Zambia's ADR Revolution: Legislative Changes & Expert Insights

Zambia is experiencing a period of measured but significant development in its Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) landscape, driven by legislative review, judicial policy initiatives, and growing institutional capacity. While the country’s ADR framework is not yet fully transformed, these developments signal a clear policy direction towards strengthening arbitration and mediation as credible, efficient complements to conventional court processes for commercial, labour, and civil disputes.

Legislative Review and Policy Direction

Central to this evolution is the work of the Zambia Law Development Commission, which has been engaged in consultations and technical review concerning the modernization of Zambia’s ADR framework. These efforts are aimed at addressing long-recognised limitations within the Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2000, including gaps relating to mediation, practitioner standards, and procedural clarity.

The Commission’s ongoing work includes consideration of a consolidated ADR statute that would bring arbitration and mediation under a coherent legislative framework. While this process remains consultative and subject to Cabinet and Parliamentary processes, the direction of reform reflects an intention to align Zambia’s ADR regime more closely with internationally accepted principles, including party autonomy, procedural flexibility, and greater clarity around professional conduct in ADR practice.

Importantly, these proposed reforms are best understood as work in progress, rather than settled law. Their eventual impact will depend not only on legislative drafting but also on judicial interpretation and institutional implementation.

Judicial Endorsement and Capacity Building

Alongside legislative review, the Judiciary of Zambia has taken deliberate steps to promote the use of ADR within the justice system. Court congestion and case backlogs have increasingly prompted judicial policy to favour negotiated and facilitated dispute resolution where appropriate.

This policy direction is underpinned by the introduction of court-annexed mediation through Statutory Instruments No. 72 and 73 of 2018, which formally embedded mediation processes within the High Court and Subordinate Courts. These instruments enable parties to engage accredited mediators with a view to achieving amicable settlements under judicial supervision.

In support of this framework, the Judiciary has undertaken structured ADR sensitisation and training programmes for judicial officers, aimed at strengthening familiarity with mediation techniques and encouraging their effective deployment within court processes. While training alone cannot resolve systemic capacity constraints, it reflects an institutional commitment to embedding ADR as a practical dispute-management tool rather than a purely theoretical alternative.

Institutional Foundations and Professional Support

Zambia’s ADR framework continues to be supported by a growing institutional ecosystem. The Lusaka International Arbitration Centre (LIAC) plays a central role in administering arbitral proceedings, appointing tribunals, and promoting best practice in commercial arbitration. In parallel, professional bodies such as the CIArb Zambia Branch contribute to the development of practitioner capacity through training, accreditation, and ethical guidance.

Sector-specific ADR mechanisms also remain relevant. The Industrial and Labour Relations Act provides for conciliation and arbitration in employment disputes, reflecting the long-standing recognition of ADR as a practical tool in labour relations.

Collectively, these institutions provide an essential foundation for the gradual professionalisation and normalisation of ADR practice in Zambia, even as broader legislative reform remains ongoing.

Government Practice and Commercial Contracting

There is also increasing openness within government contracting practice and state-linked commercial activity to the inclusion of arbitration and mediation clauses. While no uniform government-wide directive mandates ADR clauses across all public contracts, there is a discernible trend towards greater acceptance of arbitration as a means of managing commercial risk, particularly in complex or high-value transactions.

This shift reflects pragmatic recognition of the limits of litigation in resolving commercial disputes efficiently, rather than a wholesale policy transformation. Its sustainability will depend on consistent enforcement, judicial support, and continued confidence in arbitral institutions.

Expertise Within a Developing ADR Environment

Against this evolving backdrop, Anne Desiree Armanda Theotis brings substantial experience and insight to the practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution at TMLP. Her professional work reflects close engagement with Zambia’s developing ADR framework, including arbitration practice, court-annexed mediation, and alignment with international arbitration standards.

Her familiarity with the direction of legislative reform, combined with practical exposure to institutional and judicial ADR mechanisms, enables her to advise clients realistically on both the opportunities and limitations of ADR in Zambia. This includes guiding commercial parties, public institutions, and individuals through dispute-resolution strategies that balance efficiency, cost control, and procedural integrity.

Professional Contribution and Forward Outlook

Armanda Theotis’s career reflects sustained involvement in the advancement of ADR practice, including capacity-building initiatives and professional engagement across the sector. Her approach emphasises not only dispute resolution outcomes, but also risk mitigation, procedural fairness, and the strategic use of ADR mechanisms in environments where litigation delay and uncertainty remain material considerations.

As Zambia continues to refine its ADR framework through legislative review, judicial practice, and institutional development, informed and pragmatic expertise will remain critical. The effective use of ADR will depend less on formal reform alone, and more on how emerging standards are applied in practice.

Conclusion

Zambia’s ADR framework is best characterised as evolving rather than complete. Legislative review, judicial endorsement, and institutional capacity-building collectively point towards a more robust dispute-resolution environment, even as practical challenges remain.

Within this context, the growing emphasis on ADR represents a meaningful shift in how disputes are managed, offering parties greater flexibility and efficiency where appropriately applied. The contribution of experienced practitioners such as Anne Desiree Armanda Theotis lies in helping clients navigate this transition with clarity, realism, and strategic foresight.