ConCourt strikes down minister's power to suspend councils

LUSAKA — A 11 May 2026 Constitutional Court judgment is the ruling that strikes down the minister’s power to suspend elected councils, declaring two sections of the Local Government Act void.

The decision matters because it removes a power that central government had used to dissolve elected local authorities and govern them through an appointee, a practice the Court found cuts against the autonomy the Constitution guarantees local government. This story is part of Kwacha News’s continuing courts coverage.

At stake is the relationship between an elected council and the minister who oversees the sector. Until the ruling, Sections 56 and 57 let the Minister of Local Government end a council’s mandate and hand its functions to an administrator; the ConCourt judgment now holds that the Constitution does not permit that step, leaving the recall of individual councillors as the only constitutional route to removal.

On 11 May 2026 the Constitutional Court of Zambia declared Sections 56 and 57 of the Local Government Act No. 2 of 2019 unconstitutional, null and void, according to the judgment published on ZambiaLII.

The two provisions had empowered the Minister of Local Government to suspend an elected council and install an unelected administrator in its place. The Court found the sections inconsistent with Articles 152(2) and 156 of the Constitution, which protect the autonomy of local government, the judgment states.

The petition was brought by Mputa Ngalande against the Attorney General. The judgment records that it arose from the 2022 suspension of Kafue Town Council and the January 2025 suspension of Chongwe Municipal Council. The reasoning echoes other recent disputes over the limits of executive power, including the case in which a court stayed an Electoral Commission directive on ballot symbols.

The Court reasoned that the Constitution provides only for the individual recall of a councillor, not for the suspension of an entire council, the judgment states. On that basis the wholesale removal of an elected body by ministerial order had no constitutional footing.

The distinction sits at the centre of the ruling. Recall, the judgment notes, operates councillor by councillor; suspension under Sections 56 and 57 reached the whole council at once and replaced elected representatives with a single appointee. The Court treated the gap between those two mechanisms as the constitutional flaw.

Articles 152(2) and 156, the provisions the Court relied on, set out the autonomy of local government within Zambia’s constitutional order. The judgment frames the protection of elected local authorities as the standard against which the two suspended sections failed, rather than as a matter of administrative convenience.

The Constitution does not elevate elected office above the rule of law because it demands that democratic power must be exercised lawfully, responsibly and accountably.

— Constitutional Court of Zambia, per Mulongoti JC, Mputa Ngalande v Attorney General, 11 May 2026 (<a href="https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2026/12/eng@2026-05-11">ZambiaLII</a>)

Background

The case grew out of two suspensions. The judgment records that Kafue Town Council was suspended in 2022 and Chongwe Municipal Council in January 2025, with an administrator appointed in place of the elected councillors on each occasion. Mputa Ngalande petitioned the Constitutional Court, naming the Attorney General as respondent, to test whether those powers were lawful.

Sections 56 and 57 of the Local Government Act No. 2 of 2019 were the statutory basis for the suspensions. The Court measured them against Articles 152(2) and 156 of the Constitution and, finding them inconsistent with the protection of local-government autonomy, declared the provisions null and void, the judgment states.

The petition therefore did not contest a single suspension on its own facts; it asked the Constitutional Court to rule on whether the underlying power existed at all. By declaring Sections 56 and 57 void, the Court answered that the power, as written, was incompatible with the Constitution rather than merely misused in a particular instance.

The named parties frame the dispute as a contest over the boundary between central and local authority. Mputa Ngalande stood as the petitioner and the Attorney General as the respondent representing the State, while the Minister of Local Government held the suspended power at the heart of the case, the judgment records.

What to watch

The first question is how the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development responds, and whether Parliament moves to redraft the suspended provisions in a form that survives constitutional scrutiny. With Sections 56 and 57 void, the legal route to removing a sitting council has narrowed to the recall of individual councillors set out in the Constitution.

The second is what the ruling means for Kafue Town Council and Chongwe Municipal Council, whose suspensions prompted the petition. The published judgment is the primary record of the Court’s findings, and the Attorney General’s office is the office that carries the State’s response to it.

A third question is precedent. By grounding the decision in Articles 152(2) and 156, the Constitutional Court has tied the outcome to the constitutional status of local government rather than to the facts of a single suspension, which sets the standard against which any future statute touching elected councils will be measured.

Frequently Asked Questions

These are the questions readers have been asking about the Constitutional Court judgment. Short answers follow, drawn from the ruling and the public record.

What did the Constitutional Court decide?

In short, on 11 May 2026 the Constitutional Court declared Sections 56 and 57 of the Local Government Act No. 2 of 2019 unconstitutional, null and void. According to the judgment, the answer is that the minister can no longer suspend an elected council and install an administrator.

Why were Sections 56 and 57 struck down?

Simply put, the Court found the two sections inconsistent with Articles 152(2) and 156 of the Constitution, which protect local-government autonomy. The judgment reveals that the Court treated the suspension of a whole elected council as a power the Constitution does not grant.

Who brought the case?

The key is that the petition was filed by Mputa Ngalande against the Attorney General. Evidence in the judgment shows it arose from the 2022 suspension of Kafue Town Council and the January 2025 suspension of Chongwe Municipal Council.

Can a council still be removed from office?

The answer is that the Constitution provides only for the recall of an individual councillor, not the suspension of an entire council. Analysis of the ruling shows that the wholesale removal of an elected body by ministerial order no longer has a lawful basis.

What happens to the suspended councils now?

In other words, the judgment data shows the ruling concerns the legality of the power itself; the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and the Attorney General are the offices that will determine the practical steps that follow, according to the public record.

Sources

The primary source for this report is the Constitutional Court judgment in Mputa Ngalande v Attorney General, 11 May 2026, as published on ZambiaLII. Related Kwacha News coverage of the courts includes a ruling staying an Electoral Commission directive and the Constitutional Court decision clearing two candidates for the August election.