By Brian Matambo | Monday, April 7, 2026

Patriotic Front Secretary General Raphael Mangani Nakachinda has appealed the High Court judgment in the PF leadership matter, taking the dispute to the Court of Appeal of Zambia. The appeal was filed on April 7, 2026. Court documents show that Nakachinda is challenging the decision delivered by Justice C. Chinyama Zulu on March 27, 2026, in Cause No. 2025/HP/0577. The respondents named in the appeal are Miles Bwalya Sampa, Robert Chabinga and Morgan Ng’ona, who is sued in his capacity as Secretary General of the Patriotic Front.  

Nakachinda remains one of the central office bearers in the PF structure aligned to the now Makebi Zulu camp. He is currently in prison in Lusaka following convictions in separate matters, including a six-month sentence in which his use of the Bemba word “ubututu” was misconstrued for hate speech and an earlier 18-month sentence for defaming the President, based on a law that was repealed before the conviction was delivered. The prosecutions are widely understood to be politically motivated, but the fact on record is that he remains imprisoned while continuing to contest the PF matter through the courts.  

The appeal comes just over two weeks after Lusaka lawyer Makebi Zulu was declared the winner of the PF presidential race held on March 21, 2026, with 49.2 per cent of the vote, according to reports from the conference and subsequent statements from that camp. That development is politically important because it means the appeal is now not only about an internal past dispute, but also about the legal environment around the PF name, office bearers and leadership heading toward the 2026 general election.  

In the Memorandum of Appeal, Nakachinda argues that the trial court erred in law and in fact in holding that he had failed to prove his case despite evidence on record which, in his view, supported his claims. One of the central complaints in the appeal is that the lower court failed to properly evaluate admissions by the respondents, particularly the alleged admission by the first respondent that the meeting of October 24, 2023, did not constitute a General Conference.

Nakachinda is also challenging the High Court’s finding that the PF Central Committee had ceased to exist at the material time and that the members present did not constitute a Central Committee. His position is that the court disregarded provisions of the PF Constitution dealing with continuity of office, internal control mechanisms and the filling of vacancies.

Another major issue raised in the appeal concerns the interpretation of the PF Constitution on the convening of an Extraordinary General Conference. Nakachinda argues that the learned trial judge misapplied the relevant provisions and restricted the determination to Regulation 67 while excluding other applicable provisions. He further argues that the court wrongly held that the Constitution did not provide for circumstances where both the President and the Secretary General resign.

The appeal also challenges the authority of the first respondent to convene an Extraordinary General Conference. Nakachinda argues that the court failed to find that the first respondent lacked locus standi and authority to unilaterally call such a conference.

On the factual side, the appeal attacks the finding that an Extraordinary General Conference was held on October 24, 2023 and that it was properly constituted. Nakachinda argues that this finding was made without credible evidence, including proof of delegates or attendance registers, and that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on him despite admissions allegedly made by the first respondent.

The issues now before the Court of Appeal, therefore, go to the core of the PF dispute. They include whether the October 24, 2023, meeting was legally sufficient to amount to a General Conference or Extraordinary General Conference, whether it was lawfully convened, whether there was proper authority to call it, and whether there was adequate evidence before the High Court to support the conclusions reached.

Politically, the appeal keeps the PF leadership contest alive in the courts and complicates any attempt by rival actors to create certainty around the PF name and structure before the ballot. At the very least, it preserves a live legal challenge over legitimacy and reduces the room for Miles Sampa or any other claimant to rely on the March 27 judgment as the final word in a matter that remains contested.