with the announcement of results, as the legal system must also provide mechanisms through which genuine disputes can be examined. Political parties and candidates who believe that electoral laws have been violated should be able to use those mechanisms within the time limits established by law. At the same time, allegations of institutional interference require credible evidence because unsubstantiated claims can damage public trust in state institutions. Maintaining confidence therefore requires both the protection of legitimate legal rights and responsible public discussion based on verifiable facts.
State House has ultimately called on Zambians to move forward peacefully and constitutionally following the election. Hamasaka said those with legitimate grievances remain entitled to pursue every remedy provided by law and insisted that the government would not stand in their way. At the same time, the statement rejects attempts to attribute the actions of independent institutions to President Hichilema without evidence. The government’s position is that Zambia’s constitutional institutions must be allowed to operate independently while security agencies take necessary measures to protect public institutions and the people who use them. The dispute over the alleged court closure therefore remains part of a broader conversation about political accountability, judicial independence and the constitutional management of electoral disputes.
The State House response seeks to draw a clear distinction between legitimate security operations and interference with the Judiciary. It maintains that the Monday, 24 August 2026 measures affected multiple government institutions and were undertaken as preventive security assessments rather than as an attempt to stop opposition election petitions. It also points to the period between the presidential result announcement on 18 August and the subsequent working days as evidence that there was an opportunity for petitions to be lodged before the security measures in question. Whether further evidence emerges about attempts to file petitions will be important in assessing competing claims. For now, State House insists that President Hichilema respects the constitutional independence of Zambia’s institutions and that the country should resolve political and electoral disputes through lawful, peaceful and constitutional means.