By Ephraim Shakafuswa
I have followed with considerable concern the emerging conversation around the removal of presidential term limits in Zambia. I have also taken note of the explanation being advanced by UPND Media Director Mark Simuuwe, who intends to address the video in which President Hakainde Hichilema spoke against Edgar Lungu’s attempt to seek a third term. His argument appears to be that there is no contradiction because President Hichilema was speaking about the violation of an existing constitutional provision by a former president, whereas the current conversation concerns amending the Constitution through lawful procedures.
Mark, that is a distinction without a satisfactory answer to the question Zambians are asking. Let me explain.
FIRST, NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT CONSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE AMENDED.
That would be a ridiculous argument. Constitutions have amendment procedures precisely because societies evolve and circumstances change. But the existence of an amendment procedure does not mean every proposed amendment is desirable, necessary or in the national interest. This is where the argument being advanced by those advocating the removal of presidential term limits falls apart. You are answering whether the Constitution can be changed. We are asking why a country should remove a safeguard that protects it against the excessive concentration of presidential power. These are two entirely different questions.
The fact that Parliament may possess the constitutional authority to amend Article 106 does not automatically make every proposed alteration to that article an act of good constitutional governance. A constitutional majority is a legal threshold. It is not a blank cheque to do whatever the majority wishes. If we were to accept that everything becomes democratically acceptable simply because the required parliamentary numbers can be assembled, then what exactly would prevent a future government from systematically dismantling other safeguards? The Constitution must be more than an instrument through which those in power exercise their authority. It must also be an instrument that restrains them.
SECOND, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC MASTERSTROKE SOME PEOPLE THINK IT IS.
I hear the argument: Let the people decide. If they want a president to serve beyond two terms, why should anyone stand in their way? It sounds democratic. But it overlooks a fundamental principle. Democracy is not simply majority rule. It is majority rule within a constitutional framework that protects the rights, freedoms and institutions of everyone, including those who may disagree with the majority. The people elect a president under the rules established by the Constitution. Those rules include qualifications, eligibility requirements and limits on tenure.
A citizen’s right to vote does not mean every constitutional restriction on eligibility should be abolished. Imagine a football match in which one team, having won the previous match, decides that the rules should be changed to allow it to field additional players in the next game. Would we call that fair competition simply because the team has the support of a majority of its fans? The rules of the game exist to protect the integrity of the competition, not to inconvenience the team that happens to be winning. The same principle applies to constitutional democracy. And let us be honest about something else. A referendum is not automatically a guarantee of democratic legitimacy. Its credibility depends on the independence of the institutions administering it, the freedom of voters, the quality of public information and the absence of intimidation or manipulation.
We must also be legally precise: Article 79 does not automatically require a referendum to amend Article 106. But the Constitutional Court has made clear that constitutional amendment processes must be people-driven and involve wider consultation. We therefore demand a transparent, independent and genuinely inclusive national process, not a political exercise designed to manufacture consent.
THIRD, DO NOT REDUCE THIS DEBATE TO WHETHER HH IS POPULAR ENOUGH TO WIN ANOTHER ELECTION.
This is perhaps the most dangerous diversion in the entire conversation. Some will argue that those opposing the removal of term limits are simply afraid of President Hichilema winning another election. That is an intellectually lazy argument. The issue is not whether HH is popular, whether he has performed well or whether he believes he has unfinished business. The issue is whether the presidency should be subject to a constitutional limit that applies equally to everyone. I would defend the same provision if the president were from PF, UPND, Socialist Party or any other political formation. In fact, let me put a simple test to every Zambian. If tomorrow a president from your preferred political party completes two terms, will you insist that he or she must leave office? If your answer is yes, you are defending a principle. If your answer is no, then you are not defending democracy. You are defending a political personality. A country cannot have constitutional principles that change depending on who occupies State House. We cannot defend term limits when our opponents are in power and suddenly discover arguments against them when our preferred candidate is the beneficiary. That is not constitutionalism. That is political opportunism.
FOURTH, THE ARGUMENT THAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE CHANGED THEIR TERM LIMITS IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ZAMBIA TO FOLLOW SUIT.
We do not have to import every constitutional experiment from another country. Different countries have different histories, institutional strengths, political environments and experiences with executive power. The relevant question is not whether another country has removed term limits. The relevant question is whether removing them would strengthen or weaken Zambia’s democracy. What problem are we trying to solve? Are we short of capable leaders? Have we exhausted our supply of people who can govern this country? Have our political parties (UPND) become so incapable of producing successors that we must now change the Constitution to accommodate individual political careers? If a political party cannot identify another credible presidential candidate after ten years, that is a leadership and succession problem within that party. It is not a national constitutional emergency. A serious political party should be able to build a legacy that survives the departure of its leader. Indeed, the true measure of a great president is not how long he remains in office. It is whether he builds institutions and develops successors capable of carrying the country forward without him.
FIFTH, LET US ADDRESS THE MAYORAL TERM-LIMIT ARGUMENT BEFORE SOMEBODY USES IT AGAINST US.
Yes, Zambia amended the Constitution to remove the two-term limit for mayors and council chairpersons. Nobody should pretend otherwise. But the fact that one constitutional safeguard was removed does not create an obligation to remove every other safeguard. The presidency is not equivalent to a mayoralty. The President is Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief. The office carries enormous executive authority, national influence and constitutional responsibilities. The consequences of concentrating presidential power are therefore of an entirely different magnitude. More importantly, the Electoral Reform Technical Committee’s 2025 report specifically recommended retaining the two-term presidential limit. It observed that the majority of submissions favoured retaining it and that the limit helps prevent the concentration of power. That recommendation deserves respect. We cannot simply dismiss the views expressed by citizens during a national constitutional review process because a different political argument has emerged today. And if the removal of mayoral term limits was considered desirable, that does not settle the separate question of whether presidential term limits should be removed. One amendment cannot be used as an excuse for another.
SIXTH, THE PRESIDENT’S PREVIOUS POSITION ON EDGAR LUNGU CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY BY A TECHNICAL DISTINCTION.
Mark, your explanation about the difference between constitutional violation and constitutional amendment is legally understandable. But it does not answer the question of principle. The lesson from the 2021 dispute involving Edgar Lungu should not be that Zambia must find more flexible ways of allowing presidents to remain in office. The lesson should be that constitutional provisions governing presidential eligibility must be respected and defended. In 2001, Zambia faced the third-term debate under President Frederick Chiluba. That struggle brought together people who disagreed politically but understood that the Constitution was bigger than any individual president. Churches, civil society, lawyers, political leaders and ordinary citizens stood up to defend the two-term principle. It was not a PF victory. It was not an MMD victory. It was a victory for Zambia. And that is precisely the spirit we need today. The people who opposed Chiluba’s third-term ambitions were not necessarily opposed to Chiluba as a person. They were opposed to the principle that the Constitution should be altered to facilitate his continued stay in office. We must be consistent with that history.
SEVENTH, THERE IS A QUESTION THAT THE PROPONENTS OF REMOVING TERM LIMITS HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED.
What compelling national interest is served by removing the presidential two-term limit? Not political convenience. Not continuity for its own sake. Not the argument that the incumbent still has unfinished business. Not the claim that no other individual can do the job. What concrete national problem requires Zambia to remove this constitutional safeguard?
The 2025 Electoral Reform Technical Committee recommended retaining it. Citizens have expressed support for retaining it through successive constitutional review processes. The country has more pressing matters demanding our attention: unemployment, the cost of living, electricity, healthcare, education, investment and economic opportunity. Why are we spending national political energy discussing how to extend the period an individual can occupy State House? A president is elected to serve the country within the limits of the Constitution. The Constitution is not there to guarantee that a president completes every ambition he or she may have.
EIGHTH, A WORD ABOUT THE CURRENT PETITION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RULING PARTY.
The youth organisations that have petitioned Parliament have every right to present their views. We must defend that right even when we disagree with their proposal. But the fact that citizens can petition Parliament does not mean that their proposal automatically represents the national interest. Equally, the fact that a petition has been presented does not establish that the government has adopted it. That distinction matters. What we are demanding is clarity. Does UPND support retaining Article 106(3), which provides that a person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President? Does President Hichilema believe that the two-term limit should remain irrespective of his personal political ambitions? Does the party support the proposal to remove the provision, or does it consider it a personal initiative by those advancing it? And if the party opposes removal, will it say so publicly and unequivocally? These are reasonable questions. They should not require elaborate political explanations. Mark Simuuwe, as Media Director, you have an opportunity to help settle this matter rather than turn it into an endless exercise in political semantics. Sometimes leadership means telling your own political family that a particular road is dangerous, even when those advocating it are politically influential. Check out George Mtonga’s posts!
FINALLY, LET US REMEMBER WHAT THE 2001 THIRD-TERM DEBATE TAUGHT ZAMBIA.
Presidents come and go. Political parties win elections and lose elections. Political fortunes change. But the Constitution must remain stronger than the ambitions of those who temporarily exercise power under it. The greatest danger to democracy is not always an outright violation of the Constitution. Sometimes it is the gradual weakening of constitutional safeguards through amendments that appear perfectly lawful but undermine the very principles those safeguards were designed to protect. That is why we must be vigilant. And this is not about denying HH the opportunity to deliver. He has a mandate under the existing Constitution. He must be allowed to govern and be judged on his performance. But his mandate does not extend to changing the rules simply because some people believe he should remain beyond the constitutional limit. Zambia is not short of people who can lead. It must never become short of people willing to leave office when their time is up.
To the UPND leadership, I say this: You do not need to dismantle a constitutional safeguard to demonstrate confidence in your leadership. You demonstrate confidence by building a party, a government and institutions that can survive beyond the tenure of one individual. And to those who believe that removing term limits is harmless because the Constitution allows amendments, I ask you to think beyond today’s political calculations. The same amendment you celebrate today may become the instrument of your own political disadvantage tomorrow. You may not always be in government. You may not always control Parliament. And the next president may not share your political convictions. Do not weaken the Constitution today and expect it to protect you tomorrow. A constitutional democracy is not measured by how many times its Constitution can be amended. It is measured by how faithfully those entrusted with power respect the limits placed upon them.
We do not need permanent presidents. We need permanent institutions. We do not need leaders who cannot imagine a Zambia without themselves in State House. We need leaders who can build a Zambia that thrives long after they have left.
THE PRESIDENCY IS TEMPORARY. THE REPUBLIC IS PERMANENT. THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE STRONGER THAN BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE PARTY IN POWER.
ZAMBIA MUST NEVER BE PERSONAL PROPERTY.