Monday, November 25, 2024
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 19

In Defense of the Rule of Law: UPND Perspective on Edgar Lungu’s Desperate Fight for Power

Lusaka Times Editor
-
26
In Defense of the Rule of Law: UPND Perspective on Edgar Lungu’s Desperate Fight for Power

In Defense of the Rule of Law: UPND Perspective on Edgar Lungu’s Desperate Fight for Power

As Zambia continues to witness the unfolding courtroom drama surrounding former President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility case, it is becoming increasingly clear that this legal battle is not just about constitutional interpretations it’s about the desperation of a man who refuses to let go of power. Lungu’s camp, led by lawyer Makebi Zulu, has taken every opportunity to question the credibility of the Constitutional Court, even going as far as to accuse three judges of bias. This is nothing but a frantic attempt to cling to relevance, and as UPND supporters, we must stand firm in defense of democracy and the rule of law.

Edgar Lungu’s attempt to challenge the impartiality of respected judges like Constitutional Court President Margaret Munalula and others is a blatant distraction from the real issue at hand: Lungu’s constitutional eligibility. His legal maneuvering reeks of desperation, and many Zambians, including outspoken figures like Simon Mwewa Lane from SMLtv, have not been shy to call it out. In one of his most recent videos, Simon Mwewa aptly stated, “Ba Lungu is engaged in a losing battle… it’s arrogant of him to think he’s running the show.” Mwewa’s words echo the sentiments of a growing number of Zambians who believe Lungu’s time has passed.

The Courts are the Custodians of Justice

It is important to remember that Lungu is not the victim here. He had his time in office, and the Zambian people spoke loud and clear in the 2021 elections. The suggestion by Lungu’s legal team, bolstered by constitutional lawyer John Sangwa, that nullifying his candidacy would invalidate the entire election is simply misleading. As Simon Mwewa pointed out on his platform, “ECL was not the only candidate in the 2021 Elections, so it’s inaccurate to imply that ba Lungu’s participation was the single determining factor in the outcome of those elections.” This is an important point that many in the UPND, as well as the general public, need to recognize.

John Sangwa, though respected, is not infallible. As Mwewa further states, “JOHN SANGWA IS NOT THE BASTION OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS COUNTRY.” While his legal expertise is valuable, it doesn’t override the voices of millions of Zambians who participated in a democratic process. President Hakainde Hichilema was elected not because of Lungu’s supposed disqualification, but because the people wanted change. The attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the 2021 elections is nothing but a smokescreen for Lungu’s failure to accept the will of the people.

The First Two Years: Why Lungu’s Eligibility Was Already Settled

One of the key issues being raised in the current case is whether Edgar Lungu, having been sworn in twice, is constitutionally barred from running again. The UPND position is clear: Lungu has already served two terms, and the Constitution is unequivocal on this matter. Article 106(3) of the Zambian Constitution explicitly states: “A person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President.”

While Lungu and his legal team have attempted to argue that his first two years in office (from 2015 to 2016) should be disregarded because it was part of completing the late President Michael Sata’s term, the Constitution provides a definitive answer. Article 106(6) of the Constitution clarifies that if a President serves for less than three years of another President’s term, it is not counted as a full term. However, it is essential to understand that this provision was designed for unusual circumstances, and Lungu’s subsequent election and service from 2016 to 2021 clearly constitutes a full term.

The Constitutional Court already settled this issue when it ruled in 2018 that Lungu was eligible to run in 2021, but this does not change the fact that he has now served two terms. As Simon Mwewa pointed out in his recent commentary, “The truth is, the man was elected TWICE AND HE SERVED TWICE.” This means that any further attempts by Lungu to challenge this in court are merely desperate efforts to circumvent the will of the people and the clear constitutional provisions.

The Real Agenda: Lungu’s Desperation for Power

Lungu’s latest legal assault is not only a legal battle—it’s a last-ditch effort to paint himself as a martyr while diverting attention from his own political blunders. His conduct, especially in the final months of his presidency, was far from exemplary. Simon Mwewa didn’t mince words when he said, “ECL is so desperate for power that he has now become careless with his words.” This desperation was evident in the infamous “Hatemboland” scandal, where Lungu, Edith Nawakwi, and Chilufya Tayali allegedly concocted a baseless story to frame President Hichilema. As Mwewa reminded us, “ECL, EDITH NAWAKWI & CHILUFYA TAYALI tried to cook up a ‘Hatemboland story’ that would have landed HH in PRISON but the story had no merit… and yet today ba Lungu is acting like an Angel.”

These words should serve as a wake-up call to Zambians. Lungu’s legal antics are part of a larger strategy to undermine the current administration and cast himself as a wronged figure fighting for justice. In reality, it’s nothing more than a desperate power grab, an attempt to muddy the waters and create uncertainty about the legitimacy of President Hichilema’s administration.

Visit Simon Mwewa’s Facebook for More Insights

Simon Mwewa Lane TV has been a consistent voice in calling out the former president’s questionable tactics. For those looking for a balanced and insightful take on this ongoing issue, I encourage you to visit his Facebook page, where he regularly shares his thoughts and videos that have sparked nationwide discussions. Mwewa’s commentary resonates with many Zambians who are tired of Lungu’s political games and who want to see the country move forward.

The Bigger Picture: Protecting Zambia’s Democracy

Ultimately, the Zambian people must not be misled by Lungu’s courtroom drama. The country’s democracy is far bigger than one man’s ambitions, and the 2021 elections were a clear expression of the people’s will. Lungu’s attempt to delegitimize the entire process is an insult to the millions of Zambians who participated in those elections.

This legal battle isn’t just about Lungu’s eligibility; it’s about the future of Zambia’s democracy. The courts must be allowed to do their work without interference, and the people must remain vigilant in defending the democratic gains we’ve made. As UPND members, we are confident that the Constitutional Court will see through Lungu’s charade and uphold the rule of law.

Lungu has lost once before he will lose again, because truth and justice are on the side of the Zambian people.

by Malitus Hagwamu

Lungu Challenges Three Constitutional Court Judges Over Eligibility Case: Judicial Impartiality in the Crosshairs

Lusaka Times Editor
-
12
Lungu Challenges Three Constitutional Court Judges Over Eligibility Case: Judicial Impartiality in the Crosshairs

Lungu Challenges Three Constitutional Court Judges Over Eligibility Case: Judicial Impartiality in the Crosshairs

The legal battle over former President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility to run for office has taken a dramatic turn today, as court proceedings resumed with intense scrutiny on the fairness of the Constitutional Court itself. Lungu, through his legal team, has applied for the recusal of three of the seven judges presiding over his eligibility petition, accusing them of bias in a case that could reshape Zambia’s political landscape.

The three judges in question, Constitutional Court President Margaret Munalula, Vice President Arnold Shilimi, and Judge Maria Mapani-Kawimbe, now find themselves at the center of a contentious request for recusal, with Lungu’s camp raising serious concerns about their impartiality. This comes as youth activist Michelo Chizombe seeks a declaration that Lungu was not eligible to contest the 2021 general elections.

Allegations of Bias: Lungu’s Fight for Fairness

Lungu’s legal challenge to the court’s integrity is as bold as it is controversial. His lawyer, Makebi Zulu, was instructed by the court to formally submit the application for recusal before 13:00 today, with the case resuming at 14:00. The crux of Lungu’s argument rests on accusations that the three judges have a direct or indirect bias that renders them unfit to preside over the case.

Judge Munalula, Lungu argues, has a conflict of interest as she previously participated in a 2016 case regarding his eligibility. This, Lungu claims, links her too closely to the matter at hand, especially given her involvement in a ruling perceived to favor current President Hakainde Hichilema. “This creates a perception that she is there to serve the interest of President Hichilema,” Lungu stated, highlighting the implications of her continued role in this case.

The accusations against Judge Shilimi are even more personal. Lungu alleges that Shilimi has close ties to Hichilema, having previously held key roles in businesses in which the President has interests. According to Lungu, Shilimi’s failure to declare these connections raises severe questions about his ability to remain neutral. “This is a person who was secretary/director in companies that the current President had and has an interest in,” Lungu stressed.

Finally, Lungu has targeted Judge Maria Mapani Kawimbe, citing her family connection to Victor Mapani, Managing Director of ZESCO, a government-linked entity. Lungu contends that this familial relationship undermines her impartiality. “She is a close family relation to Mr. Victor Mapani currently the Managing Director at ZESCO,” he noted, suggesting that her loyalty to Hichilema is inevitable.

Lungu has not only raised these concerns in court but has also lodged an official complaint with the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC), accusing the judges of gross misconduct and violations of the judicial Code of Conduct. “The actions of the judges are in breach of the Code of Conduct and amount to gross misconduct which the law does not permit,” he wrote in his complaint.

Constitutional Ramifications: The Looming Threat of Electoral Nullification

But today’s court session isn’t just about the recusal of three judges. Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa, who was joined to the case yesterday as a “friend of the court,” has introduced a legal bombshell that could have far-reaching consequences for Zambia’s democracy. Sangwa warned that if the court rules Lungu was not eligible to contest the 2021 election, the result could be catastrophic for Zambia’s political stability.

In a blistering submission, Sangwa argued that should the court find Lungu ineligible, it would necessarily mean the 2021 election was unconstitutional and should be nullified. “If an unqualified person took part in an election, that election is tainted and must be nullified,” Sangwa stated. He explained that Article 52 of the Constitution mandates that only qualified candidates are permitted to participate in a presidential election.

Sangwa didn’t stop there. He contended that such a ruling would not just affect Lungu but would call into question the entire 2021 election, including the legitimacy of President Hichilema’s victory. “A decision of this court in favor of the petitioner will affect not only the First Respondent but all those who took part in the presidential election of 2021,” Sangwa declared, making it clear that a ruling against Lungu could destabilize the presidency itself.

In essence, Sangwa warned, the court could be forced to nullify the election entirely, leading to political chaos and uncertainty. “This court cannot hear this petition and give the petitioner the relief sought without equally impugning the validity of the 2021 presidential election,” he added.

What’s at Stake? A Nation in the Balance

The implications of the ongoing legal battle are monumental. At its heart, this case is about more than just Edgar Lungu’s political future,it’s about the integrity of Zambia’s electoral system and the stability of its democracy. If the court rules that Lungu’s participation in the 2021 election was unconstitutional, the 2021 election itself could be voided, throwing the country into uncharted territory.

The ramifications would be profound. President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration, which has governed Zambia since August 2021, could face questions about its legitimacy. Meanwhile, Lungu’s Patriotic Front (PF), which has continued to challenge Hichilema’s government, could seize on a ruling to call for a fresh election, further polarizing an already divided electorate.

Moreover, the legal precedent set by this case could shape Zambia’s electoral process for decades to come. If the court sides with the petitioner, it would signal that the Constitutional Court is willing to scrutinize even the highest office in the land. Conversely, if the court dismisses the petition, it could be seen as a victory for judicial restraint but might leave lingering questions about transparency and fairness in Zambia’s political arena.

The Court in Session: A Nation Holds Its Breath

As of this afternoon, court proceedings are in session, with both sides preparing to make their final arguments. Lungu’s legal team will seek to convince the court of the bias and conflict of interest among the three judges, while Chizombe’s team and Sangwa will push the court to address the broader constitutional questions surrounding Lungu’s eligibility.

The stakes could not be higher. Zambia’s judiciary is now under the microscope, facing one of its most consequential rulings in recent history. The outcome could either affirm Zambia’s democratic institutions or plunge the country into political turmoil. Either way, this case will be remembered as a defining moment in Zambia’s constitutional history.

As the nation waits with bated breath, all eyes are on the Constitutional Court. What happens next will have a ripple effect across Zambia’s political and legal landscape—and the consequences will be felt for years to come.

LT

Cabinet Approves 2025 National Budget and Key Policy Measures

Chief Editor
-
12
Cabinet Approves 2025 National Budget and Key Policy Measures

In a special two-day session held on 19th and 20th September 2024, President Hakainde Hichilema convened the 17th Cabinet Meeting of the year at State House to deliberate on critical issues, including the Draft 2025 National Budget. The meeting resulted in key decisions aimed at bolstering economic growth, addressing local copper market challenges, and intensifying the fight against corruption.This is according to a press release issued by Hon. Cornelius Mweetwa, MP,Minister of Information and Media and Chief Government Spokesperson

1. Approval of the 2025 National Budget

One of the major outcomes of the meeting was the approval of the 2025 National Budget. The Cabinet endorsed the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the upcoming year, aligning them with Zambia’s medium-term strategic goals as outlined in the 2025-2027 Medium Term Budget Plan. The budget incorporates input from various stakeholders across different sectors of society and considers the country’s current economic challenges, including drought conditions and the resumption of external debt payments.

The 2025 Budget aims to stimulate economic growth through key revenue and expenditure measures. The Minister of Finance and National Planning is expected to present the finalized budget to the National Assembly on Friday, 27th September 2024, in line with Article 202 (1) of the Zambian Constitution.

2. Suspension of Customs Duty on Copper Cathodes

In an effort to support local copper processors, the Cabinet approved the Customs Duty and Excise (Suspension) (Duty) (Copper Cathodes) Regulations, 2024. This decision suspends customs duties and surtax on copper cathode imports, enabling local processors to purchase copper at prices lower than the London Metal Exchange (LME) rate, which is typically inflated by additional costs like inland transportation and security charges. The move is expected to enhance competitiveness for local copper processors and contribute to the broader economic growth agenda.

3. Amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act

In a major step toward strengthening Zambia’s anti-corruption framework, the Cabinet approved, in principle, amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. The proposed changes will align the Act with the National Policy on Anti-Corruption and the Zambian Constitution, enhancing the operational capacity of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The amendments aim to address several shortcomings in the current law by introducing stricter penalties, improving prevention measures, and enhancing investigative and enforcement mechanisms. The goal is to bolster transparency and accountability across both public and private sectors, contributing to effective public finance management—a critical pillar of the government’s economic transformation agenda.

The amendments will be tabled in Parliament as part of a broader initiative to promote good corporate governance and ensure that Zambia’s institutions are better equipped to tackle corruption.

Suspension of Judges came at wrong time – Chungu

Chief Editor
-
11
Suspension of Judges came at wrong time – Chungu

FORMER Government Chief Whip Steve Chungu says the suspension of three Constitutional judges has come being done at a wrong time by President Hakainde Hichilema.

Mr Chungu said soon in the next 15 to 16 months Zambia’s Parliament would be going into dissolution and election would be called.

” The timing is wrong in the first place in the next 15 ,16 months there would be dissolution of Parliament and elections would called and if we were to turn the cost into the institutions that will be deciding on who should be the president of this country or who should not be a, candidate it is quite unfortunate because I am of the view that all these things should be left to the people of Zambia,” He said

Mr Chungu said , the former Head of State , Edgar Lungu has the fundamental rights to contest for the top most job in the country.

He said the democratic space in Zambia has continued to shrink in the country under the New Dawn Administration.

He said Zambia is no longer a democratic county saying that rights of people have been taken away under the UPND regime.

Mr Chungu appealed to the UPND Government to practice the law of rule that they practice people of Zambia when in opposition.

” The voters card can not be intimidated, let them go back to the drawing board, and do what they promised the people of Zambia” he said.

He further said that the one year that the UPND has before the general elections should be utilised in addressing various challenges that the people of Zambia are currently facing.

Mr Chungu who is also a former Luanshya Member of Parliament said making people work for food is not a solution.
“The cost of living is just too high it is unfordable by more than 90 ,96 percent it is out of reach, let them concentrate on finding solutions to the problems people are facing,” he said.

He said the money that Government is paying people ( Cash for Work) after work is free, adding that Zambia has become a laughing stock by countries that donated the money for the program.

The Economy Grew by 5.3 per cent in the Last Three Years: What it Means When Economy Grows by 5.3%.

Chief Editor
-
4
The Economy Grew by 5.3 per cent in the Last Three Years: What it Means When Economy Grows by 5.3%.

By Melicious Chongo

“the economy grew by 5.3 per cent in the last 3 years…” Hichilema made this claim at the official opening of the 4th session of the 13th National Assembly on Sept. 13, 2024.

I don’t have to be an economist to offer an intelligent analysis on some of these economic issues. My being a Zambian citizen, who experiences first hand whatever takes on Zambian soils, is sufficiently enough itself.
Obviously, the questions are, was HH accurate with his statistics? Why did HH make that apparently bold claim? What macro/micro metrix was he using? What were his objectives in making such bold claim? What does it really mean when any country experiences growth at such a rate during any period?

In what follows below, I try to tease out this bold claim. I was a little skeptical when I heard HH quote that figure!
You see, for many of us, as Martin Luther King Jr put it, ‘the soft, sentimental, nostalgic part of us would so easily like to bask in the Sun of vague economic growth, forgetting the horror of harsh economic realities…’
In the comforts and complacency that power brings, we would like to forget the agonizing pain and anguish suffered and endured by the majority in these horrifying harsh economic realities.
I refuse to think and accept that HH was accurate with that economic growth rate he gave. Let me support, also my bold claim, by beginning with the last question above: What does it really mean when the economy of any nation is said to grow at that rate during any period of time?
First, a period of three years is, for me, quite enough already for the growth to begin to trickle down to the life of the people in society, from the smallest of the vulnerable to the least vulnerable. It is enough to begin to effect fundamental, real and practical change in the lives of the people.
Second but related to the first, is that even the constitution itself to have mandated only a five year term of office for any administration, the assumption is that that administration would have achieved its mandate to govern at the pleasure and satisfaction of the masses, effectively and lastingly changing their lives for better in that five year term.

Otherwise, any administration that wants to extend its stay in power on the basis of its period in power and not on the basis of transforming lives for which that power (or indeed governance/leadership) was meant, then it’s a rogue leadership, and not worthy of the people’s vote again!

The UPND administration has already literally done its five year constitutional mandate.
Third is the figure 5.3% itself. 5.3 per cent growth of any economy at any given time is quite some growth for true lasting chandes to begin to be experienced in the lives of the objective of that growth – the masses themselves.
Growing the economy is not an end in itself. It is for the people, by the people, to the peolpe, and meant for them. Otherwise it is vague growth, merely a figure meant for rhetoric!
Drawing on the growth model of Amartya Sen, every economic growth should ultimately translate into these three things: Sustenance, Freedoms of the masses and Worthiness of life (that is, quality of life, dignity or value).
I wrote extensively on Amartya Sen’s idea of economic growth in my article I did some time in 2022 titled ” Assessing HH’s Governance.” Suffice to simply ask here: Are the masses able to sustain themselves? To waht extent are their incomes able to sustain them?
It is even sad to think about it, but truth be told, people in many homes today have even cut down their meals because their incomes can’t allow them so much! Food and shelter for the majority of the people have become a luxury they can only dream about, and not a basic need.

They cannot even buy certain food stuffs because of electricity. So, if indeed the economy has grown that much, how many formal employments can it create or indeed sustain? Has the individual income gap significantly closed during the last three years?
Regarding expanding of freedoms of the people, beyond just political freedom, how much can the masses do with their incomes? For example, just a vacation is very important in the life of an individual. But how many and who can actually afford such social amenities currently?
How free and flexible are our institutions in supporting the goals and aspirations of an ordinary Zambian? How free are Zambians more able to own serious businesses, mines, and industries etc today than three years ago? How many and who actually own the economy?
How many new Zambian business entrants into market have we seen in these last three years? How many old Zambian businesses have expanded into market the last three years? How many Zambian billionaires or millionaires has the economy actually produced the last three years?

Then about the dignity and worthiness of the masses, how have the people increased in their feelings of worthiness in the last three years? How more worthy or confident do people feel about themselves today than they felt perhaps 3/4 years ago?
This may be funny to state, but people are literally avoiding interactions today more than previously, for fear of being embarrassed – they are literally running away from visitors! The social media lifestyles we see is different from reality. So, can the masses, especially the smallest of society, really be said to be more proud of themsselves than they were three years ago?
Indeed, there is a lot that can be said. But this only serves to underscore a point that making such bold claims about the economy must be backed up by reality on the ground.
Economic growth must ultimately lead to improved living standards, equitably distributed resources and opportunities, improved and increased national income, with ultimately increased individual household incomes. Growth in one sector must ultimately trigger growth in other sectors. It must have knock-ons, not just dry, dead figures!

Reuben Mtolo, Agriculture Minister, underscored this point while speaking at a United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) Annual Executive Board on July 2 last year when he said, “Agriculture is a critical sector for economic development, poverty reduction and food and nutritional security.”
He couldn’t have said it any better than that. When there’s growth, say, in the agricultural sector, or indeed the mines, this growth should inevitably impact for example the social sector or the health sector, evidenced by by “reduced poverty levels, and improved food and nutritional security” respectively.
But one is only left to guess the meaning of the purported growth given high poverty and hunger levels in the country! How does one even begin to reconcile the 5.3% growth against the majority of masses threatened with hunger, poverty, and stunting?
My fourth point is historical. Contrasting HH’s 5.3% growth rate in three years with that of President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (LPM) Administration, it becomes extremely difficult to understand HH’s figures.
Dr. knox Chitiyo, then Head of Africa Programme, RUSI, noted in his article of August 22, 2008, that economic growth averaged 5 per cent during LPM’s Administration – and in 6 years! And it is was at this growth rate that actually saw Zambia with well controlled macroeconomic fundamentals – improved Kwacha., improved inflation, controlled unemployment, improved living standards etc, and positioned Zambia as a powerful economy both locally and regionally!

It must be emphasized here that this was in six years! Now, talking about a 5.3% growth of HH and his Administration, it is even quite ambitious, yet a contradiction when contrasted with reality on the ground!
In addition, the experience of the Asian Tigers is yet another reference point. These too grew their economies roughly at 7-8% growth rate. Though it may be argued that 5.3% is below 7 or 8 per cent, but it is not far below. The difference is neglibible!
Therefore, with these reasons, one can rightfully ask, but then is HH accurate with those figures? What or who is driving the growth? What metrices is he using? Growth for who? What is his objective?
The authors of “Economic Development” try to argue that ‘it is not enough and does not matter much the rate at which the economy grows, but the nature of that growth, the kind of incentives provided, the actors in the economy, how many and what kind of people participate in the economy, the quality of life of those people, what kind of institutions are created, etc also matters.

Based on my reasons above, I totally agree with Muhabi Lungu when he HH is not accurate with 5.3 per cent growth. But why would he be insincere with issues of such national importance?
HH may obviously be trying to speak to his geopolitical base, and appease his benefactors, local and abraod, especially considering that he may be in a campaign panic! It may be his desperate but futile attempt to guarantee himself of a vote by painting a rosy picture.
It may be a statistical manipulation, overlooking inequalities, unemployment, and poverty levels designed to create a savior image. Or if at all his figures are really accurate, then this is largely a debt-driven growth, which is a negative positive! Economists themselves say that growth, which is propelled by or financed through debts, may burden future generations and ultimately translates into nothing!
If we have really grown that much, but against such a backdrop of economic hardships, then it is highly likely that much of its benefits have all ended up in HH’s pockets and those of his friends!
Of course some macroeconomic fundamentals, such as poverty, inequalities, and unemployment, may take time to respond to economic growth. But then how was it still possible under LPM’s Administration, with a slightly lower growth rate than one we are being told here, and in 6 years!

Ours is not so much a problem of some macroeconomic indicators taking long to respond, as it is so much a problem of leadership vacuum. Our problem is one of historical, institutional, and systemic issues that continue to be deliberately ignored by greedy, selfish, corrupt and calculating leaders that hinder inclusive gowth!
It is fundamentally a problem of leaders who have historically and consistently advanced pro-corporate, pro-elite policies at the expense of pro-poor ones. And HH represents a crowning of pro-corporate, pro-elite champions in the history of the country!
They say inequalities do not auto or self correct. They demand strong selfless leaders to do so; they require effective policies and resolute implementation. And seen this way, growing inclusive economy can be much faster and easier!
Muhabi Lungu goes further and backs his argument with statistics at Ministry of Finance, which indicate the opposite of HH’s claim.
Therefore, HH is either being misled by his speech makers, or he is intentional and deliberate about twisting figures; but both, his speech makers and himself, are dangerous!
He must apologize to the public for making a mockery of the people with those figures!

Zambia’s Weather Being Affected By La Nina

Chief Editor
-
18
Zambia’s Weather Being Affected By La Nina

Central Province Meteorological Officer, Chongo Tembo, says Zambia is currently being affected by a weather condition known as La Niña, which is causing significant temperature variations across the region.
Mr Tembo notes that the province and the country at large is grappling with unusual weather patterns linked to the ongoing La Niña phase marked by unexpectedly cold mornings and hot evenings.

Speaking in an interview with ZANIS in Kabwe , Mr Tembo explained that this climatic condition arises from cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Central Pacific that disrupt weather patterns both globally and regionally.

“Currently and particularly in Kabwe, the mornings are colder than usual, and the evenings are unusually warm, which is a direct impact of the La Niña phase,” Mr Tembo stated.

He disclosed that in line with the consistent national weather updates, the Zambia Meteorological Department has issued alerts for strong winds and isolated rainfall that are likely to affect the agricultural and fishing sectors nationwide.

“We’ve had some rains in provinces such as Eastern, Western, North Western, and Muchinga among others although we have not yet recorded any rains in Central Province. Residents in various districts, especially farmers and fishers, should be prepared for sudden weather changes that could affect crop production and the safety of water bodies,” he warned.

Mr Tembo has emphasised the importance of community awareness saying staying informed through reliable sources and adhering to advisories is crucial for mitigating the adverse effects of these weather patterns.

He noted that while the expected weather conditions may pose challenges, they also present opportunities for preparedness and that understanding and adapting to these changes is vital for minimising disruptions to daily life and economic activities.

Mr Tembo stressed that his department is collaborating closely with the Department of Agriculture as well as engaging local communities in ensuring readiness for the La Niña induced weather conditions.
He has also urged residents to keep abreast of weather updates and advisories in order to respond appropriately to the changing conditions to safeguard their livelihoods and well-being.

32 Zambian children get heart treatment in Israel

Chief Editor
-
8
32 Zambian children get heart treatment in Israel

By Benedict Tembo

THIRTY-TWO Zambian children have received treatment at the Save A Child’s Heart (SACH)’s Edith Wolfson Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, Israel.

The 32 children bring the cumulative number to 112 since SACH, an Israeli-based international non-profit organisation with the mission of improving the quality of pediatric cardiac care signed the first Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Health in 2016.

SACH Executive Director Simon Fisher said apart from the 32, they are expecting at least another 20 children from Zambia before the end of 2024.

Apart from treating children, SACH has also been training Zambian medics in pediatric cardiac surgery.

“We have two fellows with us at present training on pediatric cardiac surgery and pediatric intensive care. We are expecting a third fellow in anaesthesia,” Mr Fisher said

One medical professional, a pediatric cardiac surgeon, one anesthesiologist and one perfusionist have been trained in Israel.

Ziwa Mudaniso, a Zambian medic has been back at the National Heart Hospital for just over a year with two fellows who trained with him in Israel one in cardiac anaesthesia and the other heart lung machine technician.

“We’ve also financed 7 nurses who went for training in Tanzania at Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute and four more travel this month. We also financed travel for Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute team to come and work with National Heart Hospital team in January. This week, we are funding a joint Italian and Tanzanian team who are operating and catheterising children at NHH together with the NHH team,” Mr Fisher said.

The NHH is Zambia’s designated cardiac hospital.

He said the SACH has also paid for their flights and consumables for catheterising.

“We have also purchased a $100,000 echocardiogram machine for NHH which we will deliver in the near future,” Mr Fisher said.

Partnership with the University Teaching Hospital and the NHH is part of the SACH’s south to south cooperation.

It also has a similar cooperation with Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute.

Is HH’s Call for Constitutional Amendments His 2026 Political Lifeline?

Chief Editor
-
27
Is HH’s Call for Constitutional Amendments His 2026 Political Lifeline?

By Kapya Kaoma

Am I the only one questioning the timing of President Hichilema’s call for constitutional amendments? In retrospect, I recognize some echoes of history—specifically, the 1970s when President Kaunda employed constitutional amendments to maintain his grip on power. The victims were Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe and Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula.

A similar strategy was employed in the mid-1990s. Back then, former President Kaunda expressed a desire to re-enter active politics after losing the 1991 elections to President Chiluba. Due to the extreme economic stress under the Chiluba regime, Zambians openly pleaded, “Batata bweleni, twacula.” (“Father, please come back; we are suffering “). President Kaunda announced his intention to contest the 1996 elections, inciting a wave of excitement among the populace. The atmosphere became charged with great anticipation. Sensing defeat, the then-unpopular President Chiluba was compelled to enact a constitutional amendment that effectively barred his most formidable opponent from contesting the upcoming elections. Kaunda was unjustly declared ineligible to run. As a result, President Chiluba was able to claim victory.

The unsettling reality of this history brings us back to President Hakainde Hichilema—a figure whose legacy is marred by his involvement in the infamous privatization schemes under Chiluba’s regime, which many believe resulted in the exploitation of Zambians. This heartless man bathes in Zambians’ blood—millions died while he made millions of dollars from Zambian assetts! Is it any wonder that he now seeks to amend the Constitution to eliminate the threat posed by any significant political rival in Lungu as the 2026 elections loom?

President Hichilema has openly commented on maintaining control through strategic maneuvering. He is acutely aware of the growing disdain among the populace; even the stray dogs on the streets seem to share an aversion towards a leader whose governance has left many facing dire economic hardship. Zambians have become increasingly disillusioned as they witness the chasm between Hichilema’s promises and reality. His actions signal a singular preoccupation—President Hakainde Hichilema. While he champions the ideology of conserving national resources, he maintains a lavish lifestyle, spending millions on two extravagant residences while globetrotting at will. The costs associated with his transport, the maintenance of his security details, and the daily operation of both his presidential estates have become burdensome to the national economy. He doesn’t care! But each day he commutes between and enters in his two residences is a testament to his lack of ubuntu—hundreds of children would have lived had he chosen to live Plot 1. Moreover, his incessant travels have only compounded the discontent. The man finds fulfillment in wasteful travels while the masses are starving.

As his approval ratings continue to plummet, it’s evident that Hichilema is floundering in a sea of his own deception. His only recourse to secure victory in 2026 appears to be the fabrication of another narrative—one that implores, “Give me more time.” However, people are no longer swayed by empty rhetoric. The political winds have shifted, and he is desperately beginning to feel the pressure—a situation reminiscent of the Chiluba era. Will this tactic prove effective?
Here, the use of constitutional amendments to win the 2026 elections looms large. Should the ruling party—currently in control of Parliament—choose to expedite amendments, the outcome could echo the past injustices inflicted on Zambian democracy by both President Kaunda and Chiluba.

History serves as both a lesson and a warning. The precedents set by past leaders must not be dismissed; they illustrate the dangers of political maneuvering that prioritizes power over national well-being. The unfolding drama should invite each of us to reflect on our role in safeguarding democracy. The events in Kenya, where ordinary people proved that they can hold elected officials accountable, serve as a new paradigm for African democracy.

Democratic ideals cannot be left to the selfish elected officials—at times, radical mobilization, though costly, is the only voice heard by the powerful. We must demand transparency, integrity, and genuine leadership from our elected officials.

Challenging President Hichilema to rise above the political gamesmanship of his predecessors is our patriotic duty. The stakes are higher than individual power; they encompass the future of democratic integrity and the well-being of ordinary Zambians.

The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but our collective action can steer the nation toward a more accountable and responsive government. Whether we muster the bravery to challenge deceit and demand accountability remains to be seen.

Questions for the President: Addressing Electricity and Water Shortages

Chief Editor
-
10
Questions for the President: Addressing Electricity and Water Shortages

A. Electricity Shortage

1.What are the primary underlying causes of Zambia’s persistent electricity shortages, and why have previous attempts to address these issues proven ineffective in the long term?

2.How does Zambia’s reliance on hydropower exacerbate electricity shortages during drought periods, and what specific strategies is the government implementing to diversify the country’s energy sources and reduce this dependence?

3.Despite global advancements in renewable energy technologies, Zambia has been slow to adopt alternative sources like solar and wind. What are the primary barriers hindering this transition, and what measures are being taken to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy?

4.How are small businesses and industries affected by the lack of consistent electricity supply, and what are the broader implications for Zambia’s economic growth, employment rates, and competitiveness?

5.What specific measures are in place to reduce electricity losses during transmission and how effective have these measures been in improving overall electricity availability and reducing the financial burden on the power utility?

6.With load shedding becoming a common occurrence, what is the government’s strategic plan to mitigate its impact on essential services like hospitals and schools, and how is this plan being implemented?

7.What incentives are being offered to encourage private investment in the energy sector, and how can these investments contribute to reducing Zambia’s dependence on the state-run power

8.How are electricity shortages impacting Zambia’s ability to attract foreign direct investment, particularly in sectors that rely on stable energy supplies? What strategies is the government pursuing to address this challenge?

9.Given Zambia’s growing population and industrial ambitions, how prepared is the country to meet its future energy needs? What are the long-term plans for expanding electricity generation capacity and ensuring a reliable and sustainable energy supply?

B. Water Shortage

1.Despite having substantial water resources, many communities in Zambia face regular water shortages. What specific actions is the government taking to address this issue, particularly in rural and urban areas?

2.How is climate change contributing to water scarcity in Zambia, and what adaptations is the government making to its water management policies to address these challenges?

3.Why has Zambia struggled to maintain and expand its water infrastructure to meet growing demand? What specific measures are being implemented to ensure sustainable water management and improve access to clean water?

4.What is the current state of water sanitation in Zambia, especially in high-density areas? How are water shortages exacerbating public health risks, and what steps are being taken to address these issues?

5.What are the primary causes of inefficiencies in water distribution, such as leakage, illegal connections, and outdated infrastructure? What plans are in place to address these issues and improve water delivery efficiency?

7.Given the impact of water shortages on agriculture, what specific measures is the government implementing to support farmers in accessing water and sustaining production during dry periods?

8.How does Zambia’s legal and regulatory framework for water management compare to best practices in other African countries? What reforms are necessary to ensure equitable access to water and effective water governance?

9.What accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that funds allocated for water infrastructure are used effectively, and how is the government addressing corruption in this sector?

10.To what extent is Zambia collaborating with regional bodies to manage shared water resources? What are the implications of regional water diplomacy for Zambia’s water security?

Regards,
Musonda Chishimba

How Mining has not benefited Zambians

Chief Editor
-
6
How Mining has not benefited Zambians

Why Government New Critical Mineral Strategy is the answer

By Mwansa Chalwe Snr

In the 1990s, Zambia embarked on an ambitious economic liberalization journey, privatizing 137
companies within 18 months and eventually 221 State owned Enterprises were privatised. The World
Bank hailed this move as a landmark reform. However, three decades later, ordinary Zambians remain
disillusioned, failing to reap the expected benefits from foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly
in the mining sector. Despite booming copper prices, ordinary Zambians' standards of living have not
improved significantly, with inadequate education, healthcare, and social benefits. Meanwhile, foreign
shareholders have amassed wealth, leaving the resource owners in poverty.
It is not debatable that Zambia’s mineral wealth hasn’t translated into meaningful benefits for its
people, especially in five key areas: job creation, foreign exchange earnings, tax revenue, technology
transfer and promotion of supply chain industries. This harsh reality is backed by credible institutions
like the World Bank

“Zambia is rich in minerals but we haven’t fully managed to convert that wealth for the benefit of the
people. We need to know where to improve and what changes to make so we can harness this wealth
to benefit not only current, but also future generations of Zambians, “ Ina Ruthenberg, Zambia’s
then World Bank Country Manager said in 2016.

JOB CREATION

One of the key expected benefits of foreign direct investment (FDI) like mining, is job creation. In
Zambia’s experience, FDI has not created sufficient jobs to make any impact on unemployment. This
is due to two main factors: improvement in mining technology with machines replacing humans, and
Mining houses not interested in supporting the development of backward and forward linkages
through the mining supply chain, but preferring to import intermediate products from overseas
companies including their associates, effectively exporting jobs.

In order to put mining industry’s incapacity to create enough jobs in perceptive, there are recent
examples that can be cited. First Quantum Sentinel Mine investment of $250 million only created 700
jobs, Kansanshi Copper Mines investment of $1.2billion created 1,800 jobs. This is a drop in the
ocean when one considers that there are 350,000 youths entering the job market every year. According
to the 2022 Zambia Census Report, the mining sector only accounts for 2% of the country's total
employment.

INSUFFICIENT TAX REVENUE

 It is generally agreed that Mining houses are not paying sufficient taxes to cater for social needs such
as health, education, water and sanitation and for development projects. This low revenue contribution
by mines has partly contributed to the Zambia’s accumulation of the high level of public debt, and a
myriad of taxes levied on ordinary Zambians to cover for the revenue shortfall.

In order to put mining contribution to the Zambian treasury in perspective, it is vital to compare
Zambia with two neighbouring countries. In Namibia, mining revenue contribution to government
revenue is about 25%, whereas Botswana mining contribution to government revenue is 45%. In
2022, Zambia’s mining sector contribution to GDP was 11.1%.

There is no doubt that the mining sector has not been paying its fair share of taxes and have been
involved in sophisticated tax avoidance schemes using highly skilled accountants and lawyers. There
are mines that have been here for over twenty years and have never paid any income tax as they
declare tax losses all the time, but in the meantime, their shareholders abroad do receive dividends.
The former Minister of finance, the late Mr. Alexander Chikwanda alluded to this in his 2015 Budget
speech to Parliament, when he bemoaned the lack of benefits from mining.

“Sir, despite Zambia being endowed with vast mineral resources, the country has not realised
maximum benefits from the sector’s potential to support growth and enhanced socio economic
development. The House may wish to note further that the contribution of the mining sector revenue
as a percentage of GDP remains low at 4 percent. Similarly, the contribution of the mining sector to
the national budget has remained minimal even after the Government doubled the mineral royalty rate
from 3 to 6 percent. Further, provisions on capital allowances and carry forward of losses eliminated
potential taxable profits. Mr. Speaker, the tax structure was simply illusory as only two mining
companies were paying Company Income Tax as most of them claimed that they were not in tax-
paying positions,” He said.

INSUFFICIENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS

In theory, copper mining contributes 70% to Zambia’s export earnings. This figure is misleading as
very little comes back in the country as it is retained by the mines. This was confirmed by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2023, in their First review of Zambia’s current $1.7milion
Extended Credit Facility (ECF).

“Since February 2022, a joint African Department (AFR)-Statistics Department (STA) engagement
with the Bank of Zambia (BoZ) has been undertaken to assess the nature of these outflows. The
missions confirmed that a substantial share of mining export revenues is held offshore, contributing to
the challenges in monitoring cross-border flows. The mission estimated that 50 to 90 percent of
copper exports in 2020-21 were not repatriated,” The IMF wrote in their first review of Zambia’s
ECF.

It is very clear that Zambia has for long time been characterized by large foreign exchange leakages.
These outflows which the IMF estimated to be about 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and 2014, have
contributed to the low level of foreign reserves, the depreciating and unstable Kwacha and the high
cost of living for ordinary Zambians.

LACK OF FORWARD AND BACKWARD LINKAGES

The majority in the mining sector have also not been interested in the development of backward and
forward linkages, through the mining supply chain. Mines have not actively promoted the
establishment or expansion of indigenous firms that might supply them with intermediate products but
instead opt to import these goods from overseas.
In 2016, the World Bank Mining Investment and Governance (MInGov) Study, observed the
following: “Throughout the survey, key stakeholders noted the need for the mining industry to more
effectively use local products and services. Currently there is no national supplier development policy
for the industry. Consequently, 95% of goods and services used by the mining industry are imported,”
The Survey concluded.

NEW PROPOSED GOVERNMENT MINING POLICY

Drawing inspiration from resource-rich countries like the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the New
Dawn Administration is making a strategic shift, informed by best international practices. It aims to
redefine Zambia's mining landscape through: smart partnerships, increased state participation,
enhanced regulatory frameworks, local content development and value addition and beneficiation.
This new approach is contained in the “Critical Minerals Strategy 2024-2028’’from the Ministry of
Mines and Mineral Development which is the basis of the new mining policy and new law.

Despite the abundant mineral resources such as cobalt, coltan, lithium and copper. Zambia has not
been able to fully exploit these resources to help in the economic transformation of the country for the
benefit of the Zambian people. It is against this background that it has become necessary to pay
attention to all the stages of the critical minerals value chain. As the global demand for critical
minerals escalates, many countries have looked to Africa's abundant reserves of cobalt, lithium,
copper and other minerals vital to green energy transition and modern technologies such as electric
vehicles, rechargeable batteries, semiconductors, fibre optic cables and defense aerospace among
others. Zambia has therefore developed a strategy to derive maximum benefits from its critical
mineral resources. The strategy is consistent with the 2022-2026 Eighth National Development Plan
(8NDP) and 2022-2027 National Mineral Resources Development Policy,” The document states.

Zambians should note that the new strategy is a result of the extensive trips that His Excellency
Hakainde Hichilema has undertaken where his team has been exposed on how other countries have
developed their countries using their natural resources. The deal that Zambia struck with
International Resources Holdings (IRH) on Mopani Copper Mines (MCM), where they took 51%
ownership and Zambia, 49% ,may be one of the inspirations for the new mining policy.

President Hichilema’s administration has realized that its previous mining policies were not
unsustainable and uninformed and not in the best interests of Zambians. This realization was recently
made crystal clear by the President’s Special Assistant for Finance and Investment, Jito Kayumba.
“For many years Zambians have felt short changed when it comes to realizing full value from the
resources we have. First and foremost we want to ensure that there is sufficient local content. Local
content in supplies, local content in running of the mines, senior management levels, shareholding.
We have been seeing an enhancement on the part of Zambian government in negotiating increased
shareholding within the Mines.

“Government will definitely will play its role in having shareholding in businesses by way of
commercial engagement. And this something we have to appreciate because we as government have
awareness, understanding of corporate structures, corporate finance , valuations and the
commensurate earning on the part of our exposure to mines through the equity investment that we
take. Of course there should be an aspect of free carry because we are the owners of these assets. And
this is something that should never be misunderstood.

“ We are as a country and as a government, wants to ensure that part of our exposure to the mining
sector and to benefit from the minerals that are extracted from the country is that we must be involved
in the marketing, in the trading of these minerals. Having access to actual commodity is very
important. Because we can have participation in the value addition and the margins associated with
the trading of commodity. This is something that we are doing in the way that is not disruptive to
industry,’’ Kayumba said.

As is expected, the Zambian Chamber of Mines, has opposed the progressive policy changes by the
government, and want to maintain the status quo, which is unacceptable to Zambians. They are
complaining and accusing the New Dawn administration of undoing all the “ good work “ achieved
since 2021.

Conclusion

To maximize the benefits from mining and ensure that Zambia's natural wealth is used for the benefit
of its citizens, the country must not compromise on the progressive and strategic approach the New
Dawn government has recently adopted, which is supported by one of the major mining houses,
International Resources Holdings (IRH), Zambia’s new partners in Mopani Copper Mines.
During the handover of Mopani Copper Mines in Kitwe on the 21st March,2024, the IRH Chief
Executive Ali Alrashdi said that they intend to collaborate with their Zambian partners in order to
bring meaningful change in the Zambian mining industry, including bringing transparency through out
the mining value chain from mining the copper up to when the money goes into the bank.
“This Partnership is not just about business, it is about people, communities and sustainability,” He
said.

The experience of other countries like China, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, as well as
those in Africa – Botswana and Tanzania- show that if you stand your ground to the arm twisting and
blackmail by investors, they are ready to negotiate win-win deals as they need us, as much as we do.
The Western Mining houses ought to realize that they now have competitors with deep pockets from
the GCC and China, who badly need critical minerals for the green economy, and therefore they need
to adjust their approach and strategies in how they treat host nations in far as sharing their resources
are concerned.

The writer is a Chartered Accountant and Author. He is an independent finance and economic commentator/analyst.

We Must Stop Blaming the Media and Start Leading the Narrative – UPND call

Lusaka Times Editor
-
10
We Must Stop Blaming the Media and Start Leading the Narrative – UPND call

We Must Stop Blaming the Media and Start Leading the Narrative – UPND call

By Clive Habeenzu
Media Specialist-USA

“I was inspired to write this article after reading various comments on Facebook, including the open call from the Lusaka Times encouraging readers to submit their articles. This approach to engaging the public is exactly what UPND needs to adopt. If more UPND members contributed articles that highlighted the party’s achievements, we would see a more balanced media landscape that reflects the party’s successes, rather than the opposition’s criticisms.”

As a long-time supporter and sympathizer of the United Party for National Development (UPND), I am compelled to express my growing frustration with the party’s communication strategy. While H.E. President Hakainde Hichilema has made strides in governance, UPND’s handling of its relationship with the media is problematic, and this is a view shared by many within our ranks. This article comes from the heart of a loyal UPND follower who sees great potential in the party but also recognizes a clear communication failure that must be addressed and thats is me.

In today’s political environment, it is not enough to be in power; you must control the narrative. UPND, unfortunately, has allowed the opposition to hijack this narrative on multiple occasions. For instance, the recent suspension of three Constitutional Court judges by H.E. President Hakainde Hichilema was immediately spun by opposition parties as a move to consolidate power and weaken judicial independence. The opposition, especially the United Kwacha Alliance (UKA) and the remnants of the Patriotic Front (PF), were quick to seize this issue and turn it into an attack on the President.

Rather than providing clear and substantial explanations for the decision, UPND’s response has been slow and defensive. The party missed an opportunity to explain the legal and governance basis for the move and instead found itself fending off a negative public perception. This failure to address the judges’ story head-on allowed the opposition to shape the narrative, painting the suspension as a personal vendetta rather than a legitimate governmental process.

Instead of crafting a clear and factual response, many UPND supporters have resorted to dismissing these concerns as baseless or politically motivated, while others have focused on blaming the media.

The Media Is Not the Enemy

UPND supporters have increasingly criticized outlets like Lusaka Times,Zambia Reports, The Mast, etc. labelling them as opposition-aligned or “pro-PF.” Comments such as “This Lusaka Times is a weapon formed against HH” reflect this sentiment. However, blaming the media for biased coverage is unproductive and distracts from the real issue, UPND’s failure to effectively communicate its achievements.

Comments by certain supporters have even gone as far as to suggest that “Lusaka Times should just be shut down altogether,” and that “the PF agents are clearly running it” same with Zambia Reports and The Mast When they report anything not UPND related.” While the frustration is understandable, these reactions miss the larger picture: the opposition and other critics will naturally exploit any communication gap left by UPND. The media thrives on narratives that are available and organized. The failure to provide this narrative is on the shoulders of UPND, not the platforms themselves.

While accusations against media houses abound, the platforms have emphasized its commitment to balanced reporting, stating that it encourages contributions from all Zambians. The party and its supporters should leverage this opportunity to reshape the narrative, instead of attacking media platforms.

A Case for Proactive Communication: Projects Like the Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway

Rather than merely reacting to opposition attacks, UPND should take a proactive stance by highlighting the positive steps the government is making, such as infrastructure projects that benefit the country. The Lusaka-Ndola dual carriageway is an excellent example of how UPND is advancing development. This major infrastructure project will not only boost trade but will also reduce road accidents, creating a safer and more efficient route between Zambia’s economic hubs. It is exactly these types of accomplishments that need to dominate the narrative in both social and mainstream media.

The government has also made significant progress in other sectors, such as the Malambo development initiatives, which have improved local economies and social services in the region. Unfortunately, these achievements often get lost amidst the noise created by the opposition, simply because UPND has not been effective in amplifying them.

One supporter remarked: “The PF had a very strong media game, and UPND needs to learn that it’s not just about actions, it’s about how people hear about those actions.” This couldn’t be more relevant, as perception can often overshadow reality, particularly in politics.

UPND’s Reactionary Stance Is Unsustainable

UPND has a habit of reacting defensively to opposition attacks, rather than proactively leading the conversation. When opposition leaders criticize the President’s policies, the first reaction from UPND is often to discredit the critics, rather than provide factual information or present solutions. This approach is not sustainable and only gives more ground to the opposition.

For instance, when the opposition accused the UPND government of mishandling the economy, the response from UPND supporters was largely defensive, often attacking the credibility of media outlets like Lusaka Times. Instead of countering with tangible evidence of economic recovery efforts, such as progress in fiscal management or employment growth, UPND allowed the opposition to dominate the media space.

As another commenter pointed out: “If you give the opposition enough airtime without countering it with truth, they’ll eventually shape public opinion.” This is exactly what is happening, and it underscores the need for a shift in UPND’s communication strategy.

Leading the Narrative: Where Does the Blame Lie?

It is crucial to understand why the blame game is not just ineffective but actively harmful to UPND’s public image. There is an internal cultural problem within the party’s structure that perpetuates a “react-first” mentality. Instead of carefully constructing well-thought-out and articulate responses to opposition attacks, the party’s rank and file rush to place blame, mostly on external forces such as the media, the opposition, or even the previous administration.

The party needs to introspect. The first step toward solving a problem is admitting that one exists, and UPND’s failure to properly engage the media on key issues is evident. The strategy of always playing defense and blaming opposition-friendly media houses is self-defeating. The truth is the party is often ill-prepared to face complex narratives head-on. The void that the UPND leaves by not controlling the narrative is being eagerly filled by opposition parties and media platforms that are ready to steer public opinion.

One poignant comment on social media sums this up well: “You can’t win if you’re always playing catch-up. UPND needs to stop blaming the media and start leading the news cycles.” This is the heart of the issue. As long as UPND sees the media as an adversary, it will struggle to take charge of the conversations shaping public opinion.

Media Literacy Among Supporters

Another significant factor that exacerbates the blame game is the lack of media literacy among the party’s base. Many UPND supporters lack a nuanced understanding of how media works in the 21st century. Today, news is fast-paced, and narratives evolve in real-time, driven largely by social media engagement. The failure to recognize this dynamic creates an environment where UPND supporters are easily swayed by opposition-led narratives and find solace in blaming external forces like biased media.

The truth is that the opposition, mainly the PF, has adapted more effectively to the new media landscape. They use every opportunity to amplify their message, even if it means distorting facts. The PF has capitalized on gaps in UPND’s communication to manipulate stories to their advantage. For example, recent allegations about a corruption scandal related to a Dubai-based company, Petrodex Trading, and the ZESCO $35 million advance payment made rounds on social media before UPND could counter it effectively. This issue highlights UPND’s sluggishness in counteracting negative publicity. Instead of taking a clear stance or providing factual rebuttals, the conversation was filled with complaints about how the media was twisting the story.

What UPND needs to focus on is educating its supporters on the importance of engaging the media responsibly. Commenting constructively, contributing articles, and presenting facts rather than just reactionary posts are ways to strengthen the party’s public relations. An informed supporter base will better serve the party in leading the media narrative instead of merely reacting to it.

The Opposition’s Exploitation of UPND’s Blame Game

The opposition, especially remnants of the PF, has been astute in capitalizing on UPND’s failures in communication. Rather than waiting for UPND to set the agenda, opposition parties are quick to frame their own narrative. Once a story breaks, opposition figures are often the first to release statements, organize press briefings, and engage on social media. By the time UPND finally addresses the issue, the opposition’s version of events has already taken root.

A commenter from the opposition recently noted: “The reason the opposition is winning the media battle is simple. UPND is too slow, and when they respond, it’s just to complain about the media.” This comment perfectly encapsulates the problem. UPND’s communications team has been unable to keep up with the pace and volume of information that opposition parties are putting out.

Opposition parties have also been more agile in their use of social media, leveraging influencers, digital marketing experts, and media houses with ties to their networks. This has given them an edge in shaping public perceptions. Instead of engaging in constructive discourse, UPND continues to blame media bias and fails to use its own vast resources effectively. This is not a battle UPND can win by merely pointing fingers.

A Shift in Communication Strategy Is Essential

As a loyal supporter of the UPND, I strongly believe in the party’s potential to transform Zambia. However, UPND must recognize that political success isn’t solely based on governance; it’s about controlling the narrative that shapes public perception. The ongoing trend of playing defense, blaming the media, and reacting to opposition attacks is unsustainable. Instead, UPND needs to take a proactive approach by amplifying its achievements, providing clear and factual responses to opposition claims, and leveraging media platforms effectively.

Equally important is educating its supporter base on media literacy, fostering a culture of constructive engagement rather than reactive blame. Only by embracing these changes can UPND successfully lead the national conversation, diminish the influence of opposition narratives, and reinforce its position as Zambia’s ruling party. The shift from reactive blame to proactive leadership in communication is not just necessary it is essential for long-term success.

My fellow UPND family dont insult me as yet. read again and think through.

Understanding the suspension and imminent removal of the three ConCourt judges

Lusaka Times Editor
-
24
Understanding the suspension and imminent removal of the three ConCourt judges

Understanding the suspension and imminent removal of the three ConCourt judges

On 23 September 2024, President Hakainde Hichilema, acting on the recommendation of the Judicial Complaints Commission, suspended three judges of Zambia’s constitutional court namely Anne Sitali, Mungeni Mulenga, and Palan Mulonda. The three are accused of gross misconduct and incompetence emanating from how they handled a legal challenge that Hichilema had brought against the election of then President Edgar Lungu in 2016.

To be clear, the suspension and removal of a judge is provided for in Articles 143 and 144 of Zambia’s constitution, as shown below.

143. A judge shall be removed from office on the following grounds:

(a) a mental or physical disability that makes the judge incapable of performing judicial functions;

(b) incompetence;

(c) gross misconduct; or (d) bankruptcy.

144. (1) The removal of a judge may be initiated by the Judicial Complaints Commission or by a complaint made to the Judicial Complaints Commission, based on the grounds specified in Article 143.

(2) The Judicial Complaints Commission shall, where it decides that a prima facie case has been established against a judge, submit a report to the President.

(3) The President shall, within seven days from the date of receiving the report, submitted in accordance with clause (2), suspend the judge from office and inform the Judicial Complaints Commission of the suspension.

(4) The Judicial Complaints Commission shall, within thirty days of the judge being suspended from office, in accordance with clause (3)—

(a) hear the matter against the judge on the grounds specified in Article 143 (b), (c) and (d); or

(b) constitute a medical board, in consultation with the body responsible for regulating health practitioners, to inquire into the matter against the judge based on the ground specified in Article 143(a).

(5) Where the Judicial Complaints Commission decides that an allegation based on a ground specified in Article 143(b), (c) and (d) is —

(a) not substantiated, the Judicial Complaints Commission shall recommend, to the President, the revocation of the judge’s suspension and the President shall immediately revoke the suspension; or

(b) substantiated, the Judicial Complaints Commission shall recommend, to the President, the removal of the judge from office and the President shall immediately remove the judge from office.

(6) The proceedings under clause (4) (a) shall be held in camera and the judge is entitled to appear, be heard and be represented by a legal practitioner or other person chosen by the judge.

In my view, the suspension of the three judges is motivated by four partisan considerations on the part of President Hichilema.

The first is revenge. The three judges who have been suspended are the ones who ruled against Hichilema in the 2016 petition that he brought against the re-election of then President Lungu following that year’s presidential election. At the time, Hichilema was righty aggrieved that the three judges reversed under very strange circumstances the judgement that the full bench of five justices had made a few days earlier and, in so doing, terminated the hearing of his petition on account of what they called lapse of time. Disappointed with their conduct, Hichilema accused the three judges who threw out his petition of “being corrupt and under President Edgar Lungu’s control”. For Hichilema’s accusations, visit: diggers.news/local/2018/08/…

Their suspension constitutes a form of payback punishment for their conduct over that 2016 case. It is important to note that the three judges have been tried by the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) over the same case at least eight times since 2016 prior to the latest case that has been filed by Moses Kalonde, which is the ninth one. The first person who petitioned the JCC to have not just the trio but the whole bench that decided the 2016 election petition removed was Peter Sinkamba in 2016. After hearing both parties, the JCC chaired by retired justice Christopher Mushabati ruled in October 2017 that the conduct of the five judges did not amount to gross misconduct or incompetence. To read the ruling of the JCC,

The second person who petitioned the JCC over the same matter was Douglas Syakalima, now a minister in Hichilema’s cabinet. The third petitioners were Kaimfa Chanda and 11 others. The fourth was Dante Saunders. The fifth was Charles Longwe. The six and seventh petitions were filed by Joseph Busenga. The eighth petitioners were Emmanuel Mtonga and Alfred Mbewe. All these eight cases filed over the last eight years returned the same answer from the JCC: that what the judges including the three did was not gross misconduct or incompetence.

Now what is interesting is that the entire composition and leadership of the five-member JCC changed after the election of Hichilema in 2021. Vincent Malambo, for instance, became the chairperson of the JCC after President Hichilema appointed him and other members to the body. Malambo was one of the lawyers who represented Hichilema in the 2016 election petition. He also represented one of the five judges when Sinkamba dragged them to the JCC in the aftermath of Hichilema’s failed petition. Now serving as chair of the JCC, Malambo and his initial team who included William Nyirenda, Irene Kunda, Andrew Dean Mwansa and Chad Muleza refused to reopen the case against the judges on the ground that the matter had already been decided and was closed.

The fact that nearly all the petitioners who have sought the removal of the three judges after Sinkamba’s unsuccessful attempt are UPND associates suggests that this was a partisan exercise meant to exact revenge on the judges for dismissing Hichilema’s petition without hearing it. I say three judges because after the retirement of justice Hildah Chibomba, the petitioners who followed Sinkamba’s effort did not include justice Margaret Munalula in their complaints probably because she had ruled in favour of Hichilema during the 2016 election matter and may therefore have been seen as predisposed towards the current president. The UPND-aligned petitioners wanted only the three judges to be suspended and removed. Malambo and team however stood their ground and refused to reopen the matter.

Things took a different direction about three months or so ago when two vacancies arose on the JCC, offering Hichilema an opportunity to appoint replacements in the form of Eva Jhala and Cephas Katongo who were sworn in as Judicial Complaints commissioners on 29 June this year. Soon after their appointment, another person named Moses Kalonde was found to petition the JCC for the ninth time to have the three judges removed. Yesterday, 23 September, the three judges were summoned to the JCC for the very first time under Kalonde’s complaint. Their lawyer who had also represented the trio in 2016 during the Sinkamba case, raised a preliminary issue around the point that this matter had already been decided several times.

Of particular importance was that Malambo recused himself from yesterday’s proceedings. Chad Muleza was also absent. Only the new commissioners, Katongo and Jhala, were present alongside retired judge Prisca Nyambe. Nyambe, Katongo and Jhala moved to dismiss the preliminary issue raised by the lawyer of the three judges, found a prima facie case against three judges, sent a report to President Hichilema recommending the suspension of the three judges, and set Wednesday this week, which is tomorrow, as the date on which they shall hear and determine the main matter.

All this drama I have outlined above took place yesterday, as if the reconstituted JCC is in a hurry to find the three judges guilty of whatever charges levelled against them. (Following the backlash this morning, the JCC has now postponed the hearing from tomorrow to next week Monday, 30 September) Such an outcome will represent the completion of revenge for Hichilema who will only be too happy to announce the dismissal of the three judges on receipt of a JCC report that would recommend their removal. If one carefully looks at how Hichilema has treated those who wronged him in opposition such as Mumbi Phiri, it is easy to realise that revenge is a central element of his leadership.

The second motivation for the suspension of the three judges appears to be the eligibility case involving Edgar Lungu, whom Hichilema is determined to exclude from running in the 2026 election based on the real fear that the former president might defeat him. I have discussed this issue in greater detail elsewhere when showing how Hichilema is using lawfare to undermine political competition ahead of the next general elelction. See here for instance: mg.co.za/thought-leader…

Suffice to say that the eligibility case was brought by a UPND activist soon after Lungu returned to active politics in October 2023. The matter is coming up for hearing and possible determination by the full bench of the Concourt on 26 September, which is Thursday this week. At present, the ConCourt has 11 judges, four of whom were appointed by Hichilema. The remaining seven were all appointed by Lungu and have previously ruled, including just before the 2021 election when I sued him, that Lungu is eligible to run for office. (To understand why I sued Lungu, in 2021 and hired John Sangwa to represent me, click here: diggers.news/local/2021/06/…)

Now I have problems with the judgement that was passed by the full bench of the ConCourt in 2021 and have previously made my reasons public. However, unless it is overturned, the 2021 judgement of the court is precedent and makes Lungu eligible to run in the 2026 election as a result. The four judges that Hichilema has appointed, plus justice Margaret Munalula, who ruled in Hichilema’s favour during the 2016 election petition, appear to be the ones the President is counting on to not only overturn the 2021 judgement but also deliver a favourable verdict that would exclude his main rival from the 2026 election.

By suspending the three judges who are all likely to rule that Lungu is eligible to run again, as per their three previous rulings on the matter, Hichilema is strategically reducing the total number of judges on the ConCourt bench to 8. This 8 would consist of a majority five that is likely to rule against Lungu and the remaining three judges who, unless they abandon their 2021 judgement, will constitute a minority. As stated, Lungu’s eligibility case is coming up on 26 September. The speed with which the matter of the three judges is being decided indicates that the aim of suspending the justices is to prevent them taking part in the eligibility case. This way, the ConCourt would be left with majority judges whom the president probably sees as predisposed towards him and who will rule that Lungu is not eligible to run again. It is an extremely dangerous political game that Hichilema is playing over this desire to exclude Lungu.

The third motivation behind the suspension and imminent removal of the three judges is the desire to rig the ConCourt in favour of the president in the event of a disputed 2026 election. The constitutional court has the final say on all matters relating to the interpretation of Zambia’s Constitution, including the election of the president. For instance, in the event that an election petition is filed against the president-elect after elections, the ConCourt has the legal mandate to hear the matter within 14 days of its filing and can dismiss the petition or call for a fresh poll within 30 days. The decision of the ConCourt on any post-election case brought before it is final.

In anticipation of a petition against his possible re-election, Hichilema may have reasoned that removing the three judges, in the long term, allows him to pack the court with majority judges whom he sees as more likely to do his bidding such as endorsing his re-election, even if secured fraudulently. And if a sitting president is able to both rig an election and control the Constitutional Court, it is hard to see how he or she can ever be voted out of office. If the third motivation provides short term relief – the exclusion of Lungu – this third one is a fallback option meant to give him political insurance if he must rig his way back to power in 2026.

The fourth and final motivation is to send a warning to other judges about what awaits them should they dare to rule against Hichilema. Already, there seems to be considerable fear among some judges to rule against the executive in political cases where Hichilema has considerable interest especially matters involving members of the opposition. One must simply look at how the judiciary conducted itself in cases involving Miles Sampa versus the PF substantive leadership or how judges have behaved over the two PF MPs Nickson Chilangwa and Ronald Chitotela in relation to granting them bail pending the determination of their appeal cases.

Several judges have had to recuse themselves from hearing the two convicted MPs’ bail applications over what increasingly appears to be judicial deference to the executive. It is as if the aim is to keep Chilangwa and Chitotela in detention and use their prolonged absence from parliament to induce the Speaker to declare their seats vacant and conduct fresh elections which the UPND hopes to steal the same way they stole the Kwacha and Kabushi parliamentary by-elections.

It is like some judges are now afraid to take up cases whose facts, when married to the law, may require them to rule against the establishment. Other judges are now doing nothing as they are being allocated no cases for fear that they may rule in favour of the opposition. The suspension of the three judges will likely intimidate those remaining into submission. The message to the remaining judges on the bench is simple: behave correctly by doing the bidding of the president, or risk being kicked out by the reconstituted JCC!

I should end by saying that the unfolding developments around the suspension and removal of the three judges underscores two points. The first point is the need to create a competitive, merit-based, and transparent system of appointing judges. This should involve adverts of vacancies and interviews before a properly reconstituted Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which should include the Chief Justice. At the moment, everything is done in secrecy and in a manner that overly concentrates power in the presidency.

Judges are currently appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, but members of this body are themselves appointed by the president subject to ratification by a generally pliant parliament through a simple majority. No one knows the criteria that the JSC uses to identify judges. People just wake up to news that so and so has been appointed to this or that court without any knowledge of how they were identified. What is needed is to create legislation that will provide for a very clear process of appointing judges in a transparent, competitive, and open manner.

Let there be adverts for instance calling for interested candidates to apply for positions in the judiciary so that anyone interested and meeting the outlined requisite qualifications is free to apply and become a judge. The JSC, whose members should not be appointed by the president, will then hold open and even televised interviews with the shortlisted candidates. Members of the public should be free to give evidence-driven testimony against any shortlisted person whom they think lacks the integrity to serve as a judge.

This manner of proceeding would ensure that those who end up as judges on our courts do so not because they know someone in the corridors of power but are qualified, competent, and impartial individuals with demonstrable experience, intimate knowledge and understanding of the law and who possess proven levels of integrity. In my view, none of the three judges who have been suspended should have ended up on the ConCourt in the first place. In fact, I have previously called for the removal of all judges on the ConCourt including the three under discussion for reasons that I have explained in greater detail elsewhere. (To see an example of my previous call for the removal of the judges, click here: diggers.news/local/2020/03/…) But like Hichilema’s recent appointees to the judiciary, they all ended up as judges precisely because we lack a transparent and open mechanism of appointing judges.

I had hoped that Hichilema would change this undesirable status quo where judges are appointed in a secretive way that does not foster transparency . After all, he had promised to create such a mechanism when he was in opposition. But after winning power, the president has reneged on his campaign promise, as he has done on so many others, and has used the same rotten system that his predecessors relied upon to appoint judges. The problem, in my view, is not just the lack of capacity in the individuals appointed to these roles; it is the inadequacies of a system that allows such individuals as the three we are discussing – and the many others appointed by Hichilema himself since he became president – to end up as judges in the first place. Left unaddressed, the current system risks creating a vicious cycle or scenario where the next president abuses the JCC the same way Hichilema is doing to remove the judges who were appointed by their predecessors.

The second point is the need to create an open and transparent system of removing judges from office. The current system is too secretive and the ongoing campaign to remove the three judges illustrates this point. The public do not know why they are being removed. Neither have they seen the report that the JCC sent to Hichilema yesterday that served as the basis for his decision to suspend them. In other words, the proceedings that lead to the removal of judges are always held in camera. The reports of the JCC that recommends the suspension or removal of judges are never made public.

Sometimes, even the affected officials who are removed through the current secretive process are never given copies of these reports. This ought to change. The proceedings ought to be open to the public, and the nature of the charges levelled against the accused judges must be published for all to see. If judges have failed or misconducted themselves in the course of their work, we the people need to know. After all, these judges exercise their authority in our name or on our behalf. Why is it unacceptable for us to know what wrongs they have done in our name and whether or not they have received justice?

By Shishuwa Shishuwa.

Please note that the Column Section is open for everyone to contribute. The views and articles will be published as received. We encourage all our respected readers to submit truthful and well-meaning articles to [email protected] or [email protected]. However, we reserve the right to publish articles based on their relevance and professionalism.

Editor.

 

Zambian Premier League empowers top women’s teams

Chief Editor
-
4
Zambian Premier League empowers top women’s teams

The Zambian Premier League (ZPL) has unveiled grants worth K1.6 million to support women’s football in the Women’s Super League and Women’s National Division One League.

All the 49 teams across both leagues will benefit from the grants.

According to the grant structure, each Super League team will receive K100,000, while teams in the National Division One League will get K50,000 each,

The grants are structured in two installments of K50,000 and K25,000 for ZPL Women Super League and ZPL Women National League respectively .

The grants will be disbursed with the first payment due this month and the second between January and March 2025.

Some teams have already received their first instalment.

This initiative marks the first time the Women’s National Division One teams will receive such financial support, underscoring ZPL’s commitment to advancing women’s football in Zambia.

ZPL board chairperson Kephas Katongo expressed his excitement about this initiative, especially with both leagues on the verge of securing sponsorship deals.

Katongo emphasiseded that the grants are part of a broader goal to professionalise and commercialise the sport.

He said this is one of the advantages of the Football Association of Zambia’s (FAZ) delinking initiative, which aims to separate ZPL from the association, allowing for a more professional and commercially viable operation of the leagues.

While FAZ continues to focus on football developmental needs the ZPL will continue to provide the necessary support.

Katongo reassured that ZPL will continue searching for sponsorship for all the leagues to ensure that financial resources are available to benefit all teams.

He stressed the importance of the grants for the ongoing development of women’s football, encouraging teams to create strategies and business models that promote operational efficiency and financial independence.

Katongo said the gesture reflects ZPL’s dedication to fostering growth and excellence within the sport, paving the way for a brighter future for women’s football in Zambia.

By Benedict Tembo

HH Suspends 3 Constitutional Court Judges: Power Grab or Judicial Accountability?

Lusaka Times Editor
-
51
HH Suspends 3 Constitutional Court Judges: Power Grab or Judicial Accountability?

HH Suspends 3 Constitutional Court Judges: Power Grab or Judicial Accountability?

In a move that has sparked national debate, President Hakainde Hichilema suspended three Constitutional Court judges Justice Anne Sitali, Justice Mungeni Mulenga, and Justice Palan Mulonda on September 23, 2024. The suspension, based on a report from the Judicial Service Commission and authorized under Article 144(3) of the Zambian Constitution, raises key questions about the balance of power, judicial independence, and the future of Zambia’s political landscape.

This unprecedented action has drawn contrasting reactions. While some view it as a positive step toward ensuring judicial accountability, others see it as an alarming power grab, particularly with the 2026 elections on the horizon.

The timing of the suspensions has led many to speculate about its underlying political motivations. Critics argue that Hichilema’s decision to suspend the three judges is part of a broader strategy to consolidate control over all arms of government, potentially paving the way for political maneuvering ahead of the 2026 elections. The judges in question were involved in key rulings that favored former President Edgar Lungu, including a controversial decision that allowed him to run for a third term in 2016 despite widespread opposition.

One critical voice argued, “This is what we should fight against. A president shouldn’t appoint or fire judges when we have a Judicial Commission. We joke a lot in this country. IG, Chief Justice, electoral commissioners, judges, DEC, DPP, etc., should be jobs based on applications, not likes and politics. This is nonsense.”

This perspective reflects a deep concern about the concentration of power in the Zambian presidency. Many fear that Hichilema’s actions signal an erosion of judicial independence, undermining the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. Critics warn that this could lead to a judiciary filled with loyalists who may be more inclined to rule in favor of the president and his party.

On the other hand, Hichilema’s supporters argue that the suspensions are a long-overdue response to judicial misconduct. They point to specific rulings, such as the decision to allow ministers to remain in office after the dissolution of parliament in 2016, which was later criticized for being unconstitutional. These actions, they argue, reflect a pattern of corruption and incompetence that has eroded trust in the judiciary.

One supporter expressed this view strongly, stating, “Well done, Mr. President. How can judges fail to interpret the Constitution? That is gross incompetence. Kindly revoke the suspensions and fire them ASAP.”

For these individuals, Hichilema’s actions represent a necessary clean-up of a judiciary that had become too closely aligned with the previous Patriotic Front (PF) administration. From their perspective, the suspended judges were more interested in serving political interests than upholding the law.

While the suspensions have triggered heated debate, they also raise an important question about judicial accountability. Zambia’s Constitution gives the president the authority to suspend judges, but only based on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission. This mechanism was put in place to ensure that judges could be held accountable for misconduct, while also protecting them from arbitrary dismissal.

In this case, the involvement of the Judicial Service Commission provides some legitimacy to the suspensions. It suggests that the decision was not made solely on political grounds but rather in response to concerns about the judges’ conduct. As one commentator noted, “He is the president of the Republic of Zambia with all instruments of power in his hands. HH to 2090.” For those who support the president, this is a necessary use of his constitutional powers to restore integrity to the judiciary.

At the center of this controversy is the Judicial Service Commission, a body tasked with overseeing the conduct of judges and ensuring they adhere to ethical standards. The commission’s recommendation to suspend the three judges suggests that there were serious concerns about their behavior. However, critics argue that the commission itself may be influenced by the executive branch, raising doubts about its independence.

Some Zambians believe the current system, in which the president appoints and suspends judges, is flawed and open to manipulation. One commentator proposed, “Concerned about the concentration of power in Zambia’s presidency. Wish we could elect our Chief Justices, judges, and judicial officials instead of appointing them. This would promote accountability and independence in the judiciary.”

This viewpoint advocates for a more democratic process in the selection of judges, one that would protect judicial independence and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the president.

The proximity of the suspensions to the 2026 elections has fueled speculation that this move is politically motivated. Some fear that Hichilema is preparing to replace the suspended judges with individuals loyal to his administration, potentially paving the way for legal decisions that favor his re-election bid. The concern is that this could undermine the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on the executive branch, particularly in the event of election disputes.

Opponents argue that this is an attempt to reshape the judiciary in Hichilema’s image, ensuring that future legal challenges—especially those involving former President Lungu—are decided in his favor. As one critic noted, “He just wants judges who will do his bidding. Instead of focusing on reducing the cost of living, his preoccupation is wanting to fix ECL (Edgar Lungu).”

This fear is not unfounded. The three judges in question played pivotal roles in the legal battles surrounding Lungu’s third-term bid, and their suspension could be seen as part of a larger strategy to neutralize any potential opposition to Hichilema’s political ambitions.

Beyond the immediate political implications, this controversy highlights the need for broader judicial reforms in Zambia. Many have called for a more transparent and democratic system for appointing judges, one that would protect judicial independence and ensure that judges are accountable to the public, not the executive branch.

The idea of electing judges, rather than appointing them, has gained traction among some Zambians who see it as a way to prevent political interference in the judiciary. As one citizen put it, “Let’s strive for a more balanced distribution of power!” This reflects a growing desire for reforms that would reduce the concentration of power in the presidency and promote greater accountability in Zambia’s democratic institutions.

The suspension of Constitutional Court judges Justice Anne Sitali, Justice Mungeni Mulenga, and Justice Palan Mulonda has exposed deep divisions within Zambian society. For some, this is a long-overdue move to hold corrupt judges accountable and restore trust in the judiciary. For others, it is a dangerous power grab that threatens the independence of the courts and undermines Zambia’s democratic institutions.

As Zambia approaches the 2026 elections, the implications of this decision will continue to reverberate throughout the country. The challenge for Hichilema will be to demonstrate that this move was made in the interest of justice, not political expediency. Only time will tell whether this was a step toward greater judicial accountability or a slide into authoritarianism.

Ultimately, the suspensions highlight the need for a more transparent and accountable judicial system—one that serves the Zambian people, not political interests.

by Kantu Mutuna.

Lungu Poised for Major Comeback as Opposition Falters, While Hichilema Faces Political Reality

Lusaka Times Editor
-
28
Lungu Poised for Major Comeback as Opposition Falters, While Hichilema Faces Political Reality

Lungu Poised for Major Comeback as Opposition Falters, While Hichilema Faces Political Reality

As Zambia’s political landscape shifts, the opposition continues to falter in disarray, and rumors abound that former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu is on the brink of making a dramatic comeback. Sources close to the matter suggest Lungu is preparing to exit the United Kwacha Alliance (UKA) in October 2024 and position himself for a nomination under the Tonse Alliance or the People’s Pact. This calculated move could upend the 2026 general elections, as Lungu still commands significant influence and poses a genuine threat to the ruling UPND and President Hakainde Hichilema.

Lungu’s frustrations with UKA’s internal dysfunction are clear, with reports suggesting that he’s displeased with how the alliance handled the expulsion of Sean Tembo, while Saboi Imboela who made similarly controversial statements—was treated with kid gloves. Lungu is said to blame UKA Chairperson Sakwiba Sikota for this bias, further fueling speculation about his imminent exit.

This turmoil within UKA has exposed the cracks in Zambia’s opposition, but what remains equally concerning is President Hichilema’s political approach. While Lungu repositions himself as a serious contender for 2026, Hichilema appears detached, adopting a “know-it-all” attitude that is alienating the very people who propelled him to power. Despite his administration’s long-term vision for Zambia, the President is failing to address the immediate needs of the populace a grave misstep in a country where people vote based on their daily struggles, not future promises.

Hichilema’s strategy to focus on grand plans for infrastructure, economic reforms, and governance is commendable, but it risks becoming irrelevant if Zambians feel their stomachs are empty today. The reality is that politics is often decided by short-term issues. Zambians want results now, not in five or ten years. The “Mr. Nice Guy” politics Hichilema is pursuing might soon become a liability, as the tables could turn dramatically when the electorate prioritizes their immediate needs over lofty visions of future prosperity.

Political analysts warn that Lungu’s potential departure from UKA, coupled with his growing disenchantment with the opposition, could energize his base and attract disillusioned voters. Meanwhile, Hichilema’s inability to listen to the people’s cry for immediate economic relief could be his downfall. History has shown that Zambian voters will not hesitate to oust a leader if their day-to-day struggles are ignored—no matter how impressive long-term plans may appear on paper.

The opposition’s disorganization is undoubtedly working in Lungu’s favor, but the ruling UPND government must also recognize the danger of complacency. President Hichilema’s refusal to heed the voices of the people, particularly when it comes to addressing their pressing needs, may backfire. People vote with their bellies, not with a vision of a distant future.

As the 2026 race draws closer, the political landscape is becoming increasingly unpredictable. With Lungu likely to contest under a new alliance and the opposition in disarray, the UPND must wake up to the political realities at play. Hichilema’s “know-it-all” approach could become a self-imposed obstacle if he doesn’t start addressing the current hardships faced by everyday Zambians. Edgar Lungu is not only re-emerging as a credible contender, but Hichilema’s inability to focus on the now could very well give Lungu the edge in the next election.

In a country where political fortunes can shift overnight, both the opposition and the ruling party must tread carefully. As it stands, Lungu’s chances of reclaiming power in 2026 seem more realistic with each passing day, while Hichilema risks being caught off guard if he continues to underestimate the importance of listening to the immediate concerns of the people. The opposition may be divided, but Hichilema cannot afford to rest on his laurels—because in politics, nice guys don’t always finish first.

By Joseph Ngubeni.
Political Scientist

1...181920...5,578Page 19 of 5,578

Company

Trending

Categories

© Lusaka Times