Explainer: What Happens If a Candidate Disputes an Election Result

With Brian Mundubile signalling that he intends to challenge the outcome of the 2026 presidential election, far from being unusual, election petitions are a normal and healthy feature of a functioning democracy, offering candidates a lawful, peaceful avenue to test their grievances before the courts rather than in the streets.

Under the Constitution and the Electoral Process Act, any candidate wishing to challenge a presidential result must file a petition in the Constitutional Court within seven days of the official declaration of the winner. The Court is then required to hear the case and deliver its ruling within 14 days of filing. 

Different rules apply lower down the ballot. Petitions contesting the election of a Member of Parliament are filed in the High Court, which must determine them within 90 days, with any appeal going to the Constitutional Court. Disputes over mayoral, council chairperson or councillor seats are handled by specialised Local Government Elections Tribunals, where each side presents evidence and submissions within set timelines.

Crucially, the burden of proof rests firmly with the petitioner. To overturn a result, a challenger must do more than point to isolated errors; they must demonstrate materiality — that any irregularities or malpractices were serious enough to have actually altered the outcome or to have fundamentally undermined the integrity of the vote. Minor discrepancies, of the kind that occur in almost every election, are generally not enough on their own.

History shows that petitions can and do succeed, but many fail, and the reasons are instructive. A significant number fall at the first hurdle by not being filed within the strict statutory deadlines. Others collapse because the petitioner is unable to produce substantive evidence that the problems alleged would have changed the result. 

For Zambia, the willingness of candidates to pursue disputes through the courts, and of the public to await the outcome peacefully, is a mark of democratic maturity. Should Mr Mundubile proceed, the process will unfold within clear constitutional timelines, and the courts, not political rhetoric, will have the final say on whether his challenge has merit.