….From Kenneth Kaunda and Frederick Chiluba to Edgar Lungu, Zambia’s constitutional restrictions on former presidents continue to fuel debate over whether the law promotes democracy or undermines it.
LUSAKA-(MaraviPost)-The death of former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu in June 2025 has reignited a complex and emotional debate about the rights and restrictions placed on former heads of state.
At the center of this conversation lies a controversial law that bars former presidents from engaging in active politics if they wish to continue receiving state benefits.
This issue transcends Lungu’s personal legacy. It touches on fundamental questions about Zambia’s constitutional values, its democratic maturity, and whether such restrictions serve national unity or political suppression.
Who Was Edgar Chagwa Lungu?
Edgar Chagwa Lungu was born on November 11, 1956, in Ndola, in Zambia’s Copperbelt Province. He studied law at the University of Zambia (UNZA), graduating in 1981, and later served in the Ministry of Justice before moving into private legal practice.
Before politics, Lungu briefly trained with the Zambian Army, though he was discharged before completing his service. His legal background shaped his calm and disciplined leadership style, often described by both supporters and critics as cautious and reserved.
Lungu’s political rise began within the Patriotic Front (PF) under Michael Sata, who founded the party in 2001. He steadily rose through the ranks, serving as Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Defence, and Minister of Justice during Sata’s administration.
Following President Sata’s death in October 2014, Lungu became the PF’s candidate in the January 2015 presidential by-election, narrowly defeating Hakainde Hichilema. He was re-elected in 2016 after another tight contest, again against Hichilema.
As president, Lungu presided over an ambitious infrastructure drive, building roads, bridges, and energy projects. However, his administration was marred by accusations of corruption, rising debt, media suppression, and shrinking civic space. Many Zambians saw his government as drifting toward authoritarianism.
Lungu’s presidency ended in August 2021, when he lost to Hichilema in an election that marked a peaceful transition of power. After his defeat, Lungu announced his retirement, making him eligible for state benefits under the Benefits of Former Presidents Act.
However, in 2023, he made a dramatic return to active politics — a move that sparked fierce debate and legal disputes over whether he had forfeited his benefits. His death in June 2025 left unresolved questions about his legacy, his treatment by the state, and Zambia’s broader handling of former leaders.
The Law That Sparked the Debate
The Benefits of Former Presidents Act (Chapter 15 of the Laws of Zambia) provides former heads of state with pensions, housing, transport, security, and diplomatic privileges. Yet, it imposes one crucial condition: a former president forfeits all benefits if they re-enter active politics.
The Act defines “active politics” as performing any act that shows intent to seek elective or appointive office or holding a position in any political organization. This clause, meant to preserve political stability, has become a source of division and suspicion.
In theory, it promotes a dignified retirement for former presidents, discouraging them from interfering with their successors. In practice, however, it has often been used to sideline political opponents and curtail legitimate participation in national affairs.
Historical Roots of Restrictive Politics
To understand how Zambia arrived here, one must revisit its political past.
After leading Zambia to independence in 1964, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda of the United National Independence Party (UNIP) ruled for nearly three decades under a one-party system. His long tenure ended in 1991 when Frederick Chiluba’s Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) ushered in a new democratic era.
However, in 1996, the Chiluba government amended the constitution, introducing a clause that required both parents of a presidential candidate to be Zambian by birth — a move widely viewed as targeting Kaunda, whose parents were from Malawi.
That episode set a precedent: Zambia’s constitutional and legislative reforms could be weaponized to exclude political rivals. What began as an attempt to manage transitions of power evolved into a tool for controlling who could participate in politics.
From Kaunda to Lungu: The Legacy Continues
Decades later, Edgar Lungu found himself facing similar exclusionary tactics. When he re-entered politics in 2023, the government quickly reminded him of the constitutional conditions tied to his benefits.
His public activities — from church visits to morning jogs with supporters — were portrayed by state officials as political rallies in disguise. Critics accused the government of using the law selectively to punish Lungu for remaining politically relevant.
This selective enforcement exposes the ambiguity of Zambia’s constitutional framework. The term “active politics” remains loosely defined, allowing ruling administrations to interpret it based on convenience and political expediency.
Democratic Justifications and Their Limits
Supporters of the law argue that it is a democratic safeguard. They say it prevents political interference, protects peaceful transitions of power, and ensures that ex-presidents retire gracefully without undermining sitting leaders.
They further argue that offering benefits in exchange for political neutrality is a fair compromise that preserves respect for the presidency and prevents destabilizing power struggles.
However, critics counter that the law is a violation of basic democratic rights. It effectively punishes former presidents for exercising their constitutional freedoms of speech and association. In doing so, it creates a double standard — one law for ordinary citizens and another for former leaders.
For many observers, this law reflects a pattern of institutional manipulation in Zambian politics — where legal instruments are designed to consolidate power rather than foster accountability and inclusivity.
Democracy or Political Control?
The real danger lies not in the law’s existence but in its implementation. If applied selectively, it becomes a political weapon used to silence dissent. A law intended to protect democracy ends up undermining it.
During Lungu’s final years, the tension between the PF and the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) deepened. His supporters claimed he was being persecuted, while government officials maintained they were merely enforcing the law.
The spectacle raised broader questions: Should a democratic state police the public behavior of a former president? And can democracy truly thrive where the right to political participation is conditional?
Reforming the Law for a New Era
To safeguard democracy, Zambia must strike a balance between respecting former leaders and protecting political freedom.
First, the definition of “active politics” must be clarified to eliminate ambiguity and prevent abuse. The law should only restrict the holding of active office, not general participation in civic life or public discourse.
Second, the application of the law must be consistent, transparent, and free from political interference. Selective enforcement erodes public trust and discredits the justice system.
Third, Zambia should encourage a culture of inclusivity and respect toward former leaders. Rather than viewing them as threats, the nation should harness their experience for mediation, mentorship, and national unity.
Finally, any future constitutional reforms should be conducted through a broad national dialogue, involving citizens, civil society, and opposition parties — not as executive decrees serving those in power.
Conclusion
Zambia’s law barring former presidents from active politics in exchange for state benefits represents both a safeguard and a snare. It upholds the principle of peaceful succession but, in practice, has often been wielded as a political weapon.
Edgar Lungu’s life and death underscore the contradictions at the heart of this legal framework. He was both a beneficiary and a victim of Zambia’s constitutional order — a man whose political journey mirrored the nation’s struggle between freedom and control.
As Zambia reflects on his legacy, it must also confront its own constitutional conscience. True democracy cannot exist where participation is policed, and dissent is punished.
If Zambia truly aspires to be a beacon of democracy in Africa, it must reform its laws to ensure that all citizens — including former presidents — can speak, participate, and contribute freely to the nation’s progress.
Only then will the promise of freedom, won at independence and defended across generations, be truly fulfilled.
The post Zambia’s law on former presidents: A democratic safeguard or a tool for political exclusion? appeared first on The Maravi Post.
