By Kellys Kaunda


President Levy Mwanawasa was Head of State at the time the Electoral Technical Committee was set up to reflect on the electoral system and everything that has to do with elections in Zambia and make recommendations. At the time, State Counsel George Kunda (now late) was Minister of Justice and signed letters of appointment for committee members. At the time, I was chairperson of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, the MISA-Zambia chapter.

Chaired by Counsel Mwangala Zaloumis, the Committee traveled around the country and held public hearings receiving submissions from members of the public. Some of the submissions touched on the electoral system while others on the qualifications of candidates. Some of the submissions reflected what had been submitted to previous Constitutional Review Commissions.

To reflect on the submissions and draw up a report, the committee went to Siavonga and stayed for several days. One of the hotly debated submission was the qualification of presidential candidates and other public offices such as Member of Parliament and Councilor. Opinion was deeply divided over such qualifications as a degree, a diploma or a grade twelve certificate.

While no one was opposed in principle to a degree as the desired qualification, there was a feeling among some members that the committee was going to be seen as targeting some political candidates that were not known to possess degrees. Others felt that the degree was too high a standard and would result in disenfranchising many people.

This debate leaked to the media the following day and I was blamed for it and subsequently ordered to leave the camp. I was to head back to Lusaka the following day but a friend of mine in Lusaka who learnt about what had befallen me decided to drive in the night, arriving around 22hrs and picked me up.

The spirit behind the submission on qualifications was embedded in the word “minimum”. It was the intention of those that submitted in favor of qualifications that someone seeking public office needed to have evidence that they were educated. They reasoned that the work of governance meant engaging with policy and legislative matters that required some level of education if someone was to make meaningful contributions.

In the end, the law reflected grade twelve as a minimum qualification or its equivalent for President, Member of Parliament and Councilor. According to Section 33 of the Electoral Act No. 12 of 2006 a candidate running for any of these public offices must have, “obtained, as a minimum academic qualification, a grade twelve certificate or its equivalent”.

In the constitutional court ruling, the word “equivalent” has been defined to mean nothing below and nothing above. In effect, any higher qualification is not included in the law as defined. What about the word “minimum”, what if the court had attempted to define this word, would it have made a difference? I think it would. When a minimum standard is set, it means there is a higher standard which is more desirable. The word is used to sympathize with those that may not be able to meet higher standards. In other words, someone is saying, “the standard is this but if you can’t, at least meet this standard which is the lowest I can go”.

Those that submitted had in mind higher standards of education, but they were also sympathetic of those that could not meet them. Subsequently, a compromise was reflected in the law which lowered the threshold to grade twelve. But the court has ruled, so what do we do? Well, my suggestion is this: amend the law immediately and include professional qualifications as acceptable.

Between now and nomination time, parliament can make these amendments and avoid disenfranchising the many professionals that do not have grade twelve certificates.


  1. To amend the law to avoid professionals without Concourt stated grade 12 being disenfranchised? Really? Yet on the other hand we yearn for highly educated candidates to propel this country higher heghts. Why didn’t these professionals priotise education as espoused by the Concourt? Can they even priotise, say, education for the country beyond their bellies? Whither Zambia!!

  2. I very much concur with the writer of the article. There are people who have Form 3 Certificates of olden days coupled with, say, 3 GCE “O” level passes and Diplomas or Degrees who can articulate very well. And also, going by what the writer is saying, when you set a minimum standard, it does not mean that those having higher qualifications are not allowed to participate in an event. Let us just be frank with ourselves here, Our education standards have deteriorated to such levels that if we allow this G 12 qualification to be set as the benchmark, and nothing more for our parliamentarians or Councillors, then we will be denying other intelligent people to participate in the race (being a G 12 does not amount to somebody being intelligent than others, especially in these times of “leakages”). Maybe, ECZ should introduce an entry exam (with no Leakage) for people aspiring for such offices. I say this because Most of our children who have completed their secondary education can not use that knowledge they acquired. Reason being that they do not understand it. So, by setting an entry exam for those aspiring for office, we will deny nobody a chance to participate in the race. It would mean that only the “cream” will be vying for such offices.

  3. Are you saying concourt omitted the word minimum? How and why? I bet that was an error! We just need to take the issue back to concourt and include the word minimum qualification, otherwise it doesn’t make sense at all. I remember also John Sangwa telling us that concourt judges are not qualified to hold those positions. Could it be the reason we have this outcome on the electoral process law on qualifications?
    You can’t tell me that I don’t qualify to contest for president of Zambia or MP or Councillor just because my degree certificate is not grade 12 certificate!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here