Cult of Liars: Nevers Mumba and the Blind Side of HH’s Ammendments

By Kapya Kaoma

I rarely pay attention to Pastor Nevers Mumba’s rants, but upon reviewing his job application to President Hichilema regarding constitutional amendments, I found myself thinking, “Not again. What happened to his decency?” Shortly after, I encountered another Facebook post from Ambassador Elias Munshya, the Zambian High Commissioner to Australia, which also argued for the urgent need to amend the Constitution. It appears that Hichilema has awakened these previously blind “men of God” to the significance of this matter. Like Jesus, with just a word of command, almighty Bally miraculously opened their eyes. Sadly, they still can’t see clearly. To impress their “king of lies,” they are dancing and shouting, “We can see! We can see!” Good effort, blind colleagues!

Is their inability to see the broader implications of the proposed amendment to increase the number of nominated Members of Parliament (MPs) deliberate? The truth is, Bally never opened their eyes—like him, they are now gifted liars too.

Is it not President Hichilema and his MPs who advocated for, and proudly voted for, the reduction of nominated MPs when they were in opposition? So, what has changed? The pursuit of power? Not necessarily. The looming specter of defeat in 2026? Perhaps. A strategic maneuver? Definitely.

Contrary to the belief held by some that the UPND is likely to lose MPs yet still win the presidency, my perspective is a bit different. I share the opposition’s concern that Hichilema intends to use this amendment to secure a majority should he lose MPs in the general elections. However, this scenario presupposes that Hichilema will win the presidency. Based on this assumption, the opposition should explore alternative strategies.

It is plausible that President Hichilema will encourage his MPs from the Copperbelt and Lusaka to publicly dissociate from him on various issues, including the amendments. These UPND MPs may insist on being adopted to contest elections under opposition tickets. Should the opposition reject their demands, they may defect back to the UPND, creating turmoil within the opposition ranks. Such individuals could subsequently be nominated as MPs by Hichilema.

Another potential scenario involves these MPs opting to join the opposition and running as independent candidates if they are not adopted. Given their likely access to significant funding, they could attract a substantial number of supporters. Importantly, their aim would not be to win the election, rather to fragment the vote in favor of the UPND. Once again, these individuals would be strong candidates for nominations.

The final scenario could involve using opposition candidates as instruments of destabilization both before and after the adoption process. Hichilema is well aware of the dangers posed by a unified opposition and will exploit all available resources to infiltrate it. Nevers Mumba, Miles Sampa, and Frank Bwalya are nothing—worse is yet to come. Those who aren’t adopted will be encouraged to run as independents; the objective will not be to win but to siphon votes from the opposition, thus benefiting Hichilema’s candidates. As in previous scenarios, those who comply with this strategy will be rewarded with nominations.

To be fair to my blind friends, there is nothing urgent about this amendment aside from helping HH survive the 2026 battle. I also understand the urgency of being a political appointee–for wants to be unemployed?

There is only one urgent matter we should be discussing: eliminating the entire article of nominated MPs. The president has numerous positions to appoint; it is time to allocate resources toward priorities that truly matter—currently, political appointees simply waste taxpayer money!

As a nation, we must take our fiscal responsibility seriously. This issue extends beyond MPs to include the welfare of our citizens as a whole. Politics is not peopleless—citizens matter. We do not require an increase in the number of MPs; rather, we need a functional government capable of delivering tangible benefits for the citizens. Simply increasing the number of MPs isn’t developmental unless we put mechanisms in place to hold them accountable for neglecting their constituencies. Is it not time to consider amendments that would allow for the recall of MPs who do not honor their campaign promises? Should this not take precedence over the addition of more ineffective parliamentarians?

In addition, how many Zambians know the full cost of one parliamentary office? It is one thing to sing about the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), but another to quantify how much it costs to maintain one MP! Basic education on this issue would help citizens make informed decisions on whether we should be “enlarging” parliament at this time. Our discussions should focus on answering one big question: can we afford a bigger parliament?

I find it hard to believe that President Hichilema claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet his spending patterns suggest otherwise. If we aspire to sustainability, we must cut spending on parliament. Retaining the number of nominated MPs at ten, as stipulated in the Constitution, is not only a constitutional issue but also a moral imperative—especially at a time when the masses are struggling to make ends meet! We should not continue borrowing to pay politicians—every Kwacha counts.