K6,000 EXTRA MONTHLY ALLOWANCE TO MPs IS FINANCIAL INDISCIPLINE!
By Elias Kamanga
The reported payment of an extra K6,000 monthly allowance to MPs by Councils, following their return to local authorities under the 2026 Constitutional Amendments, raises serious questions about public finance and accountability.
The issue came to light after Chasefu MP Captain Towani Chipeta questioned and returned K7,600 received from her Council, comprising the reported K1,600 September payment and K6,000 October payment. Her action has brought an important public finance question into the open.
An MP already receives a salary and other approved emoluments from public funds. Why, therefore, should taxpayers pay the same MP an additional monthly allowance merely by virtue of being an MP?
Having served as Mayor, I know that MPs previously served as ex-officio members of Councils. During that period, they were entitled to sitting allowances for meetings actually attended, not an automatic monthly allowance simply for being members of the Council.
The 2026 amendments have effectively restored their place in the council system but should not be used to promote illegality
There is an important distinction between a sitting allowance paid for attending an actual Council meeting and a guaranteed monthly payment regardless of wyhether the Council has even sat. The former compensates participation in a specific function; the latter risks becoming additional remuneration for merely holding public office.
I have sadly heard ill advised justifications from some Proncipal Officers that the MPs qualify for the allowances because they are Councillors and not Ex officials. This has been loudly backed by the usual cheer leaders!
Truth is – They are Ex Officials by virtue of them being MPs. They do not have Wards to represent in the Council like all other Councillors. Furthermore and in accordance with the Constitution, any other payment received other than sitting allowance would constitute an emolument which would be illegal.
The Constitution defines emoluments broadly to include salaries and allowances and places restrictions on holding public offices carrying emoluments. This therefore calls for scrutiny of the legal basis of these additional payments.
With 226 elected MPs, a K6,000 monthly payment to each would translate into K16,272,000 annually.
K16.27 MILLION EVERY YEAR is too substantial an expenditure to be allowed without clear legal authority. If the payments are lawful, Government must identify the legislation, regulation or Emoluments Commission determination authorising them. If not, they should be stopped forthwith.
This is where the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and the Secretary to the Treasury must step in. LAZ should help clarify the constitutional and legal position, while the Secretary to the Treasury should establish the financial and legal authority under which Councils are making these payments.
The issue also raises serious questions about the UPND Government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and prudent management of public resources. It is difficult to reconcile calls for austerity and expenditure control with additional public expenditure whose legal justification remains unclear.
It is commendable that Kapoche MP Enock Kaimba and Sinda MP Masauso Tembo have supported Hon Chipeta’s position, indicating that, to their knowledge, they are not entitled to the K6,000 monthly allowance. Their clarification further underscores the need for a uniform and transparent position on this matter.
The principle is simple: an MP should not receive a second monthly remuneration merely for being an ex-officio councillor. A legitimate sitting allowance for meetings attended is one thing; an automatic monthly payment is quite another.
That K6,000 could instead contribute towards supporting a civil servant, a farmer or an elderly citizen through an improved Social Cash Transfer programme.
If there is no clear legal basis for this additional payment, it should be scrapped forthwith.
PUBLIC MONEY DEMANDS PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY!