Previous 18 / 18 Next

all stations. (b) Ensure that all polling booths are located on the ground floors of premises used as stations and in places accessible to persons with disabilities. (c) Provide a tactile ballot guide for voters who are blind or are partially sighted but do not wish to be assisted in casting their secret vote in respect of all elections and not just the Presidential elections. In arriving at the said directive as it relates to (a) and (b) above, I am alive to the fact that the buildings used by the Respondent to house the stations do not belong to it. But I am of the considered view that the measures are realistic because, firstly the ramps that the Petitioner has insisted on are temporary ramps which will have no effect on the structure of the buildings. Secondly as relates to location of the polling booths, the Respondent should specifically direct its agents to identify buildings located on the ground floor, which directive it has hitherto omitted to give to such agents. In relation to remedy 28(vi) I order that by the next elections, that is, not the forth coming elections but the next, the Respondent should formulate and issue a detailed plan and budget aimed at providing services and amenities aimed at ensuring equal participation by persons with disabilities in the electoral process. As regards remedy 28(v) for the special vote, the same fails for the reasons I have stated in the earlier part of this judgment. The foregoing orders are made pursuant to the power vested in this Court by Article 28(i) of the Constitution to "" make such order, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for purpose of enforcing, or securing the enforcement of, any of the provisions of Articles 11 to 26 inclusive.". The fact that the Respondent is an autonomous body does not make it immune to such orders and neither do such orders have the effect of usurping the Respondent's powers. The argument by counsel for Respondent to this effect is therefore untenable and I accordingly dismiss it. Further, the fact that the Respondent is autonomus simply confirms the fact that it is within its means to implement the directions I have given above. As regards the costs, in view of the constitutional nature of the issues raised and the eventual outcome of the matter, I am inclined to order that the parties will bear their respective cost. I accordingly so order. Leave to appeal is granted. th Delivered on the 19 day of September, 2011. Nigel K. Mutuna HIGH COURT JUDGE

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Brotherton N.O. v. Electoral Commission of Zambia

Judgment

Question Presented: Did the Electoral Commission of Zambia violate the fundamental voting rights of disabled voters by failing to provide adequate facilites?

Alleged Acts: Sela Brotherton, suing in her capacity as Secretary of the Zambia Federation of Disability Organisations, filed a petition against the Electoral Commission of Zambia ("the Commission" or "ECZ") alleging systemic discrimination against persons with disabilities in Zambia's electoral process. The dispute arose from the Commission's alleged failure to ensure equitable participation by persons with disabilities in elections. Specifically, the petition alleged The services offered by the Commission at registration and polling stations in selected constituencies across Zambia were not accessible to persons with disabilities. This included a failure to provide ramps for wheelchair users, ground-floor polling booths, and physically accessible buildings. She also alleged inadequate secret ballot facilities for blind voters and a failure to provide special voting procedures.

Procedural history: The case was filed as a petition before the High Court of Zambia at the Principal Registry under case number HP 818 of 2011.

Summary: This case is considered a landmark judgment in African disability rights jurisprudence. It was the first Zambian case to directly adjudicate the electoral rights of persons with disabilities, and the High Court's far-reaching pronouncements acknowledged that persons with disabilities had been discriminated against "on the basis of their disability, from participating in the political and public life because the electoral process did not meet the benchmarks of inclusivity and accessibility." The judgment affirmed that "inclusive elections" require specific structural accommodations — temporary ramps, ground-floor polling booths, and tactile ballot guides — and that the failure to provide them is not merely an administrative oversight but a form of unlawful discrimination under the Zambian Constitution.

Conclusion: The Commission unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner and persons with disabilities by failing to provide accessible polling stations and services, in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act. The Court held that disadvantaging circumstances — including the lack of ramps, accessible buildings, and tactile ballot guides — constituted a form of discrimination, since any action treating "a person with a disability less favourably from a person without a disability" is discrimination under Zambian law.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Elections as a Fundamental Right
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Zambian Constitution, Electoral Act, and Persons with Disabilities Act

Region: Africa

Country: Zambia

Language of Decision

English

Court: High Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Sep 18, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: -15.4192129

Longitude: 28.3063421

: Geolocation

Link: https://sheriahub.com/cases/zm/caselaw/brotherton-no-v-electoral-commission-of-zambia-hp-818-of-2011-2011-zmhc-32-18-september-2011.pdf

Primary Documents

Brotherton N.O. v. Electoral Commission of Zambia.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Brotherton N.O. v. Electoral Commission of Zambia

Primary Documents

Notifications