Two Worlds of President Hichilema: Will Zambians Resist Another Constitutional Manipulation?

By Kapya Kaoma

If one follows President Hakainde Hichilema closely, it is evident that he inhabits two worlds: one known to the average Zambian and another that exists solely in his mind. In the former, nearly everyone chants, “Bally has destroyed it! Bally has destroyed it!” However, in his own world, he hears a different slogan: “Bally fixed it! Bally fixed it!”

My daughter reminds me that Donald Trump is a strategic thinker, fully aware of his every move. I believe the same can be said for Hichilema. How else can one explain his fixation on constitutional amendments if not in anticipation of the looming 2026 elections?

President Hichilema is acutely aware of his dwindling reputation; each passing day presents a battle against a tide of insults. Even his pets seem to mock him–they are now ashamed to be associated with him. The idea that he considers himself the most beloved president in Zambian history indicates a terrible disconnect from reality. It is implausible to believe that he thinks he can win fairly in 2026. I suspect he even questions the sanity of his supporters who think so.

As the days count down to 2026, fear consumes him daily. The only apparent way out is to move the goalposts to create an opening for victory. The challenge? The people are the goalkeepers, and Hichilema must find a way past them. But will he emerge victorious?

“Imingalato” has become Hichilema’s tactic, but he must take the final shot—changing the Constitution. This is his only path to securing power. The Constitution itself isn’t the issue; it’s that it no longer serves his interests.

This reality is unsettling, especially considering that Mr. Hichilema has already undermined the integrity of the Constitutional Court when it did not align with his agenda. He dismissed judges and installed loyalists to prevent former President Edgar Lungu from contesting the 2026 election.

Recognizing his misstep, Hichilema is now seeking to grant himself a last-minute penalty—amending the Constitution. Ironically, he claims that the Zambian people mandated this penalty, yet he is the only player on the field. He wants to be the shooter, the goalkeeper, the referee, and the linesman all at once. Will it work?

To be clear, the amendments seek to accomplish the following:

First, eliminate the 50% plus one requirement: Hichilema knows that achieving more than 50% of the votes is unlikely. A simple majority is all he needs, especially with multiple parties expected to contest. If he retains the 50% plus one clause, he risks returning to prison, as smaller parties are unlikely to form alliances with him to meet that threshold.

Second, increase the number of MPs and grant them the power to elect the president. Drawing inspiration from parliamentary systems in the UK, South Africa, and Botswana, Hichilema aims to ensure that the party with the most MPs forms the government. His administration could create new constituencies in UPND strongholds, diluting the influence of the PF and paving the way for a safer route to a second term.

Finally, amend the rules regarding by-elections for MPs switching parties. Mr. Hichilema understands that merely increasing the number of MPs and winning with a simple majority won’t resolve all his problems. If he achieves the presidency but the opposition outnumbers his party in Parliament, he risks removal from office through impeachment. Protecting his administration means finding ways to retain opposition MPs through incentives, as those who resign often do not reclaim their seats.

Despite the misinformation circulating, the amendments are solely about securing Mr. Hichilema’s personal interests. It is, therefore, a fallacy to assert that the Zambian people have empowered the UPND to amend the Constitution. History has shown that Zambian presidents have manipulated the Constitution to cling to power. Hichilema’s barring of Lungu illustrates this troubling trend, and he is now testing the waters once again.

The pressing question is whether Zambians will allow this to happen once more. We’ve seen this scenario before, notably during the Kaunda regime when the Constitution was amended to bar Nkumbula and Kapwepwe from challenging President Kaunda. We witnessed it in 1996 when Frederick Chiluba succeeded in amending the Constitution to prevent KK from running against him, only to face resistance from his own ranks in 2001 when he attempted to change the Constitution to seek a third term. Notable figures like Godfrey Miyanda, Edith Nawakwi, and Michael Sata stood firm against Chiluba’s power grab.

Will the UPND and its members join the Zambian people in defending our hard-won democracy from President Hichilema? Kaya!