ConCourt strikes down residence-permit test for residency

LUSAKA — Zambia’s Constitutional Court has ruled that a statutory residence-permit requirement is invalid where it narrows the constitutional meaning of who is “ordinarily resident” in the country.

The judgment matters because the ruling reasserts a basic rule of Zambian law: an ordinary Act of Parliament cannot quietly rewrite the Constitution. The decision lands on the desk of the courts as a fresh statement on constitutional supremacy, and sharpens the test for any law that tries to add conditions the Constitution does not impose.

The Constitutional Court of Zambia decided Zambia Civil Liberties Union v Commissioner for Refugees and Others, neutral citation [2026] ZMCC 11, cause number 2025/CCZ/003, on 27 April 2026, according to the published judgment on ZambiaLII. The court held that a statutory residence-permit requirement for establishing “ordinarily resident” status is invalid to the extent that it narrows the constitutional definition contained in Article 266 of the Constitution.

The reasoning rests on the supremacy of the Constitution. The court found that an ordinary Act of Parliament cannot effect what amounts to a constitutional amendment without following the entrenched amendment procedure under Article 79. On the supremacy principle, the bench strikes at a statute that bolts an extra residence-permit condition onto the constitutional test for residency, holding that the requirement oversteps what Parliament may do through ordinary legislation.

The principle echoes a run of recent constitutional decisions out of the same court. Kwacha News reported when the bench struck down a minister’s power to suspend councils, another instance in which the court held that a statutory power could not stand against the constitutional text.

The matter was heard by a seven-member bench, the judgment records: President Margaret Munalula, Deputy President Shilimi, and Justices Musaluke, Chisunka, Mulongoti, Mwandenga and Mulife. A full bench of that size signals the weight the court attached to the constitutional question at the heart of the case.

The ruling is one of 13 Constitutional Court judgments listed on ZambiaLII for 2026, sitting alongside the Supreme Court’s separate 2026 docket of appellate decisions. The 2026 list places the residency judgment within a busy year for constitutional litigation in Zambia.

At the centre of the case is the relationship between two articles of the Constitution. Article 266 supplies the definition of “ordinarily resident,” and Article 79 sets the entrenched procedure for changing such provisions. The Constitutional Court — Zambia’s ConCourt — found that a residence-permit statute, by adding a condition the Constitution does not contain, sought to do through ordinary legislation what only the Article 79 amendment procedure permits.

The form of the order is narrow but consequential. Rather than voiding the statute outright, the court held the residence-permit requirement invalid “to the extent” of the conflict with Article 266. The narrow phrasing leaves the rest of the law intact while removing the part that collides with the constitutional definition, and confines the remedy to the precise constitutional defect the court identified.

A statutory residence-permit requirement for ‘ordinarily resident’ is invalid to the extent it narrows the constitutional definition.

— Constitutional Court of Zambia, [2026] ZMCC 11 (<a href="https://zambialii.org/akn/zm/judgment/zmcc/2026/11/eng@2026-04-27">ZambiaLII</a>)

Background

Article 266 of the Constitution carries the definitions that anchor much of Zambia’s constitutional order, including who counts as “ordinarily resident.” The phrase reaches into questions of status, entitlement and eligibility, which is why a residence-permit hurdle bolted onto the test is more than an administrative detail. The Zambia Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge against the Commissioner for Refugees and other respondents.

The second internal pillar of the decision is Article 79, which sets out the special procedure required to amend entrenched parts of the Constitution. By tying the two articles together, the court drew a clear boundary: where a statute would change a constitutional definition in substance, Parliament must use the amendment route, not ordinary legislation. The same logic informed the court’s reasoning when it read statutory duties strictly in the Lumwana redundancy ruling, where the text of the law governed the outcome.

The litigation itself pitted the Zambia Civil Liberties Union, a civil-society body, against the Commissioner for Refugees and other respondents. The choice of forum is itself significant: the Constitutional Court is the apex venue for questions of this kind, and a seven-member bench is reserved for matters the court regards as raising weighty constitutional issues rather than routine disputes.

What to watch

The first thing to watch is how the affected statute and its regulations are amended or read down to comply. A declaration of invalidity “to the extent” of the conflict leaves the rest of the law standing, so the practical question becomes how administrators apply the constitutional definition in place of the struck-down permit test.

The second is whether the reasoning is cited in the other constitutional matters on the 2026 docket. With 13 Constitutional Court judgments listed for the year, the residency decision adds to a body of supremacy case law that litigants and the State will both lean on.

For Zambian readers, the stakes are practical as well as doctrinal. Being “ordinarily resident” touches questions of status and entitlement bearing on households, businesses and voters; by holding the definition immune from narrowing by ordinary statute, the court has protected the floor that Article 266 sets. The pull on the kwacha economy is indirect but real, because legal certainty over residency and status is part of the predictable rule-of-law environment investors and citizens both rely on.

Frequently Asked Questions

These are the questions readers have asked about the Constitutional Court’s residency ruling. The short answers below are drawn from the published judgment and the court’s own reasoning on the supremacy of the Constitution.

What did the Constitutional Court actually decide?

In short, the court ruled a statutory residence-permit requirement invalid to the extent of any narrowing of the constitutional definition of “ordinarily resident” under Article 266. According to the judgment, the answer is plain: a statute cannot shrink a constitutional term, and the evidence in the record shows the permit condition did exactly so.

Why does this case turn on Article 266 and Article 79?

Simply put, Article 266 holds the constitutional definition of “ordinarily resident,” while Article 79 sets the procedure for amending entrenched provisions. Analysis of the ruling shows the court treated the residence-permit statute as an attempted constitutional amendment by the back door, which the data of the case revealed had skipped the Article 79 route.

Does this ruling abolish residence permits in Zambia?

The answer is no. According to the judgment, the court struck the requirement only to the extent of any narrowing of the constitutional meaning of residency; research of the wording shows permits can still operate for their proper administrative purposes, but cannot be used to override Article 266.

Who heard the case and when was it decided?

In other words, this was a heavyweight bench: a seven-member panel led by President Margaret Munalula and Deputy President Shilimi, with five further justices. Evidence from the record shows the matter, [2026] ZMCC 11, was decided on 27 April 2026.

What does the decision mean for ordinary Zambians?

The key is constitutional certainty. Analysis of the ruling reveals that no future law can quietly redefine a constitutional status without following the amendment process, which protects the rights and entitlements that flow from being “ordinarily resident” for Zambian households, businesses and voters alike.

Sources

Primary judgment: ZambiaLII — Zambia Civil Liberties Union v Commissioner for Refugees and Others [2026] ZMCC 11. Court docket: ZambiaLII — Constitutional Court of Zambia 2026 judgments index.