By Mutheliso Phiri
I have observed with interest and strongly disagreed with those saying the tenure of the current Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) Executive Committee ended on 28 February 2025.
In my previous article, I called for harmonisation of the FAZ electoral cycle based on Andrew Kamanga’s tenure. However, I have had a closer examination of the FAZ elections since 2020 which strengthens my argument.
The current FAZ National Executive Committee came into office on the back of a staggered electoral process, the first part in March 2020 and the second part which completed the process was held in February 2021.
Unlike a typical election where all executive members are voted in on the same day, the FAZ electoral process is staggered due to the provincial elections that take place at different times.
Seven provincial elections had already been held when the process was halted via a court injunction in March 2020. That meant that elections in three Provincial Associations and those for the president, vice-president and women’s representative had to be delayed.
A look at the composition of the current FAZ Executive Committee confirms the following as having been elected in March 2020:
Eastern Province – Chrispin Kamuna
Western Province – David Simwinga
North Western Province – Arthur Kamulosu
Northern Province – Mwansa Kapyanga
Luapula Province – Mujala Mweemba
Muchinga Province – Collins Mukwala
Copperbelt Province – Patrick Ndhlovu
A year later, in February 2021, the following officials were elected:
Lusaka Province – Jordan Maliti
Southern Province – Francis Hafwiti
Central Province – Chisanga Pule
FAZ President – Andrew Kamanga
Vice President – Justin Mumba
Women’s Representative – Col. Priscilla Katoba
The fact that members of the current FAZ National Executive Committee were elected on different dates naturally means their tenure should not expire uniformly. Some members were elected in 2020, while others came into office in 2021.
The FAZ statutes define a four-year term for each elected official, meaning their tenure is counted from the date of their respective elections.
Those saying the end of tenure should be 28 February 2025 have by choice, reason or intentionally so, ignored this fundamental point.
For example, those elected in March 2020 would have completed their term in March 2024, while those elected in February 2021 would be expected to serve until February 2025. Why was this overlooked and why is it not being questioned today?
This is why I say the claim that the tenure of the entire FAZ Executive Committee ended on 28 February 2025 is misleading and does not align with the staggered nature of FAZ elections.
I am calling on all stakeholders to recognize the current realities within the FAZ and base arguments on facts rather than any legal assumptions, no matter how sound they might be.
Instead of fueling unnecessary disputes, efforts should be directed towards harmonising the electoral cycle to hold in a single month in a particular year.
It would seem that current disputes and calls for respect of the FAZ Constitution are centred on elections involving the FAZ president and ignore any realities and flaws that could have occurred due to the staggered electoral process.
This is why I believe that the argument that the current FAZ executive leadership would have extended their stay in office by a month does not hold any water.
Under the circumstances, the FAZ leadership should be left to operate without undue interference from the government as they conduct elections in a manner that will harmonise the electoral cycle.
