ECZ Says Candidates Who Resign After July 6 Will Remain on Ballot Papers

The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has declared that candidates who formally resign from the 2026 General Election after July 6, 2026, will still have their names printed on ballot papers but will be deemed ineligible to contest. This administrative cut-off date was established to facilitate the timely printing of ballot papers for the National Assembly, Mayoral, Council Chairperson, and Councillor elections. The decision highlights the critical interplay between electoral administration and statutory provisions governing candidate withdrawals, particularly distinguishing between independent and party-sponsored candidates and their respective legal consequences under the Electoral Process Act and the Constitution of Zambia.

The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) recently issued a significant directive concerning the 2026 General Election, announcing that candidates who tender their resignations after July 6, 2026, will nonetheless appear on the ballot papers. While their names will be listed, such candidates will be considered ineligible to contest the election. This pronouncement, made as the administrative cut-off date for candidate resignations, is crucial for the logistical preparations of the upcoming polls, particularly the commencement of ballot paper printing.

This development raises pertinent legal questions for political parties, independent candidates, and the electorate regarding the finality of nominations, the ECZ's administrative powers, and the implications for electoral integrity. The directive underscores the complexities inherent in managing a national election, balancing the need for administrative efficiency with the constitutional and statutory rights and obligations of candidates. This article will delve into the legal framework underpinning the ECZ's decision, examine relevant case law, and explore the practical and legal ramifications for the Zambian electoral landscape.

The core issue revolves around the legal distinction between a candidate's withdrawal and resignation, and how these actions, when occurring after specific deadlines, impact the electoral process, especially in light of the Constitutional Court's interpretations of the Electoral Process Act and the Constitution of Zambia.

The conduct of elections in Zambia is primarily governed by the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016 and the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016. These foundational pieces of legislation empower the Electoral Commission of Zambia, established under the Electoral Commission of Zambia Act No. 25 of 2016, to manage and oversee elections in a fair and impartial manner. The Electoral Process Act, in particular, outlines the comprehensive procedures for general elections, including voter registration, candidate nominations, and the conduct of polling.

Central to the ECZ's recent directive are the provisions concerning candidate nominations and withdrawals. Section 31(2) of the Electoral Process Act, 2016, explicitly states that a candidate or their election agent may withdraw nomination papers only at any time before the close of the nomination period. This statutory provision sets a clear legal boundary for formal withdrawals. However, the legal landscape becomes more nuanced when candidates seek to withdraw or resign after the close of nominations, particularly in the context of Article 52(6) of the Constitution, which mandates the cancellation of an election and fresh nominations if a nominated candidate dies, resigns from a political party, or is disqualified before the election date.

Over time, the Constitutional Court of Zambia has provided crucial interpretations on these provisions, distinguishing between the withdrawal of independent candidates and the resignation of political party-sponsored candidates. These judicial pronouncements form a critical backdrop to the ECZ's current administrative stance, aiming to provide clarity and manage the electoral process efficiently while upholding the rule of law.

The ECZ's announcement that candidates resigning after July 6, 2026, will remain on the ballot but be ineligible to contest is an administrative measure driven by the practicalities of ballot paper printing. The Commission stated that July 6 was the cut-off for removing names from ballot papers before printing commenced for the various elections. This decision, while pragmatic for election logistics, must be assessed against the established legal framework regarding candidate withdrawals and resignations.

Crucially, the Constitutional Court has provided significant guidance on this matter. In a ruling concerning the withdrawal of an independent candidate, the Court held that the ECZ is not obligated to cancel a parliamentary election and call for fresh nominations when an independent candidate withdraws after the close of nominations. This position was further elaborated in the 2022 *GEARS Initiative versus Attorney General* case, which arose from the Kabushi and Kwacha by-elections. The Court clarified that independent candidates cannot be deemed to have 'resigned' under Article 52(6) of the Constitution because they do not belong to a political party. Therefore, if an independent candidate announces their withdrawal after nominations close, they may still appear on the ballot and can technically receive votes, but they are legally ineligible to hold office.

Conversely, Article 52(6) of the Constitution specifically obligates the ECZ to cancel an election and call for fresh nominations if a *political party-sponsored candidate* resigns after the close of nominations but before the election date. This distinction is vital: the constitutional provision is designed to protect the interests of political parties that sponsor candidates, allowing them an opportunity to nominate another candidate. The Constitutional Court has consistently emphasized that any withdrawal of candidature must be formal and communicated in writing to the ECZ. Furthermore, the Court has affirmed that the resignation or withdrawal of candidates, once formally made, is final and cannot be rescinded, as there is no provision in the Constitution or the Electoral Process Act allowing for such a reversal.

The ECZ's directive to issue local notices in affected areas, informing voters that certain candidates on the ballot are no longer eligible, is an attempt to mitigate voter confusion and uphold transparency. However, the practical implications of a candidate appearing on the ballot but being ineligible are profound. Should such a candidate garner the most votes, the election outcome for that particular seat would be legally challenged, potentially leading to nullification and costly by-elections. This scenario underscores the tension between administrative deadlines for ballot printing and the fundamental right of voters to elect an eligible representative. The ECZ's administrative cut-off, therefore, serves as a critical point for candidates and parties to finalize their participation, with significant legal consequences for non-compliance.

The Electoral Commission of Zambia's directive regarding candidate resignations after July 6, 2026, serves as a crucial reminder of the strict timelines and legal implications governing electoral participation in Zambia. For practising attorneys and legal professionals, it is imperative to advise political parties and aspiring candidates on the precise distinctions between candidate withdrawal and resignation, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. The administrative cut-off date for ballot paper printing is not merely a logistical formality but a point of no return that triggers specific legal consequences, particularly for independent candidates who do not fall under the protective ambit of Article 52(6) of the Constitution.

Practitioners must emphasize the finality of nominations and the limited circumstances under which an election can be cancelled and fresh nominations called. The ECZ's commitment to issuing local notices to inform voters about ineligible candidates on the ballot is a measure to enhance transparency, but it also highlights the potential for voter confusion and disputes. Moving forward, all stakeholders should prioritize adherence to the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 and the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016, ensuring that candidate decisions are made well within the stipulated legal and administrative deadlines to avoid jeopardizing electoral outcomes and public funds. The 2026 General Election will undoubtedly test the robustness of these electoral provisions and the ECZ's capacity to manage complex scenarios arising from candidate movements.