 VIEWPOINT | Faith & Politics: Reading Godfridah Sumaili’s Makebi-Jesus Analogy

Former Religious and National Guidance minister Godfridah Sumaili’s decision to liken Makebi Zulu to Jesus Christ is not a casual metaphor. It is a deliberate political act, drawing on Zambia’s deep Christian identity to frame a contemporary leadership contest in spiritual terms.

Speaking at a press briefing, Sumaili cast Makebi as a “servant,” invoking the Gospel image of Christ who raised Lazarus and led through humility. “We don’t need a businessman or a boss,” she said.

“We need a servant. Our Lord Jesus Christ came as a servant.” The message was clear. Leadership, in her framing, is not competence or governance capacity but spiritual posture.

She went further, accusing the UPND government of removing “the face of God from Zambia” and opening the door to “dark forces.” The claim positions political disagreement as spiritual warfare. It also places voters in a binary choice between God and godlessness, salvation and tribulation.

This is not new in Zambian politics.

Following the death of Michael Sata in 2014, a similar narrative was deployed around Edgar Chagwa Lungu. PF figures framed Lungu as divinely chosen, anointed to complete a spiritual mission. Christian language was used to sanctify political authority. Over time, governance realities exposed the limits of that framing. The record of the Lungu years is widely documented, including the politicisation of the police, cadre violence, and shrinking civic space. The spiritual language did not translate into ethical governance.

Sumaili’s remarks follow the same pattern.

By invoking Jesus Christ, she elevates Makebi beyond scrutiny. A “servant leader” framed as a Christ-like figure is insulated from ordinary political questioning. Policy gaps become secondary. Organisational weaknesses become irrelevant. Track records are eclipsed by perceived anointing.

This approach also risks instrumentalising faith communities. Zambia is constitutionally a Christian nation, but its Constitution does not require messianic leadership. Faith is meant to inform values, not replace competence. History shows that leaders presented as saviours often govern without restraint once in office, shielded by moral absolutism.

Sumaili’s assertion that the UPND has “removed God” from Zambia is not supported by constitutional or legal evidence. Zambia’s Christian nation clause remains intact. Churches operate freely. Religious expression remains visible in public life. The claim is political rhetoric, not a factual description of state policy.

Her further claim that the last four years have brought “tribulations with no solutions” reflects opposition talking points rather than a balanced assessment. Zambia faces economic strain, including energy shortages and cost-of-living pressures, but it has also seen debt restructuring progress, improved fiscal discipline, and restored engagement with international creditors.

These realities complicate the apocalyptic framing offered at the briefing.

Crucially, Makebi Zulu’s political positioning cannot be divorced from recent history. He has been a central figure around the late Edgar Lungu, including during the prolonged period in which Lungu’s body has remained unburied. His current political mobilisation draws heavily from the same PF base, networks, and narratives. Casting him as a moral break from that past requires evidence, not biblical analogy.

Zambia is not short of religious leaders. It is short of effective governance. Voters face questions of economic recovery, energy security, institutional reform, and social cohesion. These challenges demand administrative capacity, policy clarity, and political organisation.

Faith can guide conscience. It cannot substitute for competence.

Sumaili’s remarks reveal a familiar strategy. When political structures are weak and programmes are thin, spiritual language fills the gap. History suggests that Zambians have seen this script before. The outcome was not redemption. It was disappointment.

The test for any presidential hopeful is not resemblance to a messiah, but readiness to govern a complex republic. On this score, symbolism will not be enough.

© The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu

 BREAKING | Bill 7 Becomes Law

President Hakainde Hichilema has formally signed into law the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, sealing one of the most consequential constitutional reforms since the 2016 amendments.

The signing took place this morning at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre, days after Parliament passed the Bill with a decisive two-thirds majority. A total of 135 Members of Parliament voted in favour, clearing the constitutional threshold required for amendment.

Addressing the gathering, Minister of Justice Princess Kasune framed the outcome as a direct expression of popular will exercised through Parliament.

“This Constitution represents the voice of the people,” Kasune said, noting that more than 82 percent of MPs supported the Bill, an outcome she described as rare in Zambia’s legislative history.

She added that President Hichilema had delivered a constitutional framework intended to “make the country better,” pointing to reforms aimed at representation, governance coordination, and inclusion.

The assent brings Bill 7 into immediate legal force, activating provisions that expand constituencies, introduce proportional representation seats for women, youth, and persons with disabilities, and set the stage for a nationwide delimitation exercise to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission of Zambia.

The moment marks a political inflection point. While government allies hailed the signing as a democratic milestone, opposition figures continue to dispute the legitimacy of the process, insisting the matter remains alive in the courts and in public debate.

Further details are expected as reactions continue to emerge across the political spectrum.

© The People’s Brief | Francine Lilu

THE SPEAKER WAS NOT WRONG, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SHOWING SOME HUMOUR – HAMUKALE

FORMER Southern Province Minister Edify Hamukale has defended Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, following criticism over her celebratory dance in Parliament after the passage of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7.

Dr. Hamukale says there was nothing wrong with the Speaker expressing a light moment of humour, adding that her actions did not breach any parliamentary rules or offend Members of Parliament.

He said that the Speaker would only have been out of order if some Members had voted against the Bill, which he says was not the case.

“All Members voted in favour of the Bill, so there was no one offended by the Speaker’s actions in the National Assembly,” said Dr. Hamukale.

He has since urged Zambians not to be overly serious about life, encouraging the public to embrace good humour from time to time.

RCV

By CIC

BY- ELECTIONS TO CONTINUE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

Some talking points from President HH.

I sold some of my cattle so that I can build a solar plant for the benefit of Zambians, soon you’ll see it on TV”.
– HH

Citizens should get used to this government doing things like never before – Hichilema

I declare that Constitution of Zambia Bill No. 7 debate is now behind us, let’s move on – President Hichilema

Some people have not moved on since 2021.It is time to move on, this is the reality,” President Hichilema

Zambians rejected the proposal to remove by-elections and I accepted the outcome! – President Hichilema

Amateurs; They commit crimes and leave evidence at the scene of crime

Linda Banks Wrote;

“#BanaBaabo~ I think it’s quite hilarious to watch how amateurish ba M23 still are , uleiba- ilizala..,they commit crimes and present evidence of the crimes themselves, so basically he’s just implying that the MP who was the Chair was compromised te?
Heniwe, FacebookHakainde Hichilema Hon lmanga Wamunyima Jr-Nalolo MP.”

Wamunyima responded claiming that he shouldn’t be enjoined to the fight with UPND claiming Linda’s assertions were “rubbish”.

Linda Banks responded; “I am honestly surprised that such words could be spoken with a straight face. I hold your President, Tripple H (Highvie Hamududu) in the highest esteem; he has consistently been a respected elder brother to me and out of regard for him, I choose not to indulge in reckless conjecture.”

“That said, facts remain stubborn things. Your engagement was neither engineered nor encouraged by me. It was the direct consequence of actions taken by yourself and Sepiso.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise is not only a distortion of events, but a rather revealing one, doing far more damage to its author than to its intended target.”

By Kellys Kaunda

BILL 7 BECOMES LAW AMID PUBLIC ATTENDANCE AND FANFARE – WE SAW THIS 9YRS AGO

Today, the event took place at the Kenneth Kaunda wing of Mulungushi International Conference Center.

The 7th President of Zambia, Mr. Hakainde Hichilema was signing into law what has so far been referred to as Bill 7, a proposal to make some amendments to the Zambian Constitution.

Significant changes include the introduction of reserved seats for women, the youth and the disabled.

Also noteworthy is the increase in the number of parliamentary seats due to delimitation.

The event marked a significant development in the constitutional development of Zambia.

It was therefore befitting that it was attended by members of the public amid fanfare.

But it was not unprecedented. A similar event took place 9yrs ago. To be exact, on the 5th of January 2016.

It was held in the National Heroes Stadium with a large crowd in attendance as the government then wanted to make the most of the event.

President Lungu, the 6th President, was assenting to what was up until that time referred to as Bill No. 2 seeking to amend the constitution.

The most historical thing about that amendment was the introduction of 50%+1 for someone to be declared winner of the presidential race.

It also introduced the running mate clause in the presidential race.

Both the 2016 and the 2025 processes were marked with controversy before and after the assent. But the country moved on as it shall this time around.

Both Lungu and Hichilema will go down in history as the Presidents who contributed to constitutional development.

The amendments they both superintended over advanced the country’s democracy a few inches further.

In 2016, it was for PF to rejoice. In 2025, 9yrs later, it’s for UPND to take their turn and take to the dance floor.

In Bemba we say, “Insansa kuchinjanya”, loosely and directly translated, “Happiness is to be exchanged”.

TELL YOUR CHILDREN THAT THE CONDUCT OF POLITICIANS MUST NEVER BE THEIR STANDARD OF CHARACTER – LESSONS FROM THE ECL BURIAL IMPASSE

To contend over the burial rites of the dead is not only sickening but morally so low, children must be told in no uncertain terms that such disputes must never ever be tolerated when it’s their turn to assume the reigns of power.

Two grown men hated each other so much, they raised their personal beef to the national stage sucking an innocent nation into a very unnecessary dispute.

One bruised the other when he was in power. But when the bruised held the reigns of power, he too turned the heat on the other.

The new victim took it so hard, in death, he left instructions that clearly indicated the beef wasn’t over.

Unfortunately, universally, human cultures respect the wishes of the dead so much, it comes across as sacrilegious to suggest that they disregard them.

It feels almost like the dead will return to haunt them for the rest of their lives.

The impasse over ECL’s burial, believe you me, is very resolvable.

It’s so simple, even adolescents would have resolved it in minutes.

This impasse is an eloquent but tragic expression of the state of humanity today and how it has morally degraded so much, it’s almost beyond redemption.

On one hand, the state believes its way is the right one while on the other hand the Lungu family feels only its way is the right way.

Two groups of full-grown adults continue to live out and play out the personal beef of two full-grown men whose defective outlook on political engagement should have been ignored by the rest of us except one is dead and the other is a sitting head of state.

Sin can harden people’s hearts so much, they will turn vanity into a public policy issue when in fact it’s not.

Psychological evaluations, like sin, can harden people into taking positions that have no real value whatsoever.

The perceived correctness of either position is in essence mere products of cognitive functionalities tragically mistaken for substance.

This generation of adults and political leadership is a morally lost generation.

To the youth, I want to say to you, this is not a generation to draw moral lessons from.

When it’s your turn to govern this country, chart your own path.

Give to yourselves a new constitution, new laws, new public policies and a new political culture.

The current state of affairs is so toxic, I just hope and pray some of you haven’t been contaminated already.

HH Shoves the Cart: How Zambia’s Institutions Are Under Siege

By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma

Attached to this article is an image that captures what many Zambians now feel but struggle to put into words: President Hakainde Hichilema pushing a massive shopping cart down the aisles of Zambian democracy. Inside that cart sit the Courts, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), Parliament, the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Police, the Army, the Human Rights Commission, and even the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).

These are not ordinary items. They are the pillars of governance, democracy, and civil society. Yet in this image, they are reduced to cargo, shoved forward, controlled, rearranged, and used to consolidate power.

This is not a metaphor for efficiency. This is a warning. This is the image of authoritarianism disguised as leadership.

The Weight of the Cart

Each institution in HH’s cart tells a painful and unsettling story, one that many citizens now whisper about in fear.

The Courts, once the final refuge for justice, are increasingly viewed as losing their independence. Decisions in politically sensitive cases favor the powerful, leaving citizens questioning whether justice still belongs to the people or now answers to power.

The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), entrusted with safeguarding the people’s vote, has become a mechanism for legitimizing selective outcomes rather than reflecting the genuine will of the electorate. When trust in elections erodes, democracy itself begins to collapse.

Parliament, the backbone of oversight and representation, has been weakened and sidelined. Robust debate is muted, scrutiny diluted, and executive dominance normalized. A parliament that cannot challenge power becomes a spectator to authoritarian drift.

The ACC and DEC, institutions meant to uphold accountability and fight crime, are increasingly accused by critics of selective enforcement. Political opponents are pursued aggressively while allies appear insulated. Anti-corruption, once a promise of reform, now feels to many like a tool of punishment.

The Police and the Army, sworn to protect citizens and uphold constitutional order, are deployed to suppress protests, block opposition activities, and intimidate dissenting voices. Force has replaced dialogue. Fear has replaced trust.

The Human Rights Commission, mandated to defend liberties and protect the vulnerable, struggles to operate freely under mounting pressure. Its silence in critical moments speaks louder than words.

The Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), historically the voice of workers and social justice, faces harassment and marginalization whenever it dares to challenge government policy. When workers’ voices are muted, economic injustice deepens.

The cart is heavy with power, yet HH shoves it forward relentlessly, sending a chilling message: these institutions no longer serve the people; they serve the presidency.

Shoving Democracy into Fear

This is what unchecked power looks like in real life. Citizens lower their voices. Journalists self-censor. Activists calculate the cost of speaking out. Opposition leaders face intimidation. Protests are crushed before they can grow.

Independent institutions no longer stand guard over rights and freedoms. They are rolled along, one by one, in service of a single man’s agenda.

Fear replaces accountability.
Fear replaces freedom.
Fear replaces hope.

The image of the cart is not exaggeration. It is an alarm bell. Democracy cannot survive when courts, elections, parliament, and civil society are reduced to merchandise to be pushed around at will.

Breaking the Cart

This cart can be stopped, but only if courage outweighs fear.

Citizens must refuse silence.
Civil society must refuse intimidation.
Workers must refuse exploitation.
Opposition parties must refuse surrender.
Faith leaders, students, professionals, and ordinary Zambians must refuse to normalize repression.

Courts must reclaim independence.
Election bodies must operate impartially.
Parliament must reassert oversight.
Law enforcement must protect citizens, not power.
Human rights institutions must speak, even when it is uncomfortable.

Zambia cannot allow its institutions to remain a shopping cart for authoritarian ambition. The cart must be emptied, and every pillar restored to its rightful role: serving the people, not the powerful.

History has shown us this truth again and again: when institutions fall, nations follow. The time to stop the cart is not tomorrow. It is now.

Silence is not neutrality.
Silence is permission.

And Zambia cannot afford to give permission for its democracy to be rolled away.

The Democratic Republic of Congo  is the richest resource country on earth.

Conservatively they said under her belly, she has minerals which are equivalent to $34.1 trillion, and yet today, it is one of the poorest nations on earth

It is the only nation on earth which on the day of election has it president saying we know we ought to have election but we do not have money to hold the election.

When you see a country whose official name is The Democratic Republic of Congo , know there is no democracy.

©: PLO Lumumba ✍

TO:
All Mayors
All Deputy Mayors
All Council Chairpersons
All Deputy Council Chairpersons

⸻

PATRIOTIC FRONT CAUTIONS AGAINST ATTENDANCE AT THE PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT TO THE 2025 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

It has come to the attention of the Patriotic Front that the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development has, through a communiqué referenced MLGRD/101/1/10 dated 17th December 2025, invited Mayors, Council Chairpersons, Deputy Mayors, and Deputy Council Chairpersons to attend the Presidential Assent ceremony for the 2025 Constitutional Amendment.

The Patriotic Front hereby formally cautions and advises all elected local government leaders against attending this event. The said ceremony is clearly intended to rubber-stamp and sanitise an illegal, illegitimate, and deeply flawed constitutional amendment process, being pursued by President Hakainde Hichilema and his administration under the guise of legality.

This caution is premised on the Patriotic Front’s firm and well-documented position that the process undertaken by Government to amend the Constitution was fundamentally unconstitutional, procedurally defective, and in total disregard of the will of the Zambian people. The process violated both the spirit and letter of the Constitution, as unequivocally pronounced by the Constitutional Court in the matter of Celestin Mukandila and Munir Zulu v. The Attorney General.

The Patriotic Front remains unwavering in its commitment to the sovereignty of the Zambian people, whose collective will is enshrined in the Constitution. As a pioneer and defender of democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law, the Party will not be complicit in actions aimed at undermining these foundational principles.

Accordingly, the Patriotic Front reminds all elected leaders of the oath of office they swore to defend and protect the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia. These offices are held in trust on behalf of the people in their respective municipalities. Participation in any process that undermines constitutional governance amounts to a betrayal of the electorate and constitutes a clear breach of that solemn oath.

The Patriotic Front reiterates its unwavering commitment to defending democracy and standing with the people of Zambia, particularly at a time when the country faces a dark cloud of constitutional abrogation driven by leadership intent on eroding democratic safeguards.

⸻

Issued by:
Hon. Given Lubinda
President
Patriotic Front

ZAMBIA NOW A DICTATORSHIP – MP’S HAVE KILLED DEMOCRACY BY PASSING ILLEGAL BILL 7 – CHANGALA

BY VOTING for Bill 7 Members of Parliament have allowed the birth of dictatorship in Zambia, governance and human rights activist Brebnar Changala has said.

Meanwhile, President Hakainde Hichilema has hailed the passing of the controversial Bill 7 saying the people have spoken through their duly elected representatives.

Various stakeholders have roundly condemned the passing by Parliament of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, which paves the way for the amendment of the Constitution, as a slide towards a one-party dictatorship through consolidating power in the hands of the ruling party.

“This is now the birth of dictatorship in Zambia. Yes, but we allowed it. Without using a gun. We have allowed it. And the MPs are leading the way,” Changala told The Mast in an interview.

He said Zambians were watching and the MPs who had betrayed them would now face a new version of voters in 2026.

The MPs who had betrayed the majority Zambians should explain their action before they were condemned by their electorate.

“Let’s hear their version. Let’s not condemn them without hearing from them. Let them give us their side of the story. Why will they do what they have done? Because Zambians were watching this closely,” Changala said.
He said the current crop of MPs were the true face of betrayal driven by the love for money.

Changala said the passing of Bill 7 clearly showed that the current MPs were not in the House to serve the interest of the people who had elected them but for personal and selfish ambitions.

He said the MPs were a let-down who could not be trusted.

“We don’t know what is happening in Parliament now. We have become betrayers now,” he said.
It was totally unfair to the majority Zambians.

Meanwhile, President Hakainde Hichilema has hailed the success of the controversial Bill 7 saying the people have spoken through their duly elected representatives.

In a message to the nation posted on his official Facebook page, Hichilema said the winners were the people of Zambia.

“People have spoken through their duly elected representatives, and as a nation committed to democratic principles, we must respect both the outcome and the collective resolve it represents,” he said.

“The greatest winners in this process are the people of Zambia and our democracy itself.”

Hichilema said throughout the process, there had been a lot of lobbying and robust debate with the two opposing sides agreeing and, at times, disagreeing but such engagement should ultimately lead to a resolution.

“Fellow Zambians Bill 7 has been one of the most topical and consequential issues of our time, one that has tested the strength of our democracy and the unity of our nation,” he said.

“Now is the time to turn our full attention to national development. We must do so as one people; government, the opposition, civil society, and citizens alike, moving forward together in one direction. United by our shared destiny, let us reaffirm our commitment to One Zambia, One Nation, and work collectively for the progress and prosperity of our country.”

The Mast

PF MP’s RUBBISH ‘MALICIOUS’ BILL. 7 BRIBERY CLAIMS

BWANA Mkubwa Independent Member of Parliament Warren Mwambazi has rubbished claims that Government paid independent and opposition lawmakers K3 million to endorse the bill.

And PF faction President Robert Chabinga says the PF Members of Parliament that voted for the bill were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the bill meant well for the Zambian people, dispelling claims that they were paid by the ruling party.

In an interview, Mr Mwambazi said he voted for Bill 7 out of principle and does not regret doing so.

“People are being malicious and they have been malicious from the word go, no, they gave us K3 million, where?”

He added that the refined piece of legislation does not have any contentious matters.

“Constitution amendment is a give and take, you cannot agree to everything. For me, those contentious matters were looked at, taken care of and were removed,” Mr Mwambazi said.

And Mr Chabinga has assured PF MPs who voted for the bill that they will be adopted in 2026, and retain their seats, adding that they should not be intimidated by anyone, as he is the only one with the mandate to expel anyone.

“And I can guarantee you, no one should intimidate you that you will be expelled, I am the only expeller. All those guys are jokers. Don’t even listen to them,” Mr Chabinga said.

Zambia Daily Mail

PF CENTRAL COMMITTEE WILL DECIDE FATE OF MPS WHO SUPPORTED BILL 7 – LUBINDA

GIVEN Lubinda says he is meeting the PF Central Committee to decide on disciplinary action against MPs who voted for Bill 7, stating that the public will be informed of its resolutions.

Lubinda, who is the acting PF president, revealed that ahead of the Bill’s second reading, the party held several meetings with MPs and opposition leaders, and invoked a three-line whip to warn them against supporting the Bill.

On Sunday, PF National Chairperson Jean Kapata warned PF MPs that those who would vote for Bill 7 should consider themselves automatically expelled from the party.

However, on Monday, 135 MPs, including members from the PF and Independents voted in favour of the Bill.

Giving an update on the matter, Wednesday, Lubinda said the issue was bigger than it looked and the party needed to find the real reasons behind MPs voting for Bill 7.

“I want to inform the Zambian people that the Patriotic Front had more than eight meetings with members of parliament from the Patriotic Front and a few times including independent members of parliament.

In one of the meetings, I actually invited presidents of opposition political parties to sensitise members of parliament, to beg our members of parliament to work against Bill 7 and to vote against Bill 7. Only two weeks before Bill 7 was presented for the second reading, I invoked the three-line whip, as president of this party, the constitution empowers me to invoke a three-line whip.

I wrote to all members of parliament of the Patriotic Front warning them that the policy of the PF was against Bill 7, and that no member of the PF would be allowed to vote in favour of Bill 7. Beyond that, we also issued a statement the night before Bill 7 went to Parliament and the National Chairperson of the party issued a clear warning,” said Lubinda.

“She said those who will vote for Bill 7 must consider themselves as having expelled themselves from the Patriotic Front. I am to meet the National Executive Committee (NEC), I’m to meet the Central Committee for us to look at this matter because there is more to it than meets the eye.

Why was it that there were so many of our members of parliament who voted for the Bill? We wouldn’t like to just make drastic decisions, we also want to understand the root cause because we don’t want to only cure the effects, we want to cure the root cause and the nation will be informed”.

Meanwhile, PF presidential aspirant Makebi Zulu said he would support the expulsion or suspension from the party of MPs who voted for Bill 7, as the party must uphold its principles and public trust, even at the cost of losing parliamentary representation.

“With regards to the issue of expulsion or indeed suspension of the members of parliament that voted for Bill 7, a man is only as good as his word. And our organisation can only be as good as its policies, its principles and what it seeks to achieve. And if there are going to be treacherous people amongst us who go against the will of the people whom we seek to represent, then they may no longer have anything to do with us.

It’s best that we part company, so that we get back and regain the trust. The issue of the Patriotic Front being in disarray, this has contributed, and unless we are seen to be taking steps that rectify or bring back the trust and hope that people have in us, we will have to remain down,” said Zulu.

“But we need to take those steps even if it includes not having a single member of parliament, so be it, because we have a people to serve. People have trusted us to follow through with what we say, what we say should be what we mean and what we mean should be that which we say. And members of parliament, due to flaws in character, decided the way they did and that goes against the principles of the party. If you ask me if I would support a move by the party? Certainly, I would support that move by the party because we need to regain the trust of the people”.

Further, former Religious Affairs Minister Godfridah Sumaili stressed that Zambia needed a leader who served the people like Jesus Christ did, and she believed Zulu showed that servant spirit.

“Honourable Makebi Zulu does not only bring the strength of the youth to the table, but also, he is carrying those attributes that Zambia needs today. And what are those attributes that we are talking about? First and foremost, if you have been following what he has been speaking, he has been talking about service. He is coming as a servant and at this time we do not need a businessman or a boss, we need a servant.

Our Lord Jesus Christ came as a servant and we need somebody who can really identify with our people, the youth, women and identify with those that are in corporate offices and everybody. Another virtue that I see in Makebi Zulu is his love for the Lord. He loves the Lord Jesus Christ, that’s a big one. Zambia is a Christian nation and remains a Christian nation, Zambians love the Lord,” said Sumaili.

News Diggers

IT WAS SHOCKING TO SEE THE SPEAKER DANCE AFTER BILL 7 PASSED IN PARLEY – EFZ

Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ) Executive Director, Andrew Mwenda, has expressed disappointment with the conduct of the Speaker of the National Assembly, following the successful passage of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025.

Bishop Mwenda says as a former member of the Oasis Forum and in her role as Speaker, she was expected to remain impartial throughout the legislative process as opposed to dancing after the passage of the bill.

Speaking when he featured on the Christian Voice Chatback Programme in Lusaka today, Bishop Mwenda said that although the Speaker was entitled to her personal views on Bill 7, she should not have publicly revealed her stance after the Bill was passed by Parliament.

“This casts serious doubt on the impartiality of the Speaker, who is expected to preside over the House in a fair and neutral manner,” said Bishop Mwenda.

Meanwhile, Bishop Mwenda noted that the Oasis Forum did everything possible to oppose Bill 7 but acknowledged that, in the end, the will of the people prevailed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

He said the Forum respects the outcome of the parliamentary vote and will continue to champion constitutionalism, democracy, and the rule of law in Zambia.

Angel Kasabo

RCV

ABOUT THE PASSING OF BILL 7: THE HIGHS AND LOWS

By Sean Tembo – PeP President and TONSE ALLIANCE Spokesperson

1. So Bill 7 was finally passed, and will be assented to by the President this morning. Of course, various people have made detailed submissions as to why Bill 7 is bad for Zambia’s democracy. For me, my biggest issue with Bill 7 is that it allows the Executive to control the legislature, firstly through the large number of nominated MPs, and secondly, by empowering the President to suspend Parliament, for no good reason. And yet, a key duty of the legislature, in any properly functioning democracy, is to hold the Executive accountable. So, by controlling the Legislature, Bill 7 has given leeway for the Executive to escape accountability. I do not need to go further to explain why an unaccountable Executive is bad for our country.

2. But the purpose of this article is not necessarily to restate all the bad things about Bill 7. I think other people have already done a reasonably good job on that. Here, l wish to discuss how we, the Zambian people, allowed this constitutional manipulation to succeed. Not just for the sake of apportioning blame, but so that we can learn from our failures and fight a better battle next time around. Because one thing is for sure; this will not be the last time that the UPND regime will try to undermine our democracy, for their own selfish benefit.

3. Of course, most people will put the blame on opposition PF MPs for betraying the people and voting with the ruling party to pass Bill 7. But for me, l was not surprised , because they acted exactly as l expected. You see, since time immemorial, the PF has never been a disciplined organization, and it is unreasonable for anyone to expect it to become a disciplined organization today, and for the MPs to adhere to the directives of the party, not to support Bill 7. I remember way back around 2012, just after ascending to office, the GBM camp and the Winter Kabimba camp were fighting running battles in the streets of Lusaka. When l say running battles, l mean the two camps literally hacking each other as if it is two opposing political parties. So, for a political party that was that indisciplined while it’s founding father was still alive, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect it to suddenly become disciplined and unite to defeat Bill 7. Infact, a key punchline that describes PF, which my PF brothers tell me, Sata himself coined, is; ileyenda ilepya. Meaning “..it’s moving while it’s burning..”

4. Other people blame HH for pushing the passage of Bill 7, to take away power from Parliament and give it to himself. But for me, again, l was not surprised with the actions of President Hichilema regarding Bill 7. He acted exactly the way I expected and the way I have always known him. Always putting personal interest ahead of the national interest by all means necessary. Even if it meant disregarding the Constitutional Court judgement on the matter. So, there were no surprises there for me.

5. However, I was disappointed and surprised with the conduct of the Oasis Forum in this fight against Bill 7. Instead of uniting with political players, in the fight against Bill 7, the Oasis Forum decided to go solo, thereby leaving us political players with no option but to also go solo. Divided, the end result was that we both  failed to stop Bill 7. The conduct of the Oasis Forum in the fight against Bill 7, was very different from their conduct on the fight against Bill 10 in 2021. When we were fighting against Bill 10, the Oasis Forum worked hand in hand with us political players. They were not shy to publicly associate with us. They would even visit HH’s residence at Community House and pose for photos, while pronouncing their objection to Bill 10.

6. This time around however, the Oasis Forum treated us political players as if we had leprosy or some other contagious disease. They did not want to collaborate with us or indeed associate with us in any meaningful way. Even the so-called Prayer Rally that they organized on 28th November 2025 at Pope Square, was very disappointing. Although political players were not specifically invited, we however rallied our people and went to attend, only to find that the cathedral was locked. Ati we can’t use the cathedral, we would have to meet from outside. But how do we meet outside in this rain season? Why did you invite us here if you did not want us to use the facilities here? Because, had you been clear from the onset, we would have organized an alternative venue. Anyway, the Prayer Rally ended up flopping, and it benefitted the proponents of Bill 7.

7. It appeared to me that the Oasis Forum was more excited with the President’s invitation at State House, later that afternoon. It made them feel important. And their self-importance was more important than the public good, to stop Bill 7. Some of us advised them that the Friday protest needed to proceed, since they had already complied with all legal requirements. And that the meeting with the President needed to come after the protest. That way, they would have something to negotiate with when they met the President; and that is the ability to organize another protest. But they decided to go and sit on the negotiation table at State House, empty handed. With nothing to bargain with. Just an appeal to
moral conscious of the President.

8. We all saw what happened with the so-called dialogue between the Oasis Forum and the President. Nothing. The bottom line is that there is strength in unity. The Oasis Forum is made up of church mother bodies and civil society organizations, and both these players are always preaching to politicians about the need for unity. And yet, they did not have appetite to unite with us when it mattered most.

9. You see, Bill 7 was a political battle of national importance. And you cannot successfully fight a political battle without the participation of political players. Over the years that I have been a politician, I have observed that politics is much like football. Many non-politicians have a simplistic approach towards politics. Just like many non-footballers have a simplistic approach towards football. Everyone thinks they can do it better … until they jump into the ring and realize that they can’t. A politician can easily anticipate the move of a fellow politician, which a non-politician cannot. You go all the way to State House, and your only bargaining chip is an appeal to the moral conscious of President Hichilema? If you had asked me, I would have told you that you’re wasting your time. Better you just stay home and drink tea.

10. You see, there is certain wisdom that accrues to us politicians, from the many hours that we spend each week, in the dock at court, answering to frivolous charges brought against us by the state, in addition to the time we spend in congested police cells and remand prisons. Such wisdom is a product of trials and tribulations, and may not ordinarily be acquired by merely standing on the pulpit, nor advocating for generic civil society causes behind a solid oak desk supplied by international donors. Therefore, next time around, when a political matter of national importance, such as Bill 7 arises again, we all need to unite in the fight against such a common foe. Never, for a minute, think you know more about politics than the actual politicians. By the time you realize that your actions were naive and ineffective, it will be too late. And the masses are always the biggest losers. As the case is with the passage of Bill 7.

///END

SET 18.12.2025

🇿🇲 CLOSE-UP | Makebi Frames Bill 7 Fallout as Leadership Test & Constitutional Reckoning

Makebi Zulu’s yesterday press briefing following the passage of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 was not a routine opposition response. It was a political intervention, aimed at redefining legitimacy around the constitutional process while simultaneously staking ground in the Patriotic Front’s unresolved leadership contest.

Coming two days after Parliament passed Bill 7 with decisive numbers and a day before President Hakainde Hichilema’s expected assent, Zulu positioned himself as both a constitutional purist and a moral counterweight to what he described as executive overreach and internal party betrayal.

The briefing revolved around three pillars: constitutional ownership, moral authority within the PF, and the need for political renewal after the 2026 elections.

“The Constitution Does Not Belong to Government”

Zulu anchored his argument in constitutional theory rather than parliamentary arithmetic. Repeatedly invoking the preamble, he argued that the Bill 7 process departed from the principle of popular sovereignty.

“The Constitution does not say ‘we the government give unto you the people,’” Zulu said. “It says ‘we the people give unto ourselves.’”

This framing mirrors long-standing civil society objections to executive-driven constitutional reform in Zambia, particularly under previous administrations. However, it is important to note that Zambia’s Constitution does not prescribe a single exclusive model for initiating amendments. Past reforms, including the 2016 process, were also executive-initiated but legitimized through referenda or parliamentary thresholds.

Zulu’s claim therefore rests more on democratic philosophy than settled constitutional law.

He argued that public consultation under Bill 7 was insufficient and elite-driven, despite the Technical Committee reporting over 11,000 submissions nationwide. Whether that figure constitutes “broad consultation” remains a political judgment rather than a legal threshold defined in the Constitution.

Zulu went beyond opposing Bill 7 to outline what he framed as a corrective roadmap. He called for limits on presidential authority in driving constitutional amendments, arguing that recent events exposed structural imbalance.

“We must take back or limit the power of the president to do what we have seen in this particular case,” he said.

Here again, Zulu did not reject constitutional reform outright. He proposed a fresh, people-driven review process to begin after the 2026 elections. This position aligns with views held by sections of civil society and the Oasis Forum, whose latest attempt to halt the process was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the Bill itself.

That distinction matters. The court did not rule Bill 7 unconstitutional at this stage. It ruled that there was “nothing to conserve” because the Technical Committee had completed its mandate.

Zulu expanded the debate by linking constitutional reform to economic justice, arguing that political rights without economic guarantees are hollow.

“We must put economic rights in our Constitution,” he said, citing health and livelihoods as areas requiring constitutional protection.

While economic and social rights already exist in Zambia’s constitutional framework under directive principles, they are largely non-justiciable. Zulu’s proposal would require a fundamental redesign of enforceability, something no opposition figure has yet fully articulated in legal terms.

His economic vision, centred on agriculture, mining, tourism, and technology, echoed standard development rhetoric. No specific fiscal or institutional mechanisms were outlined at the briefing.

The most politically charged segment of Zulu’s remarks targeted PF Members of Parliament who voted for Bill 7. Without naming individuals, he framed their conduct as a moral rupture.

“Those who are going to be treacherous people amongst us and go against the will of the people should no longer have anything to do with us,” he said.

This position resonates with a PF base angered by the scale of cross-voting. More than 20 PF and opposition MPs supported the Bill, many of whom have since publicly defended their votes.

Sunday Chanda and Mulenga Kampamba, among others, have stated that they voted in line with constituency interests, particularly delimitation, not party instruction. This defence shows deeper tension within the PF: whether MPs owe primary loyalty to party positions or to local electoral incentives.

Zulu described the vote as an “individual moral failure,” but stopped short of proposing disciplinary mechanisms, reflecting the PF’s current leadership ambiguity.

More so, Zulu’s self-characterisation was deliberate. He framed himself as a servant rather than a power broker.

“Zambians do not need a boss. They need a servant,” he said.

Supporters emphasised his youth, Christian faith, and humility. This messaging contrasts with Zambia’s historically transactional politics but remains aspirational without organisational backing.

Notably, Zulu did not address criticism surrounding his dual role in PF internal politics and his high-profile involvement in matters relating to the late former President Edgar Lungu’s burial, an issue that has polarised public opinion. The omission was conspicuous.

Taken together, the press briefing functioned less as a response to Bill 7 and more as a leadership audition. It combined constitutional critique, moral positioning, and party reform into a single narrative.

Factually, Bill 7 has passed all parliamentary thresholds. The courts have declined interim intervention. Presidential assent is imminent.

Zulu’s argument therefore operates in the political, not legal, arena. Its success will depend on whether it translates into structure, numbers, and unified opposition leadership.

In the immediate aftermath of Bill 7, Zulu succeeded in reframing the debate from procedure to legitimacy and from parliamentary votes to values. Whether that reframing survives contact with grassroots mobilisation remains an open question.

For now, his briefing signals intent, not momentum.

© The People’s Brief | Goran Handya & Tracey Shumba

By Sensio Banda

The Speaker’s Dance: A Funeral Dirge for Parliamentary Democracy

The passing of Constitutional Bill No. 7 marks a dark chapter in Zambia’s democratic journey, but the conduct that followed, specifically the televised celebration and dancing by the Speaker of the National Assembly, casts an even longer, more ominous shadow.

The Speaker’s role, by convention and the National Assembly’s Standing Orders, is to be the impartial guardian of the House, the arbiter of debate, and the symbol of legislative decorum. Her primary duty is to ensure the dignity of the House is upheld and that all members, regardless of their political affiliation, are treated fairly. In short, the Speaker must be above the political fray.

When a constitutional bill of such significant and contentious nature is passed, one that critics argue fundamentally restructures governance and centralises power, the atmosphere in the Chamber should reflect the gravity of the decision. Instead, the sight of the Presiding Officer engaging in celebratory dancing on the floor of the House immediately after the vote was counted was profoundly disturbing.

This act, whether intended or not, signals a clear and unacceptable political bias. It strips the office of the Speaker of its vital perceived neutrality and suggests complicity in what many view as an act of constitutional expediency.

Breach of Trust: It violates the implicit trust placed in the Speaker to protect the process, not the outcome of the ruling party.

Contempt for Dissent: It appears to dismiss, with triumphant glee, the genuine concerns and opposition raised by a significant portion of the House and the public.

Undermining Standing Orders: While the Standing Orders govern procedure, the spirit of these rules demands the Speaker maintain dignity and impartiality. The dancing was a breach of this essential spirit, politicising an office that must be purely procedural.

The Speaker’s actions serve as a stark metaphor for the state of parliamentary democracy in Zambia. When the person meant to represent the collective conscience of the legislature celebrates a win for the majority, the concept of a multi-party system and robust oversight is severely weakened. For many, this moment was the final, celebratory nail in the coffin of meaningful parliamentary debate. The House, for all intents and purposes, behaved less like a legislative body and more like a rubber-stamp convention of the ruling party.

The victory belongs to the governing UPND MPs and, regrettably, to those former Patriotic Front (PF) and independent Members of Parliament who threw their support behind the bill. For the latter, the history of Zambian democracy will record their names not as custodians of the people’s will, but as betrayers, individuals who prioritised short-term gains and self-interest (“lived for the bellies”) over the long-term democratic aspirations of their constituents. Today, the parliamentary vote has granted them a hollow victory.

While the battle for parliamentary integrity may seem lost, and the voices of dissent drowned out by a celebratory dance, the ultimate power still rests outside the legislative walls.
The UPND and their allied MPs may have won the vote in Parliament, but their victory is temporary. The final and true verdict remains with the Zambian people in the next general election. The year 2026 stands as the last and most critical opportunity for citizens to reclaim their sovereignty and redeem the democratic promise betrayed on the floor of the House.

The time for passive observation is over. Zambians must internalise the image of the Speaker’s celebratory dance, a potent symbol of unchecked power and indifference to public concern and transform that outrage into resolute political action.

The parliamentary vote has given them a moment of glory, but the Zambian vote in 2026 shall deliver the ultimate, decisive, and enduring victory for democracy.