Click to expand Image Zambian opposition leader and National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity (NRPUP) presidential candidate Brian Muntayalwa Mundubile speaks to members of the media after casting his vote in Lusaka, Zambia, August 13, 2026. © 2026 Moses Mwape/Reuters (Johannesburg) – Zambian authorities suddenly closed and cordoned off the courts without credible explanation on August 24, 2026, effectively blocking the filing of any legal challenges to the results of the August 13 presidential election, Human Rights Watch said today. The authorities should immediately allow the courts to reopen.Zambian police stated that the closures were an “intelligence-led and preventive measure,” without providing details. A notice from the chief administrator of the judiciary to court staff, seen by Human Rights Watch, said the court premises were closed “for security reasons.” The notice said guidance on opening the courts “will be issued in due course, once the situation is contained.” The courts’ closure coincided with the deadline to file any legal challenges to declaring the incumbent, President Hakainde Hichilema, the winner. “The courts play a vital role in protecting the rights guaranteed under Zambia’s constitution for resolving election-related disputes,” said Allan Ngari, Africa advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Measures that effectively deny the opposition crucial access to the courts to challenge the conduct and validity of the presidential election are a blow to the administration of law, transparency, and due process in Zambia.”Under article 103 of the Constitution of Zambia, court challenges to election outcomes must be filed within seven days of the declaration of results. Challengers may petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of the declared winner on the grounds that the person was not validly elected; or that a provision of the constitution or other law relating to presidential elections was not complied with.The Electoral Commission of Zambia declared President Hichilema the winner on August 18. The official tally had him winning 60.7 percent of the vote, with 38 percent for his opponent, Brian Mundubile. Following the announcement, Mundubile alleged “serious irregularities, inconsistencies and circumstances surrounding the conduct, counting, transmission, and declaration of results” and said he would challenge the results in court. From the declaration of the results on August 18, the last day on which a petition challenging the results of the presidential election could have been lawfully filed was August 24.Closing the courts under the circumstances raises serious concerns, particularly for the administration of justice in Zambia, Human Rights Watch said. One lawyer told Human Rights Watch that he arrived at the High Court in Lusaka on the morning of August 24 to find the premises cordoned off by heavily armed police officers, who ordered him to leave.A statement signed by seven Zambian civil society organizations said sealing off court premises across the country and suspending judicial services entirely had deprived Zambians of their constitutional right to file an electoral challenge and have it heard. The organizations stated that “the right of access to the courts is meaningless if the courts can simply be closed at the precise moment citizens most need them.”The Law Association of Zambia raised concerns, in a media statement, that beyond the memorandum to judiciary staff, the authorities had provided no explanation or justification for closing the courts. All of this fuels concerns that the real reason for closing the courts was to frustrate the right of aggrieved parties to challenge the election results, Human Rights Watch said.Under international human rights law, Zambia is required to uphold the independence of its courts. The judiciary should be free from “improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats, or interferences.” Human rights law also requires Zambia to offer effective pathways to a remedy for human rights violations, which requires meaningful access to justice, including through the courts.“Any security measures affecting the courts should be strictly necessary, proportionate, and time-limited, while preserving access for urgent filings,” Ngari said. “No one should be denied an effective remedy because the courts were unavailable during a constitutionally prescribed filing period. Meaningful access to an independent judiciary is essential to public confidence in Zambia’s electoral process and the rule of law.”