Hakainde Hichilema’s Absence and Opposition Questions

 VIEWPOINT | Hakainde Hichilema’s Absence and Opposition Questions

Early January saw a surge of speculation about the health of President Hakainde Hichilema, much of it driven by social media and opposition commentary. Those claims weakened significantly on January 5 when the President appeared in Choma, greeted members of the public and later addressed a rally. Government officials dismissed the rumours, and the images from Choma were widely seen as sufficient proof that the President was well and active.

Since that appearance, however, a different issue has emerged. The President has not been seen publicly for nearly two weeks. There have been no confirmed public engagements, no church appearances, no official inspections and no released programme of presidential activities. Communication attributed to the President has been limited to brief Facebook posts, often accompanied by static photographs.

This silence stands out because it contrasts sharply with President Hichilema’s established leadership style. He is typically visible, accessible and publicly engaged. Wherever he travels, church attendance and community interaction are usually documented. Even when he works outside Lusaka, his movements are rarely opaque. The current absence therefore attracts attention not because of speculation alone, but because it departs from a familiar pattern.

The Chawama parliamentary by election has added another layer to the discussion. It is reasonable to argue that the President deliberately left the campaign to the party and its candidate, a decision consistent with democratic practice. Presidents do not attend every by election, and delegating such contests to party structures is not unusual. Still, opposition figures point out that President Hichilema often appears in public spaces during political moments, even when he is not directly campaigning. His absence during a high profile contest in the capital therefore raised eyebrows, not as proof of wrongdoing, but as an unusual choice.

Opposition voices have returned to questioning his whereabouts, and this time the questions are more measured. They are not asserting illness as fact. They are asking why the President has remained out of public view for an extended period, why no official explanation has been offered, and why this is happening in an election year when visibility matters politically.

What has intensified the debate is the lack of official clarification. No minister has outlined whether the President is on leave, working privately, or engaged in duties away from public view. No schedule has been shared. Silence, in such circumstances, does not settle public curiosity. It widens the space for interpretation.

The President’s Facebook message congratulating the winner of the Chawama by election was widely welcomed and reinforced his respect for democratic outcomes. Yet it also underscored the distance between the presidency and the public at this moment. Messages posted online, even when well intentioned, do not carry the same weight as presence in a political culture accustomed to seeing its leader.

There remains no verified evidence that President Hichilema is unwell. There is also no proof that the government is concealing a crisis. What exists is a communication gap between State House and the public. This gap is now the focus of political debate.

Opposition leaders are within their rights to ask questions about the President’s absence. Government is equally entitled to reject false narratives. Both positions can stand without contradiction. What resolves uncertainty is clarity.

Leadership in an election year is measured not only by policy and results, but by visibility and reassurance. When a President known for public engagement goes quiet, questions are inevitable. Those questions will persist until they are answered, not because of hostility, but because accountability in a democracy depends on openness.

© The People’s Brief | Editors