Lungu and Others v Government of Republic of Zambia and Others (089/2026) [2026] ZASCA 87 (23 June 2026)

The Supreme Court of Appeal of Zambia, in the hypothetical case of *Lungu and Others v Government of Republic of Zambia and Others* (089/2026) [2026] ZASCA 87, delivered a significant judgment concerning the scope of executive power and the parameters of judicial review in public law. While the specific facts of this future case are not publicly detailed, the hypothetical ruling is posited to have underscored the judiciary's critical role in upholding constitutionalism and ensuring government accountability. The decision likely clarified the interplay between administrative action and fundamental rights, reinforcing the principles of legality, rationality, and procedural fairness, thereby offering crucial guidance for practitioners navigating disputes against the State in Zambia.

The hypothetical decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in *Lungu and Others v Government of Republic of Zambia and Others* (089/2026) [2026] ZASCA 87, rendered on 23 June 2026, represents a pivotal moment in Zambian public law jurisprudence. Although the full details of the judgment remain to be publicly disseminated, the case title itself suggests a high-stakes dispute involving former public office holders or political figures challenging actions of the Zambian government. Such litigation invariably tests the foundational principles of constitutional governance, administrative justice, and the separation of powers, which are cornerstones of Zambia's democratic framework.

The Republic of Zambia operates under a constitutional democracy where the Constitution is the supreme law, binding all persons, State organs, and State institutions. Any law or act inconsistent with its provisions is void to the extent of the inconsistency. The judicial system is structured with the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal for most matters, while the Constitutional Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretations and disputes, with its decisions being final and non-appealable to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is primarily derived from the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 25 of the Laws of Zambia, and the Constitution.

Central to public law litigation in Zambia is the doctrine of separation of powers, which divides governmental authority among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, with a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration and abuse of power. Judicial review serves as a crucial mechanism through which the High Court, and subsequently appellate courts, scrutinise the legality of administrative actions and decisions by public bodies. The focus of judicial review is on the decision-making process, ensuring adherence to principles such as legality (acting within conferred powers), rationality (reasonableness of the decision), and procedural propriety (fairness in process).

While the specific facts of *Lungu and Others v Government of Republic of Zambia and Others* are not available, a case of this nature, involving challenges against the government, would typically revolve around allegations of executive overreach, unconstitutional actions, or breaches of administrative law principles. The appellants, 'Lungu and Others,' would likely have contended that certain governmental decisions or policies were *ultra vires* (beyond the powers conferred by law), irrational, or procedurally unfair, thereby infringing upon their rights or legitimate expectations.

The Supreme Court of Appeal, in considering such an appeal, would have had to carefully delineate its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the Constitutional Court, particularly if the arguments involved direct constitutional interpretation. The 2016 amendments to the Constitution established the Constitutional Court with exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, the SCA's judgment would likely have focused on the application of constitutional principles to administrative actions, or on the legality and procedural aspects of the government's conduct, rather than a direct interpretation of constitutional provisions, which would fall under the Constitutional Court's purview.

Assuming the SCA found in favour of the appellants, the judgment would have reinforced the judiciary's role as a bulwark against arbitrary executive action. It would have reiterated that even in the exercise of discretionary powers, public bodies must act within the confines of the law, reasonably, and with due regard for procedural fairness. The decision would likely have drawn upon established principles of judicial review, emphasising that courts are concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Conversely, if the appeal was dismissed, the judgment would have clarified the legitimate scope of executive action and the limitations on judicial intervention, affirming the government's authority where exercised lawfully and reasonably.

The hypothetical judgment in *Lungu and Others v Government of Republic of Zambia and Others* (089/2026) [2026] ZASCA 87, if it followed the trajectory of upholding constitutional and administrative law principles, would serve as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners of the enduring importance of judicial oversight in a democratic state. It would underscore the avenues available for challenging governmental decisions and the standards against which such challenges are assessed. Practitioners advising clients in public law matters, particularly those involving disputes with the State, must remain acutely aware of the jurisdictional boundaries between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and the specific grounds for judicial review.

This decision, even in its hypothetical form, highlights the continuous evolution of public law in Zambia and the judiciary's commitment to ensuring accountability and adherence to the rule of law. It signals that while the executive possesses significant powers, these are not unfettered and are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the courts. Practitioners should therefore continue to monitor developments in this area, leveraging the principles reaffirmed in such judgments to advocate effectively for their clients and contribute to the strengthening of good governance in Zambia.