LUSAKA – The constitutional challenge by opposition leader Brian Mundubile, his running mate Makebi Zulu and 16 other detainees over their continued detention has now been scheduled for hearing before a three-judge panel of the High Court. The Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance says the hearing will run from October 26 to November 6, 2026. The development comes […]

LUSAKA – The constitutional challenge by opposition leader Brian Mundubile, his running mate Makebi Zulu and 16 other detainees over their continued detention has now been scheduled for hearing before a three-judge panel of the High Court.

The Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance says the hearing will run from October 26 to November 6, 2026.

The development comes as Mundubile, Zulu and the other petitioners remain in custody in connection with treason allegations arising from events surrounding the August 2026 General Election.

The petitioners are challenging the circumstances of their detention and other actions by State authorities, arguing that their constitutional rights have been violated.

The claims remain allegations before the court and have not yet been determined.

What is the petition about?

The constitutional petition was filed in the High Court in Lusaka on September 11 by lawyers representing the 18 detainees.

The petition names the Attorney General, Harrington Akusanga and Zambia Correctional Service Commissioner General Fredrick Chilukutu as respondents.

Among other things, the petition challenges the arrests, detention and transfers of the detainees between correctional facilities, as well as alleged restrictions on access to lawyers and family members.

The petition invokes several constitutional and statutory provisions, including Articles 1, 13, 15 and 18 of the Constitution of Zambia.

Article 13 is particularly important to the challenge because it provides constitutional protections relating to personal liberty, including being informed of the reasons for arrest or detention and being brought before a competent court within the prescribed period.

The petitioners argue that these protections have not been respected in their case.

The 42-day detention

Acting Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance Secretary General Muhabi Lungu says Mundubile and Zulu have now spent 42 days in detention without appearing before court on the treason allegations.

He describes the detention as illegal.

That is the Alliance’s position, however, rather than a finding already made by the High Court.

The petition itself asks the court to examine whether the State’s actions in relation to the detainees were lawful and consistent with their constitutional rights.

The question of whether the detention violated the Constitution will therefore form part of the issues before the judges.

Why Mukobeko is central to the case

The detainees were moved to Mukobeko Maximum Correctional Facility in Kabwe after being formally charged with treason on August 29.

The petition challenges aspects of their detention and subsequent movements between correctional facilities.

According to the court documents previously reported by Zambian Eye, the petitioners allege that some detainees were held at locations that were not properly disclosed to their families and lawyers and that some transfers were carried out without what they considered lawful warrants.

The petition also contains serious allegations concerning the treatment of some of the detainees before they were transferred to Mukobeko.

Among those allegations are claims of physical mistreatment, restricted access to legal counsel and family members, and attempts to obtain information that could implicate Mundubile and Zulu.

Those allegations have not been tested in court.

The petition is broader than Mundubile and Zulu

Although Mundubile and Zulu are the most prominent names in the case, they are only two of the 18 petitioners.

The petition covers other people detained in connection with the wider treason investigation.

The court will therefore be dealing with a broader constitutional challenge concerning how the detainees were arrested, held, transferred and given access to legal and family support.

This is important because the case is not simply an application by two opposition politicians seeking their release.

It raises wider questions about constitutional protections available to anyone held by the State.

The treason case itself is a separate matter

The constitutional petition should also not be confused with the substantive criminal case.

Mundubile, Zulu and the other accused are facing treason-related allegations. The constitutional petition instead asks the High Court to examine whether their constitutional rights have been respected during their detention and the handling of their cases.

The two proceedings therefore raise different questions.

The treason allegations will have to be determined through the criminal justice process.

The constitutional petition asks whether the manner in which the accused have been treated while in State custody complies with the Constitution.

That distinction will be important when the High Court begins hearing the matter.

There is already another court matter involving Mundubile and Zulu

The detention of the two opposition figures has also generated a separate criminal proceeding.

On September 25, Mundubile and Zulu appeared before the Solwezi Magistrate’s Court in connection with charges of seditious practices.

The matter was adjourned to October 5 and 6 after Mundubile told the court that his lawyers were not present. The State indicated that it was ready to proceed but did not oppose the adjournment.

This means that the two men are now at the centre of more than one legal process while the constitutional challenge to their detention proceeds.

What the High Court will have to consider

The October hearing is likely to bring several questions into sharper focus.

Were the detainees brought before a competent court within the period required by law?

Were the transfers between correctional facilities lawfully authorised?

Were the detainees properly informed of the reasons for their detention?

Were they given adequate access to their lawyers and families?

And did the conduct of State authorities comply with the constitutional protections relied upon by the petitioners?

Those are ultimately questions for the courts to determine.

For now, the lawyers representing the detainees have placed their claims before the High Court, while the State will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Why the October hearing matters

The case comes at a politically sensitive time, with the continued detention of opposition figures becoming part of a wider national debate over the rule of law, political freedoms and the treatment of people accused of serious offences.

The Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops, in its September 30 pastoral statement, expressed concern about reports of arbitrary arrests and detention and called for due process and access to justice. The bishops did not specifically name Mundubile and Zulu in that statement.

The Council of Churches in Zambia has also called for people arrested to be treated humanely, informed of the allegations against them and brought before competent courts in accordance with the law.

At the same time, the State has maintained that lawful arrests should not automatically be characterised as persecution and that allegations of unlawful detention or abuse should be considered on their individual facts.

The High Court will now have an opportunity to examine the specific claims contained in the constitutional petition.

For Mundubile, Zulu and the other petitioners, the next major date is the scheduled October hearing.

For the State, the proceedings provide an opportunity to respond formally to allegations that its handling of the detainees has breached constitutional protections.

And for the wider public, the case could provide important judicial guidance on the limits of State power when people are arrested and held in connection with serious national-security allegations.

Zambian Eye will follow the proceedings as the High Court considers the petition.