GOVERNMENT DISPELS CLAIMS THAT CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL NO. 7 WAS NULLIFIED
Government has refuted widespread claims by opposition political parties and the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) suggesting that the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 is illegal, insisting that such assertions are deliberately misleading the public.
Addressing journalists during a press briefing in Lusaka today, Minister of Information and Media and Chief Government Spokesperson, Cornelius Mweetwa, stressed that contrary to circulating statements, the Constitutional Court did not nullify Bill No. 7, did not declare it unconstitutional, and did not order Government to halt the amendment process.
Mr. Mweetwa said the continued claims being pushed by some opposition figures and LAZ were “false, misleading, and contrary to the actual contents” of the Constitutional Court ruling in the matter of Munia Zulu and Celestine Mukandila vs the Attorney General.
He said if the Court had indeed nullified or outlawed the Bill, Government would not have proceeded with the amendment process, adding that critics were “willfully and deliberately misleading the nation for political mileage.”
The Chief Government Spokesperson also expressed concern over LAZ’s submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee, in which the association reportedly asserted that the Court had nullified Bill No. 7.
Mr. Mweetwa questioned the basis of LAZ’s position, saying the association had not consulted its full membership before making what he described as a “politically influenced” submission.
“It is shocking that an institution expected to offer objective and authoritative legal guidance would mislead Parliament and the nation,” he said.
Mr. Mweetwa urged legal experts and political players to maintain honesty and accuracy when interpreting court rulings, warning that misinformation on constitutional matters risks undermining public trust.
POLICE PRESS RELEASE: CONDUCT LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE
December 12, 2025
Police in Lusaka Province have apprehended three people, namely Kasonde Mwenda, Edina Ngoma, and Mbale Suzyo, all from Lusaka, for Conduct Likely to Cause a Breach of the Peace.
The incident happened today, December 12, 2025, around 14:40 hours near the Parliament Building in Lusaka.
The trio remain in custody, awaiting formal charges and a court appearance.
Issued by:
Lemekani Chirwa Commanding Officer-Lusaka Province
With Christmas less than two weeks away, a chilling shadow looms over Zambia’s heartland.
Farmers—the backbone of the nation’s food security—face the prospect of a “Black Christmas,” stripped of joy, dignity, and the simple comforts they have always provided for their families.
Opposition presidential candidate Brian Mundubile has sounded the alarm, warning that thousands of farmers who sold their produce to the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) remain unpaid. “For the first time, our farmers will celebrate Christmas broke. No chickens, no rice, no mazoe, no parties. Just hunger and despair,” Mundubile declared in Lusaka.
The anguish is palpable. Farmers, who toil under the sun to feed the nation, now sit in silence, wondering how they will explain to their children why there will be no Christmas meal. Worse still, January looms with tuition fees for colleges and universities, yet parents have no money to send their children back to school.
Mundubile condemned the government’s priorities, accusing it of diverting billions of kwacha to a flawed constitutional amendment process—Bill 7—rejected by the people and ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. “This Bill is a veiled evil, a distraction from the elephant in the room: unpaid farmers, lack of electricity, and a skyrocketing cost of living that has pushed over 60 percent of Zambians into abject poverty,” he charged.
The Oasis Forum has echoed these concerns, branding Bill 7 illegal. Yet, the government remains silent on the plight of farmers and the worsening power crisis.
Mundubile, a former cabinet minister and ex-chairman of the Energy Regulation Board, vowed to fight Bill 7 “with every energy in my body,” urging citizens to resist its tabling in Parliament on December 15. “As farmers go hungry on Christmas Day, the government must be reminded that these men and women are not beggars. They are the lifeblood of Zambia. Without them, there is no food, no economy, no future.”
The silence from the ruling UPND government is deafening. Farmers, who should be celebrated as heroes, are instead abandoned in sorrow. Their sweat waters Zambia’s prosperity, yet today they face humiliation, unpaid and forgotten. He bemoaned rising speculation that some lawmakers have been ‘bribed’ to vote in favour of the illegal Bill 7.
As the nation heads toward elections on August 13, 2026, the plight of farmers has become a symbol of a divided and toxic political environment. Christmas, once a season of joy, now threatens to be remembered as the darkest for those who feed us all.
ECONOMIC REFORMS PAY OFF: ZAMBIA MOVES OUT OF DEBT DISTRESS, SAYS HH
Lusaka, Friday — President Hakainde Hichilema says Zambia has successfully moved out of debt distress, attributing the achievement to wide-ranging economic reforms undertaken by the New Dawn administration since 2021.
Speaking at the 4th Private Sector Day in Lusaka, President Hichilema said the country’s debt restructuring process, now reported at 94 percent completion, has significantly improved performance across key sectors of the economy.
The President highlighted major turnarounds in the mining industry, noting that companies such as Kansanshi and Lumwana, once viewed as struggling, have now regained stability through reinvestment influenced by favourable policy reforms.
He said Kansanshi Mine alone has scaled up production to 500,000 tonnes of copper and is now the country’s single largest taxpayer, contributing substantially to the government’s free education programme.
President Hichilema also pointed to Zambia’s improved foreign reserves, now standing at US$5.2 billion, which he described as “no mean achievement” for a nation that was previously grappling with depleted reserves.
“Our administration has shifted the economy from consumption to productive investment,” he said, calling on citizens and businesses to adopt new attitudes if Zambia is to realise true economic emancipation.
He disclosed that government has intensified investment in electricity infrastructure to meet rising demand, urging private sector players to complement government efforts through energy investments..
Reassuring investors, President Hichilema said the New Dawn government provides a secure environment for investments and encouraged companies to structure their projects around job creation.
Looking ahead to 2026, the President announced that government will streamline business licensing systems by transitioning to a single license regime. He urged local councils to align by adopting a single trading license model.
He also called on the business community to unite around a shared vision for national development, embrace new ways of doing business, and build strong partnerships for economic progress.
With government focused on boosting revenue, President Hichilema revealed plans to upgrade airports in all 10 provinces, noting that the Kasama Airport upgrade has already been completed.
.
In addition, he encouraged the financial sector to reduce lending rates to support business growth and challenged Zambian entrepreneurs to explore opportunities in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).
The President further urged the private sector to take ownership of the Public Private Dialogue Forum (PPDF), which government will gazette to be commemorated annually on December 12.
Meanwhile, Secretary to the Cabinet Patrick Kangwa praised the private sector for its role in job creation and its contribution to national economic development.
BITTER TRUTH: WHY THE PF’S CLASH WITH UNZA STUDENTS IS NOTHING NEW
By Mark Simuuwe, UPND Media Director
The recent attacks by the Patriotic Front (PF) on a young UNZA student leader have sparked national debate, but for those who understand Zambia’s political history, this confrontation is far from surprising. The truth is simple: the tension between PF and UNZA students is historical, deeply rooted, and consistently shaped by PF’s long-standing disdain for academic institutions and student voices.
To grasp what is unfolding today, one must go back to PF’s early years. From the beginning, PF demonstrated minimal regard for formal education. It is the same party that enthusiastically shot down the requirement for a university degree as a minimum qualification for presidential candidates, a position that spoke volumes about the standards it wished to maintain for national leadership.
When the PF assumed power in 2011 under the late Michael Sata, one of their earliest actions was to weaken student activism at the University of Zambia. They amended the UNZASU constitution, dismantling the vibrancy and strength of student leadership. Later, they scrapped meal allowances, an act widely interpreted as retaliation against students who refused to embrace PF politics.
These decisions were not accidental. They were driven by the PF’s continuous struggle for legitimacy at UNZA. Historically, the student community has never favoured PF, and for good reason. President Hakainde Hichilema, even while in opposition, consistently enjoyed overwhelming student support. They saw him as one of their own, a disciplined intellectual and principled leader who represented possibility and merit.
This support was only strengthened when President Hichilema pledged, and later fulfilled, his promise to restore meal allowances. For students, this was not merely a policy; it was a restoration of dignity.
UNZA has always been a breeding ground for national leadership. From Levy Mwanawasa to Edith Nawakwi and Professor Nkandu Luo, many of Zambia’s notable political figures sharpened their convictions within the walls of this institution. Student politics at UNZA is not mere excitement; it is a historic driver of national consciousness.
Therefore, PF’s current frustration is neither new nor unexpected. Their relentless attacks on one young woman, an ordinary student exercising her constitutional rights, only deepen the generational divide that exists between them and the student community. What the PF fails to understand is that UNZA students are united. Targeting one student means confronting the collective.
The PF would do well to reflect on the legacy issues at hand. Rather than attempting to bully a young woman into silence, they should attempt genuine engagement with UNZA students, if they possess the intellectual capacity and humility required for such dialogue.
.
This is the bitter truth: PF has never earned the confidence of the UNZA community, and their own history is the reason. Until they acknowledge this reality, their attacks on students will only widen the gap and reinforce a narrative of a party at odds with educated youth.
UNZA students have always stood on the right side of history. Their activism has shaped national debate for decades, and today is no different. The attempts to silence them will fail, just as they have failed before.
BROSS STORM! SA COACH REPORTED FOR ‘RACE-CODED’ RANT
South Africa’s football world has been rocked by a fresh controversy after national team head coach Hugo Broos was officially reported to the South African Human Rights Commission. The complaint accuses the veteran coach of making “racially-coded” and “derogatory” remarks about rising star Mbekezeli Mbokazi following the midfielder’s shock move to Major League Soccer.
Broos allegedly questioned both Mbokazi’s decision to head to the MLS and the role of his agent, comments critics say carried an unacceptable undertone. The row intensified when the coach publicly blasted the player for arriving late to Bafana Bafana camp ahead of the crucial AFCON preparations,a move that many believe unfairly singled him out.
As the Human Rights Commission reviews the claims, pressure is mounting on SAFA to respond. What began as a routine transfer has spiralled into a storm threatening to overshadow South Africa’s AFCON campaign and ignite a deeper national debate on race, respect, and responsibility in sport.
G7 OUT, C5 IN? U.S. PLANS NEW “NUCLEAR 5” CLUB WITHOUT EUROPE
Washington may be cooking up a “Nuclear 5” (C5) crew (U.S., China, India, Japan, and Russia) to replace the G7.
A summit with the world’s biggest nuclear heavyweights, snapped at the stunning Kananaskis mountains in 2025, deciding the planet’s fate.
A Trump-era ex-official spills that old clubs like the G7 or UN Security Council are “no longer meet modern needs” with new players rising.
Weirdly, nuclear powers like the UK, France, and Pakistan got snubbed from the invite list.
This isn’t just a fancy photo op.
The C5 could be a game-changer, letting the U.S. cozy up to rivals like Russia and China to control nukes, trade, and global crises.
Think arms deals or energy wars.
It might ditch Europe’s influence, sidelining allies who’ve leaned on the G7 for decades.
If successful, the U.S. could flex its muscles, pulling strings with India and Japan as junior partners, while keeping Russia and China in check.
Some whisper it’s a sneaky move to revive America’s “unipolar moment” that post-Cold War era when the U.S. called the shots globally without much pushback.
Maybe.
Trump loves the “America First” vibe, and this could be his playbook to dominate again, sidelining the messy multipolar world where China and Russia flex too.
But it’s risky, Russia and China might outmaneuver the U.S. as both see the U.S. leaning to them as a sign of weakness rather than the opposite, turning C5 into a power split rather than a U.S. throne.
Europe’s already mad, and excluded nukes like the UK might form a rival bloc.
If it works, the U.S. could rule the globe’s nuclear chessboard by 2026.
If it flops, it’s a diplomatic disaster, proof that the unipolar dream is dead.
TOP-SECRET PENTAGON DOCUMENT: US LOSES TO CHINA IN EVERY TAIWAN SCENARIO
A highly classified US Defence Department assessment has reportedly reached a conclusion Washington rarely admits in public:
In a war over Taiwan, the United States loses.
– Not occasionally – Not narrowly – Repeatedly
The document, referred to as the “Overmatch Brief”, has been reviewed by senior US national security officials.
According to those familiar with it, the result of US–China war games is consistent: American forces suffer catastrophic losses and fail to prevent China from achieving its objectives.
This isn’t about courage or training. It’s about structure.
Carriers are no longer kings In multiple simulations, America’s most advanced aircraft carriers, including the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, are neutralised early. China’s hypersonic and anti-ship missile forces are designed specifically to destroy carriers before they can meaningfully operate inside the Western Pacific.
Missile dominance decides the fight China now vastly outnumbers the US in short-, medium- and intermediate-range missiles. US air bases, ports and logistics hubs in the region are hit immediately. Runways cratered. Fuel destroyed. Command systems degraded. Power projection collapses before it begins.
Industrial reality favours Beijing The US military relies on small numbers of exquisitely complex, extremely expensive platforms. China relies on mass production, redundancy and saturation. One side replaces losses in months or weeks. The other takes years.
Distance is a weapon Taiwan sits roughly 130km from China’s coast. The US must project power across an ocean. Every ship sunk and every aircraft lost compounds Washington’s disadvantage, logistically, financially and politically.
Even spending tells the story China spends about 1.7% of GDP on defence. The US spends 3.4%. Yet in the one theatre that matters most, money cannot overcome geography, production scale and missile density.
The war wouldn’t start with missiles US officials now warn that Chinese-linked cyber units have already embedded malware in critical infrastructure serving American bases. A Taiwan conflict would likely begin with blackouts, communication failures and disrupted command networks, not dramatic opening salvos.
Crucially, this is also why the Overmatch Brief itself will almost certainly never be released publicly.
The document doesn’t just assess risks, it reportedly admits repeated defeat in a named scenario against a named rival. Publishing that would undermine deterrence, rattle allies, expose US doctrine and logistics vulnerabilities and raise uncomfortable questions about why Washington continues investing in systems its own war games show don’t survive.
So instead, its conclusions are being leaked slowly, through anonymous officials and off-the-record briefings, preparing the public without formally admitting the truth.
Crucially, Beijing isn’t in a hurry.
China’s leadership has made clear it will only move if success is near-certain. Failing over Taiwan would be politically catastrophic. That caution, combined with steady military modernisation, is itself a strategic advantage.
Meanwhile, Washington continues ordering more aircraft carriers… even as its own war games show they don’t survive.
This isn’t Chinese messaging. It’s the Pentagon briefing itself.
The real question is no longer whether the US would defend Taiwan.
It’s whether the US can afford the cost of trying and whether its leaders are prepared to admit what their own planners already know.
BREAKING: RUSSIA STRIKES TURKISH SHIP IN UKRAINIAN PORT… RIGHT AFTER PUTIN-ERDOGAN PEACE CHAT
Russian forces hammered a civilian bulk carrier docked in Ukraine’s Odesa port with ballistic missiles and drones, leaving it damaged and spewing flames.
The vessel’s owned by Turkish firm Cenk RoRo and was hauling generators, per early reports.
This hits right on the heels of today’s Putin-Erdogan meeting in Ashgabat, where Erdogan pushed a limited ceasefire to safeguard energy spots and ports.
Turkey’s balancing act in the Black Sea is on thin ice, and any slip could wreck truce talks and threaten shipping, grain exports, and regional stability.
BEHAVE YOURSELVES AND STOP PLAYING POLITICS USING EDGAR LUNGU’S BODY, EAST CHIEF TELLS OFF PF
EASTERN PROVINCE — Thursday, 11 December 2025 — Chief Nyalugwe of the Nsenga people has strongly criticised the Patriotic Front (PF) for what he described as uncultural and unZambian conduct in pushing to replace the late former President Edgar Lungu before his burial.
The traditional leader said the funeral has been turned into a political battleground instead of a moment of dignity, unity and respect.
The Chief reminded the nation that President Lungu himself only became elected after President Michael Sata’s burial, saying, “He was left to act when President Sata became unwell, and when Sata died, that is when Edgar Lungu took over. A funeral must be respected. That is our culture.”
Senior Chief Nyalugwe questioned why, six months after his death, the late President has still not been buried, attributing the delay to PF’s partisan interests.
The Chief further raised concerns about the whereabouts of the former President’s remains, asking whether the body is still in a South African mortuary or being kept hidden elsewhere.
He noted that the grave at Embassy Park is already prepared and urged that the burial should proceed before any political processes resume.
And Chief Nyalugwe appealed to the New Dawn Administration to facilitate closure for the nation, saying prolonged delays are harmful and disrespectful.
His remarks have reinforced the growing public sentiment that while the UPND continues to uphold order, cultural values and national decency, the PF remains entangled in internal conflicts that undermine both tradition and the dignity of a former Head of State.
Mundubile accuses UPND of paying its own MPs to support Bill 7
MPOROKOSO Member of Parliament Brian Mundubile has claimed that a senior UPND member recently drove to Parliament grounds and distributed money to the ruling party’s own MPs.
Speaking at a press briefing this afternoon, Mundubile said even UPND lawmakers were aware that there was something wrong with Bill 7.
He wondered why the ruling party was allegedly paying its own members to vote for the Bill if their intentions were genuine.
“Even UPND MPs are aware that there is something wrong with Bill 7. One senior member of the party walked onto Parliament grounds and started distributing money to MPs to support Bill 7. If they know it’s right, why are they paying their own members to support the Bill? They did this in full view of all other members,” claimed Mundubile.
The PF presidential hopeful also urged opposition MPs to boycott the voting process so they are not cited for contempt of court, as the process was already declared a nullity by the Constitutional Court.
“All political parties must abandon everything [they] are doing and ensure Bill 7 does not go through. It will be the resurrection of a one-party system which we fought in 1991. We want to tell the government to stop forcing this divisive document. Bill 7 is not urgent. It cannot be a priority.”
“We stand strong with the Zambian people, the churches, Oasis Forum and LAZ in protecting and defending the Constitution,” he said.
Mundubile called on citizens to personally call their MPs and tell them how to vote on Bill 7 so that the people’s views are reflected.
Turning to the farming community, Mundubile accused the government of prioritising politics over livelihoods.
He said farmers across the country were still waiting for their payments and were unsure how they would survive the festive season.
“Bill 7 will not pay farmers. Most farmers don’t even know how they will celebrate Christmas,” he said. “You promised farmers that you would pay them because you were a farmer. Why have you abandoned your flock?”
He added that the same farmers who voted for the UPND had been let down after being promised that the price of fertiliser would drop from K650 to K250, only for it to increase instead.
“It’s not the first time you are disappointing farmers,” he said. “What is urgent now is payment. Farmers should be paid. We are nearing the time when they must send children to university. Within the course of next week, pay the farmers.”
THE country’s labour movement has taken a bold stand on constitution amendment Bill 7, cautioning lawmakers that workers will not sit back and watch members of parliament derail a reform they support.
Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) said MPs have a duty to honour the expectations of the constituents who entrusted them with the responsibility to legislate on their behalf.
Speaking during a meeting with President Hakainde Hichilema at State House yesterday, Union president Blake Mulala said the labour movement had engaged its membership across all regions and found strong approval for the Bill.
“Workers have spoken, and their position is firm. The message from workers nationwide is loud, clear, and uncompromising. Any MP who chooses to stand in the way of Bill 7 should be ready to explain themselves to the very people who put them in office,” Mulala said.
He slammed those suggesting that amending the constitution months before the polls is inappropriate, calling the argument inconsistent and politically convenient.
“The past constitutional changes were carried out close to election periods without controversy,” he stated.
And Chipande Mweemba, representing women in the labour movement, underscored the need for the constitutional process to actively recognise women and other groups whose voices have often be overlooked.
“Reforms must create space for broader participation and fair representation. Women can no longer be spectators in processes that shape the future of this country,” Mweemba said.
Meanwhile, President Hakainde Hichilema reaffirmed that the strength of Zambia’s democracy lies in open dialogue and broad-based citizen participation.
“We believe that no matter how complex our national difficulties might be, they must be best resolved through dialogue rather than through actions that endanger life and property,” said Hichilema.
He said worker’s are the backbone of this country and their contribution to stability and growth cannot be overstated.
“We must protect our democratic culture, and that includes creating room for more women to participate in lawmaking. Their perspectives are essential in crafting laws that serve families and communities,” he said.
“Together, through continued cooperation and mutual respect, we can build a safer, fairer and more prosperous Zambia for all.”
He added that constitutional amendments must not divide the nation but instead enhance governance, promote inclusivity and reinforce Zambia’s record of peaceful transitions.
OBSERVE HOW LOAD-SHEDDING WILL REDUCE TOWARDS ELECTIONS, FR CHONDE TELLS CITIZENS
CATHOLIC Priest Fr Chalwe Chonde is urging citizens to observe how load-shedding is going to reduce as the elections approach.
He wonders whether the water levels at Kariba only increase towards the elections, saying that should not be the case.
And Fr Chonde says prophets will not stop talking as long as things are not well in the country.
In his homily, Thursday, Fr Chonde said all services should be provided for properly and not just because of the elections.
“This load-shedding we are experiencing, you will see how it will go towards the elections. In 2026, it will reduce, but should that only be the case when we are voting? No. All services should be provided properly, not just because we are going to vote, that’s when there’s power, that’s when the water levels increase [at Kariba], that’s when we have good rains. Don’t be afraid, everything will be okay. It’s hard, such that when you’re going to serve Mass, you even wear different socks because you can’t see. Even if we don’t iron these days, it’s even normal, people will understand,” he said.
And Fr Chonde said a real prophet would not keep quiet in the face of injustices.
“Isaiah has come to strengthen those who are oppressed, people who have no rights, people who have been neglected, those who cannot express themselves. Isaiah is here to speak for them, the voice of the voiceless, on behalf of God that let there be justice. A real prophet is never quiet when there are injustices. If they are quiet, then they are not authentic. Let there be justice in the land, let there be peace in the land.
When justice comes, we will keep quiet, when people are living very well, we will keep quiet. As prophets, we are going to talk when things are not okay, we will keep talking until there’s peace in the land. To shut us up, leadership should be standard, it should be good, and people should live well because when they are affected, we are also affected. Whatever is troubling people also troubles us as prophets,” said Fr Chonde.
MUNDUBILE ACCUSES PRESIDENT HH OF FORCING “ILLEGAL” BILL 7 ON A SUFFERING NATION
….. as Farmers Go Unpaid.
Lusaka – Friday, 12 December 2025
Patriotic Front presidential aspirant Hon. Brian Mundubile says PF Members of Parliament will continue to speak out in an effort to stop Bill Number 7 as it comes up for second reading on Monday.
He said some UPND MPs are aware that Bill 7 is inappropriate but President Hakainde Hichilema has insisted that it must proceed at the expense of addressing pressing challenges affecting the Zambian people.
He has since called upon President Hichilema to abandon Bill 7 and focus on urgent matters such as paying farmers.
Mr Mundubile argued that delays in paying farmers will have long-term consequences such as families failing to meet education costs for their children.
He said if that energy being applied on Bill 7 was devoted to reducing the cost of living, the Zambian people would have been happy.
Hon Mundubile said Bill 7 is illegal, yet the President is playing a deaf ear and not ready to listen to the people.
“Abandon Bill 7 and resolve the challenges arising from broken promises on mealie-meal and fertilizer. Abandon Bill 7 and introduce sectoral minimum wages in the transport and mining sectors. These are important issues, Bill 7 is not.
Bill 7 is not urgent. What is urgent today is prioritising farmers and ensuring they are paid. If they are not paid, they will not be able to send their children to university. My point is that the Bill 7 debate is a diversion, and one of the key challenges we face is the non-payment of farmers. We want the President to ensure that, within the course of next week, farmers are paid,” he said.
Meanwhile, Hon Mundubile has urged opposition political parties and other stakeholders to unite against Bill 7.
He said citizens must engage their MPs directly and voice their concerns regarding the Bill.
“We stand with the poor, with miners who are currently being mistreated. Even some members of the ruling UPND know that something is wrong with Bill 7,” he said.
Load shedding has ‘miraculously’ reduced due to increased water in Kafue – Nalumango
VICE President Mutale Nalumango says the miraculous reduction in load shedding hours in some areas is due to natural causes such as the increased water levels in the Kafue River.
The Vice President said this in the National Assembly this morning in response to Nkana Member of Parliament Binwell Mpundu, who wanted to find out why load shedding hours had ‘miraculously’ decreased in some areas after almost two years of the country’s struggle with power deficit.
Nalumango stated that government was also importing power from other countries while advocating for more power projects.
“One reason load shedding has reduced, it’s because of the increased water in the Kafue. I saw the water myself, it’s more of Kafue. Kafue [Gorge Power Station ] has increased its generation, it’s our hope that the Kariba increases its generation,” she explained.
“We have also been importing electricity and there has been hard negotiations between countries and other countries. Mansa will also connect 50 megawatts and you expect to remain at the same level?”
Nalumango also responded to Mpundu’s query on fuel, stating that fuel was cheaper in the PF regime because they were dishonest in their dealings.
“PF showed that fuel was cheap but they didn’t pay for it. It’s because, it cost them nothing, they didn’t care how much debt they were accumulating, it’s like they knew they would go out and leave the burden to other people,” she said.
‘SHOWDOWN’ AT PARLEY, AS BILL 7 COMMITTEE THREATENS TO REJECT LAZ’s SUBMISSIONS
A HEATED moment arose yesterday when the Law Association of Zambia appeared before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Bill 7, chaired by Imanga Wamunyima.
The dispute was caused by LAZ President Lungisani Zulu’s refusal to read certain sections of the association’s submissions, as he insisted that the entire process surrounding the Bill was illegal, adding that government and the National Assembly must comply with the Constitutional Court ruling nullifying the process.
The Select Committee, however, pushed back, telling the association that if it insisted on not reading the written submissions addressing the substantive issues in the Bill, the Committee would decide whether or not to accept the submissions.
This was despite Zulu’s explanation that the attachment in the association’s letter, which the Committee viewed as addressing substantive issues in Bill 7, was drafted before to the Constitutional Court ruling and should therefore not be mistaken for submissions to the current Bill.
The issue quickly escalated into a dramatic stand-off, with the Committee Chairman threatening to dismiss LAZ’s entire submissions and attempting to end the interaction. The proceedings were only saved when committee member Gary Nkombo intervened, requesting a short adjournment at the expense of the issue looking like a “showdown”.
Appearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Bill 7, Thursday, Zulu opened his presentation by stating that the association was saddened to appear before the Committee, as the current process represents a serious threat to the national principles and values espoused in Article 8 of the Constitution.
“Chair, whenever we come before you at the invitation of the National Assembly, we are always excited because coming before you represents an opportunity to contribute to the reform of law. But unfortunately, today we come before you not excited but very saddened. We are saddened because the current process, Chair, is a representation of a serious threat to the national principles and values that the Constitution espouses in Article 8 of our Constitution. Under those salient provisions, Chair, democracy and constitutionalism are the pillars that make Zambia a democracy. We are saddened because we sit here when the supreme law of the land has been interpreted and the proceedings that we are doing today have been impugned by the Constitutional Court in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila,” he said.
“We feel saddened because, according to the Constitution, any act, any omission that is contrary to the Constitution is itself illegal. As lawyers, Chair, you may wish to know that we begin our journey as lawyers by taking an oath to defend, to preserve and protect the Constitution. I want to stress that we feel duty-bound to represent the people of this country in defending the Constitution of the land. Why do I say so? Chair, in the aforementioned case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila, the court, which is given final jurisdiction on matters of interpretation of the law, especially the supreme law of the land, did make a specific finding that the initiation of Bill 7, which at that time was contained in a Ministerial position, flouted a number of provisions”.
Wamunyima then guided that LAZ’s engagement with the Select Committee should be focused on the objects of the Bill being scrutinised.
“Order witness, just for guidance, we as the Select Committee are aware of your position as LAZ on the process. However, you take note that the letter with management wishes you to interact with us within the scope of our mandate, which is to scrutinise the submission of the public within the objects of the Bill. While we sympathise with your position as LAZ and many other different positions, the National Assembly and this committee in particular enjoy separation of powers. So we are aware of the process in the Judiciary engagements with the Executive. However, your engagement as LAZ with us as the Select Committee and with the Legislature should be focused or narrowed down to the objects of the Bill that we are scrutinising,” he guided.
Zulu, in response, indicated that LAZ was duty-bound to highlight its concerns to the Committee.
“Chair, thank you for your guidance. What I’m speaking to is what is indicated in our written submission to the National Assembly letter dated December 8, 2025. As a body of lawyers with the mandate under section 4 of the Law Association of Zambia Act, we are duty-bound, Chair, to highlight to your committee some of the concerns. I take note of your guidance, and indeed the concerns we have, which are documented in the letter of the said December 8, 2025, is a plea to you and the committee that in light of the Constitutional challenges posed by the judgement of the courts of law, you are duty-bound as custodians of the constitution to also do your part to highlight even to the Executive and everyone that is ventilating on this process the need to observe and comply with all pronouncements of the courts of law. The consequences of not doing so for the country are dire,” he responded.
“We as an association have been approached many times by different stakeholders who worry about what it means if indeed the Executive could decide to proceed in any way it wants because it doesn’t like a judgement. What happens to mining investments and bilateral agreements if the basis of not complying is because you don’t like the judgement? Our plea, Chair, is that in light of the Constitutional Court declaration that the underpinning process was a nullity, in light of the state’s unwillingness, the Executive’s unwillingness to proceed with this process, we implore you through this committee to please impress upon everyone to follow the guidance of the courts of law… Ours, Chair, is a plea, please through you and your committee, help to defend the Constitution”.
Asked by the Chair to proceed to make substantive submissions to Bill 7, Zulu insisted the association’s submission was just a caution.
“Our submission is to just caution in light of these serious fundamental failures to comply. It will be remiss of us to begin to deliberate on a Bill which, as we sit currently now, has been found to have been initiated in breach of the Constitution. We are hard-pressed to justify why we must contribute to ignoring express provisions of the Constitutional Court, notwithstanding whether we like them or we don’t. And we are trying to enjoin you as the Select Committee to help voice this concern, I thank you,” Zulu insisted.
However, Wamunyima pointed out that Zulu only read out pages one to five of the LAZ written submission and asked what should be done about the information attached from pages 6 to 9, where the association made submissions that the Committee regarded as substantive to Bill 7.
Zulu responded, saying, “that’s an attachment, Chair. What we have submitted is what is from page one to five of our written submission. For historical context, we did attach [pages six to nine]”.
Asked to clarify whether the information in the attachment titled “The Law Association of Zambia Detailed Response to the Outline of the Prominent Key Issues Requiring Constitutional Amendment and Proposed Road Map” is LAZ’s submission or not, Zulu said, “the submission was to the process as it was commenced, so what we are saying is when the process commenced, we did highlight to government and ultimately and eventually the courts found that what was done [was illegal]”.
Further asked if LAZ was then withdrawing the attachment, Zulu responded in the negative, adding that “we submitted it as an attachment for the committee to appreciate where we are coming from”.
Committee Member Gary Nkombo then requested Zulu to read the information contained in the said attachment.
“We risk having an impasse if we continue like this. While we understand what you have just submitted about the process, we would plead to you that we will take full notice of what you have highlighted to the committee and to the nation because the nation is listening now. Now the mandate of this committee, notwithstanding the breaches that you have highlighted here, sits in receiving the detailed response to each particular clause. And so our request is first to give you comfort that what we will generate as a report will include your concerns,” he said.
“Nothing will be left out, but the primary menu for this committee is your response to each of these clauses, notwithstanding the fact that you seem to disapprove, based on the court judgement, of the process. We would humbly request that you walk us through this attachment, and then we will add it to these many submissions that other witnesses for and against this process have made. That will be my earnest request to you”.
In response, Zulu explained that the detailed response merely demonstrated LAZ’s commitment to the constitutional making process.
He insisted that government and the National Assembly should comply fully with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
“Chair, maybe I need to clarify where we are sitting. The submissions I have made under page five and our written submission is very clear. It is that LAZ respectfully urges government and the National Assembly to comply fully with the judgement. The point I’m making, Chair, is, our plea to you and to government is to comply with the judgement. We have always been willing to engage with the National Assembly on any Bill that comes before you, and it is for that reason that we even have a detailed response to the process as it then was before it was challenged in courts of law. Our written detailed response is a commitment that we have always been willing to contribute and we were ready, and that is why we are showing you, Chair, that this is the detailed response,” he explained.
Further pressed by the Chair to read the attachment or withdraw it, Zulu insisted on not withdrawing the attachment.
“I want to be very categorical, we are not withdrawing any of the attachments; there are two attachments to our written submission. The first attachment is dated March 28, 2025. This is not responding to Bill No. 7 that is currently before Parliament. This is responding to concerns, as then they were, of the Minister of Justice to demonstrate our commitment to contribute to the process. Immediately the courts nullified the Bill, we were stopped from contributing to speaking to the specifics of the Bill, but what we have attached is our written position about concerns we had at the time when the Bill had not even been drafted or brought before the House,” Zulu insisted.
The response prompted the Chairperson to attempt to dismiss the submission and end the interaction before Nkombo requested to speak.
“Witnesses, with that said, this committee does not accept your submission. We do not accept your submission because you have submitted what you are not ready to submit. You are coming to this committee on the pretext of submitting, and you arrive and do not submit. Therefore, we would like to thank you for appearing before this committee. Yes, Honourable Nkombo, we need to end this interaction and attend to witnesses who have come to submit, not to plead,” Wamunyima said.
Nkombo then requested for a two-minute adjournment rather than a close of proceedings, which the Chairman granted.
“At the expense of this looking like a showdown, I would earnestly request and ask for members’ support that we adjourn for two minutes before we get to a final settlement. Because clearly we have a challenge. I’m requesting you, Chair, that you accommodate my thought that we adjourn for just two minutes and for the benefit of the Republic, and also urge ourselves to subdue our emotions on this matter,” requested Nkombo.
After the adjournment, Chairperson Wamunyima then told Zulu that his submissions were taken note of and the Committee was happy to take them as written submissions.
“We have taken note of your submission, and we’ve also taken note that the background submission that you made constitutes matters which you yourselves have taken to court, therefore outside the mandate for this committee to really proceed and discuss because that will be sub judice to our proceedings. However, we have also taken note that you made substantive submissions to the Bill which is the purpose of this meeting, so that being said, we as the committee would like to state that we thank you for coming here. Unless you insist that this submission that you made where you are addressing the substantive issues of the Bill, this particular submission, you still insist that you will not submit it, then we are happy to close the meeting and accept your submission in its written form,” Wamunyima said.
Zulu then gave more context to his submissions, adding that the letter from the National Assembly did allow LAZ to outline the ramifications of Bill 7.
“Chair, I thank you so much again for context. The letter written to us from the Clerk of the National Assembly is dated December 3, 2025, and it required us to submit a detailed memorandum clearly outlining the ramifications of the proposed piece of legislation. In highlighting the ramifications of the proposed legislation, which is Bill No 7 of 2025, dated May 23, 2025, we are highlighting that the ramifications of that piece of legislation include a breach of the very Constitution it is hoping to amend. So we are highlighting the ramifications,” said Zulu.
Interrupting Zulu, Wamunyima told him that even though he did not read the submissions commenting on the objects of the Bill, it would be up to the Committee to accept the written submissions or not.
“Order witnesses, there has been no judgement which has set out the constitutional breach of Bill No 7. Bill No. 7 is a proposed law, it has not been interpreted by the courts. So, while we recognise your concerns which you have taken to court yourself, this particular assembly is not the forum where we can get recourse on process. Therefore, that being said, we thank you for appearing before this committee, and we would like to take this opportunity to lift that immunity that we gave you. And this written submission that you commented on the objects of the Bill, having not been read, it will be up to the committee to accept it or not,” said Wamunyima.
UPND MEDIA TEAM CHALLENGES MISLEADING STATEMENTS MADE BY JOE MALANJI’S LAWYER, JONAS ZIMBA
WE wish to remind Mr. Jonas Zimba that he is not a court of law to stop President Hakainde Hichilema from commenting on corruption related matters of those who have already been convicted.
The President did not comment on the merits of any ongoing appeal, nor did he reference any issue that is sub judicial to the appeal against the conviction of Mr. Malanji, but referred to the number of convictions in corruption cases including that of Mr. Malanji, and there is nothing wrong with that because that is what it is.
.
The individual in question has already been convicted and is currently serving their sentence. A conviction is a matter of public record and has already been adjudicated and an appeal does not extinguish the conviction until the appellate court has determined otherwise.
What the law restricts is commentary on the merits and demerits of an active appeal, which the President did not do.
There is similarly no law that prohibits the public or the President from discussing the helicopters in question, especially when doing so without venturing into the ongoing appeal.
The President referred to facts already adjudicated, and nothing in his statement amounted to interference with judicial processes.
Mr. Zimba must therefore stop seeking public sympathy through sensational statements made from various platforms. Zambia must focus on justice, truth, and the due process of the law, not attempts to intimidate public officials from speaking on matters of national interest.
The UPND remains committed to upholding the rule of law.
Uganda’s Oil Revenue Should Build Long-Term National Wealth-Museveni
By: Captal Fm Uganda
Uganda’s NRM presidential candidate, Yoweri Museveni, says the country’s oil revenues will be channeled into a sovereign wealth fund to support long-term national development.
The funds, he emphasized, will be invested in major infrastructure projects such as roads, electricity, railways, and other durable public assets.
Museveni noted that the government will follow the example of successful oil-producing nations by avoiding the use of oil income for short-term consumption. Instead, the focus will be on building sustainable economic foundations that benefit future generations.
Speaking at a rally in Buliisa District an area at the heart of Uganda’s emerging oil sector Museveni highlighted ongoing improvements in infrastructure and socio-economic services as evidence of progress under his administration.
He encouraged residents to safeguard the stability achieved in recent years and to continue supporting the NRM’s development agenda. #SunFmTvNews
President William Ruto has stirred conversation once again with a bold statement about Kenya’s economic direction.
Speaking on the country’s financial recovery, Ruto said Kenyans “are very lucky to have me as their president,” insisting that his efforts to repay national debts prevented Kenya from sliding into the kind of default seen in other African nations.
According to the President, a debt default would have “destroyed our economy completely,” but the government’s aggressive repayment strategy has kept the country afloat.
He added that leadership during such economic turbulence requires resilience and urged Kenyans to “pray for him” as he navigates the challenges ahead.
A mom-of-one, who thought having another child would be impossible, due to the 22-lb. tumour growing in her uterus, was shocked to find she was pregnant with a full-term baby.
Suze Lopez, 41, went for routine testing before undergoing surgery to remove the tumour and was shocked to learn that her pregnancy test was positive.
“Because of the large ovarian cyst that had been growing for years, it could have been a false positive, even ovarian cancer,” the nurse from Bakersfield, California, said in a statement from Cedars-Sinai. “And I was used to very irregular periods and some abdominal discomfort. I could not believe that after 17 years of praying, and trying, for a second child, that I was actually pregnant.”
Just days after discovering she was pregnant, Lopez began to experience severe abdominal pain. Scans at Cedars-Sinai discovered the full extent of her unusual pregnancy.
“Suze was pregnant, but her uterus was empty, and a giant benign ovarian cyst weighing over 20 pounds was taking up so much space,” John Ozimek, DO, medical director of Labor and Delivery, said. “We then discovered a nearly full-term baby boy in a small space in the abdomen, near the liver, with his butt resting on the uterus. A pregnancy this far outside the uterus that continues to develop is almost unheard of.”
As the baby grew, he pushed the tumor forward.
“It makes sense that she just thought the tumor was getting bigger again, not that she could be pregnant,” Ozimek said.
Lopez was diagnosed with an abdominal ectopic pregnancy — which is when a baby grows outside of the uterus — and has a “high morbidity and mortality” rate, the National Library of Medicine says.
For a baby to make it this far into such a risky pregnancy was “profound,” gynecological oncologist Michael Manuel, MD, of Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, said. “In my entire career, I’ve never even heard of one making it this far into the pregnancy.”
It took a team of 30 doctors to safely delivery the baby, remove the cyst — and ensure that both mom and baby were safe.
“As soon as the baby was delivered, Lopez started hemorrhaging badly. We were a specially trained team of obstetric anesthesiologists and well prepared, but it was still intense,” said anesthesiologist Michael Sanchez, MD. “I had already powered up a special machine that delivers blood products fast because every second matters. We used 11 units of blood.”
Ryu Lopez weighted 8 lbs. and had very few health problems.
Although doctors were concerned about his lungs, he was “feisty,” neonatalist Sara Dayanim, MD, said, and within two weeks, “Ryu quickly reached all of the important benchmarks for surviving well. He defied all the odds.”
Suze’s husband, Andrew, said in the statement, “He is our gift. And Ryu and Suze are my miracles … many prayers have been answered.”
And as Suze shared: “I appreciate every little thing. Everything. Every day is a gift and I’m never going to waste it. God gave me this baby so that he could be an example to the world that God exists — that miracles, modern-day miracles, do happen.”
GHANA DEPORTS ISRAELIS IN RETALIATION FOR ALLEGED MISTREATMENT OF GHANAIANS
GHANA has deported three Israeli nationals who arrived in the country on Wednesday in what appears to be a tit-for-tat move over the alleged mistreatment of Ghanaian nationals at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel.
Seven Ghanaians, including four members of an official delegation attending a cyber-security conference in Tel Aviv, were allegedly detained without explanation.
They were released after five hours, while the three others were deported, according to Ghana, which condemned their “humiliating treatment”.
Ghana’s foreign ministry says a senior diplomat from the Israeli embassy in Accra was summoned over the incident, and both countries have agreed to resolve the row amicably.
The BBC has contacted the Israeli embassy for comment but is yet to receive a response.
Ghana’s foreign ministry noted that the two countries have enjoyed decades of friendly relations, making Israel’s alleged actions inconsistent with their historic ties.
”The Government of Ghana considers the actions of the Israeli authorities as unfairly targeting Ghanaian travellers and conveys its strong reservations against the humiliating treatment of our citizens,” it said.
It added that the Ghana “expects our citizens to be treated with dignity and respect in much the same way as other governments expect Ghana to treat their nationals”.
Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa later told local media JoyFM that they would deport one Israeli for every Ghanaian who was sent back from Israel.
The source of the tensions between Ghana and Israel is not entirely clear, but Ghana’s recent stance on the Israel-Palestinian conflict might be a factor.
In September, Ghana condemned Israeli air strikes which hit Qatar, describing the attacks as a “clear violation of international law” and an affront to Qatar’s sovereignty. Israel had targeted senior Hamas leaders who had gathered in Qatar’s capital, Doha.
The previous month, Ghanaian authorities urged Israel to allow more aid into Gaza, describing the civilian suffering there as “heart-breaking”.
President John Mahama donated 40 tonnes of Ghana-made chocolate and cocoa products to Palestinians, reaffirming the country’s longstanding support for the Palestinian cause and for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Analysts suggest that these actions might have contributed to the current strained relations, especially if Israel perceives Ghana’s stance as biased or unfavourable.
However, Ghana said that it was told the row was linked to Israeli accusations that Ghana’s embassy wasn’t cooperating over the deportation of its citizens from Israel.
Ghana insists that its embassy in Tel Aviv is “responsive and compliant with international law”.
The foreign minister said that Israel wanted assistance deporting six people, one of whom was from Gabon and another was too sick to travel.
South African born billionaire and World’s richest man, Elon Musk Says Civilization Would Collapse Before His Net Worth Drops to $1,000
On Kaitey Miller’s podcast, Elon Musk was asked a playful question; What would you do if you had to start over with just $1,000?
Musk didn’t miss a beat. He laughed it off, calling the scenario an “impossible dichotomy,” joking that civilization would probably collapse before his net worth ever dropped that low.
But he still played along, saying that if somehow civilization survived, he’d “probably start a social media company or something.”
The light-hearted moment had Miller cracking up, giving fans a rare look at Musk’s humorous side.
Beyond the jokes, Musk also reflected on lessons from Tesla and SpaceX stressing risk-taking, unconventional thinking, and learning from failure as keys to his success.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is now directly participating in Ukraine negotiations alongside Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
This marks a disturbing evolution: what started as a proxy conflict has transformed into a privatized reconstruction opportunity, and now major asset managers and Trump’s inner circle are inserting themselves into active diplomatic negotiations over a war zone.
BlackRock has already positioned itself to oversee Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction—a potential $400+ billion restructuring of national assets. Now Fink is reportedly at the negotiating table with Kushner and Witkoff, treating Ukraine’s future as a business opportunity rather than a sovereign crisis.
The implications are clear: geopolitical decisions are increasingly driven by financial interests, not diplomatic principles.
Presidents Vladimir Putin and Nicolas Maduro spoke over the phone.
The leaders exchanged views on the further development of the friendly relations between Russia and Venezuela in light of the Treaty on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation that entered into force in November 2025.
Vladimir Putin expressed solidarity with the people of Venezuela and reaffirmed his support of the policies of the Maduro government aimed at protecting national interests and sovereignty amid growing external pressure.
Both sides reaffirmed their mutual commitment to the consistent implementation of joint projects in trade and the economy, energy, finance, culture and humanitarian affairs, and other areas.
In a jaw-dropping court filing, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan says a UK official threatened to pull funding and ditch the Rome Statute if the court dared issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
The official reportedly told Khan that targeting Israeli leaders would be “disproportionate,” as if international law only applies when it’s politically convenient.
Sounds just like blackmail.
So while the UK lectures the world about “international norms” and the “rule of law,” it’s busy strong-arming the very court meant to uphold them.
Accountability for war crimes… but not if it’s your friends committing them.
Political observers were shocked late on Thursday night when Donald Trump made a comment about his son, Barron, that some deemed to be “weird.”
At an event, the president said of his wife Melania’s most recent project, “I just heard about that for the first time. The only thing I can tell you, I know one thing for sure, it’s going to be great for children. I don’t know what it is she’s doing. She loves children. She’s got a wonderful boy. And she’s very proud of her boy.”
Critics online were quick to note that it appeared Trump was distancing himself from Barron, his youngest child.
Liberal podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen said, “Uh, SHE’S got a wonderful boy?”
Will Cutlip accused Trump of “just babbling incoherently…”
Washington Post reporter Matt Viser quoted the president saying, “She’s got a wonderful boy. She’s very proud of her boy,” and added, “President Trump says of First Lady Melania Trump, with whom he shares a son, Barron.”
Republicans against Trump also quoted the president. “Donald Trump on Melania: ‘She loves children. She’s got a wonderful boy. And she’s very proud of her boy,'” to which Former Republican responded with a theory and accompanying photographic evidence:
Trump: I know it's going to be great for children. Because she loves children. She's got a wonderful boy and she's very proud of her boy but she loves children. pic.twitter.com/uzLOVJXKQP
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OVER BILL 7 RETURN TO COURT AS CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN DEEPENS
By Brian Matambo | Lusaka, Zambia
Celestine Mukandila and Munir Zulu, acting through their lawyers Makebi Zulu Advocates, have taken the lead in reviving contempt of court proceedings against the Speaker of the National Assembly, members of the Select Committee, and the Minister of Justice over the continued processing of Bill 7 in defiance of a Constitutional Court judgment.
The fresh application was filed on 12 December 2025, following clear procedural guidance issued by the Constitutional Court after an earlier attempt was struck out on technical grounds. The court did not dismiss the substance of the complaint. Instead, it directed the applicants on the correct legal framework for commencing committal proceedings for contempt. Armed with that guidance, Mukandila and Munir Zulu returned to court with a procedurally compliant and legally fortified filing.
Although public broadcaster ZNBC reported the dismissal of the earlier application on 9 December 2025, that report did not reflect the full legal position. The matter was not extinguished. It was recalibrated. The present proceedings are now properly before the competent Constitutional Court and squarely address the court’s earlier concerns.
In the court documents, the applicants accuse senior parliamentary authorities and Members of Parliament of deliberately reintroducing and processing Bill 7 despite a binding judgment delivered in June 2025. That judgment declared the amendment process unconstitutional and ordered that the correct procedure, including wide public consultation, be followed.
The Statement in Support of the Notice of Motion is blunt in its language. It states that the alleged contemnors “have proceeded to reintroduce Bill 7 on the floor of the National Assembly, and formed a committee to review the said Bill with the intention to have it passed as law,” conduct which the applicants describe as “a blatant disregard for the authority of this Court” and “highly contemptuous and disrespectful to this Honourable Court.”
Responsibility is carefully individualized. The filing attributes specific roles to the Speaker in appointing the Select Committee, to the Minister of Justice in communicating the intention to reintroduce the Bill, to parliamentary officials in facilitating sittings and disseminating information, and to Select Committee members in actively reviewing a Bill that the court had already found to be improperly processed.
By placing individual constitutional actors at the centre of the alleged defiance, the application removes any suggestion that this is merely an abstract institutional dispute. It frames the matter as a direct challenge to whether court orders in Zambia are binding on all arms of government, including Parliament.
Through the actions of Mukandila, Munir Zulu, and their legal team, the Patriotic Front’s posture is unmistakable without being stated. The party is not watching from the sidelines. It is pressing a constitutional argument that Zambia’s legal order must be respected and enforced, regardless of political convenience or legislative momentum.
As the matter returns to the Constitutional Court in proper form, the question before the bench is stark. Will constitutional judgments be honoured as supreme law, or treated as obstacles to be navigated around? For the applicants, the answer must be unequivocal. Zambia’s constitutional integrity and purity must be preserved and honoured by all.
MONITOR | PF’s Sunday Chanda Splits the Base as Bill 7 Debate Turns Inward
Patriotic Front Kanchibiya Member of Parliament Sunday Chanda has triggered a sharp and unusually revealing social media storm after urging his party not to oppose Bill 7 simply because the UPND, while in opposition, rejected Bill 10.
His remarks, published by News Diggers, cut across a raw political nerve and exposed a growing tension inside PF between constituency pragmatism and party memory.
Chanda’s intervention was direct and unapologetic. He argued that Parliament must judge Bill 7 on its present merits, not as a revenge instrument for past defeats.
“PF should not shoot down Bill 7 simply because the UPND shot down Bill 10 while in opposition,” he said, before grounding his argument in local accountability.
“People in my constituency would think I am insane if I shoot down any prospects of delimitation.” In one stroke, he elevated constituency interest above partisan retaliation, a move that immediately divided opinion.
Supportive reactions cluster around voters and commentators who frame Chanda as practical rather than ideological. Several comments praised him for representing Kanchibiya’s interests without apology, with one user writing that he “knows what us people of Kanchibiya sent him to do.”
Others described his position as objective, arguing that national development sometimes demands stripping off party colours. A smaller but notable group went further, projecting leadership potential and applauding what they saw as independent thinking in a climate of rigid loyalty.
The backlash, however, has been louder and emotionally charged within core PF-aligned spaces. Critics dismissed Chanda with insults, questioned his loyalty, and framed his stance as betrayal rather than analysis. Some invoked moral language, others conspiracy.
A recurring line of attack suggested he is speculating without proof, with commenters asking whether he has seen any official delimitation report. The tone reflect suspicion, not engagement with substance.
Running beneath the argument is an unresolved bitterness over Bill 10. Several users openly admit that their rejection of Bill 7 was shaped less by its clauses than by historical grievance. Others acknowledge that Bill 10 itself was derailed by a handful of contentious provisions rather than wholesale rejection.
This contrast gives weight to Chanda’s central claim that emotion, not text, is now driving the debate.
Sentiment tracking across PF-dominated platforms shows a clear split. Supportive reactions are steady but measured, driven by constituency logic and institutional reasoning. Opposition is louder, more visceral, and rooted in party identity and memory. Neutral voices, though fewer, consistently call for clause-based evaluation rather than symbolic politics.
The dominant emotional drivers are loyalty, resentment, fear of betrayal, and expectations of tangible development outcomes.
Politically, the episode matters because it surfaces a deeper question: how opposition parties legislate when power shifts. Chanda’s remarks have forced PF into an uncomfortable mirror. One faction views Parliament as a place to correct structural issues regardless of who propose them. Another views it as a battlefield where symmetry and payback define principle. Bill 7 has become the trigger, but the argument is about posture, not paper.
For now, Sunday Chanda occupies an uneasy space in PF’s internal narrative. To some, he is a legislator speaking to voters rather than slogans. To others, he is a defector in waiting.
Whatever interpretation prevails will depend less on social media outrage and more on what unfolds on the floor of the House. In that sense, the real verdict is still pending.
[SABC News] – Controversy Over Zambia’s Bill 7: A Conversation with Dr. Fred M’membe
[SABC News] – Dr. M’membe, thank you for joining us. Let’s begin with the basics. Bill 7 has sparked significant controversy. Supporters argue that the reforms are necessary and legally grounded, while detractors—like yourself—say it concentrates excessive power in the executive. From your perspective, what is Bill 7 meant to do?
[Dr. Fred M’membe] – The biggest issue with Bill 7 isn’t necessarily its contents; it’s the process. The Constitutional Court ruled a few months ago that the previous process was unlawful and needed to restart. However, restarting it would mean the changes could only be completed after August next year.
The government wants to amend the Constitution before the 2026 elections. If they wait, they’ll miss that window. Some provisions appear designed to guarantee that President Hichilema remains in power. There are fears that without these changes, he could face challenges in winning re-election. To meet his timeline, the government is taking shortcuts and bypassing constitutional requirements, which is where the real problem lies.
[SABC News] – How did the Constitutional Court’s order come about, and what exactly is flawed in the process so far?
[Dr. Fred M’membe] – To amend the Constitution, public consultation is required. You can’t simply go to Parliament and say, “We have the numbers—let’s change the Constitution.” The Constitution itself mandates public engagement.
President Hichilema’s government failed to do that. The Constitutional Court, therefore, ordered that the public must be consulted. However, instead of following the proper procedure—passing an Act of Parliament to create a legally recognized inquiry—they rushed the process.
Now they realize that what they did still doesn’t meet constitutional standards. They’ve returned to the Constitutional Court, asking it to revisit its own ruling that outlawed Bill 7 and its process. That’s essentially a backdoor appeal. But the Constitutional Court is the final authority; its decisions are binding. Going back to it in this way signals desperation.
[SABC News] – You’ve emphasized the need for national consensus. What would genuine consultation look like, and how long should that process take? Some might argue that Parliament itself represents the people’s will, and therefore, parliamentary debate is a form of consultation.
[Dr. Fred M’membe] – Yes, parliamentarians are elected by the people, but they are not above the Constitution. The Constitution dictates the procedures to be followed, and its interpretation rests not with Parliament, but with the Constitutional Court.
The Court has already ruled that the current process violates several constitutional articles. The government must therefore return to the people and consult them properly. That requires an Act of Parliament to establish the consultation mechanism. Once that process is complete, a draft bill should be presented again to the public before being tabled in Parliament.
None of that has been done.
[SABC News] – Let’s talk about the separation of powers. What constitutional principles are at stake here?
[Dr. Fred M’membe] – The Constitution provides for the separation of powers. Parliament’s role is to legislate, while the judiciary’s role is to adjudicate. Parliament cannot assume both functions. Once laws are enacted, it’s the judiciary that interprets them—especially in constitutional matters, where the Constitutional Court has the final word.
Parliament must respect that authority. It has the monopoly to make laws, but not the power to adjudicate. That monopoly belongs to the judiciary, and in this case, the Constitutional Court..
[SABC News] – Critics warn that Bill 7 could pave the way for executive overreach. Are these concerns justified?
[Dr. Fred M’membe] – Absolutely. If the executive is allowed to amend the Constitution whenever it has the numbers in Parliament, it sets a dangerous precedent. That would create a constitutional dictatorship—a form of tyranny cloaked in legality.
Constitutional change must come from consensus and must reflect the will of the people, not the convenience of those in power.
[SABC News] – Dr. Fred M’membe, President of the Socialist Party in Zambia, thank you for your time.
Dr. M’membe and his party have called on the government to respect the Constitution and uphold the separation of powers. They insist that the Constitutional Court’s order—mandating public consultation—be followed fully to ensure a legitimate, transparent process that strengthens democracy rather than undermines it.
REFUSE SHINGA BUTTER, REMEMBER 3-YRS OF BLACKOUTS – KALABA … Improvement in electricity supply is because of 2026 elections, and if HH wins you will be going for 2 weeks without power
By Mubanga Mubanga
Citizens First (CF) leader Harry Kalaba has described the improvement in electricity supply across the country as nothing but ‘shinga butter’ meant to hoodwink Zambians that there is an improvement in electricity supply as the nation heads towards the 2026 general elections.
And Kalaba said if elected he would immediately stop foreign exports of energy to have an immediate impact on supply, and revive works on the construction of the nuclear power plant in Chongwe that would produce 20,000 megawatts, to also cater for exports.
Kalaba said providing only 10 hours of electricity out of the 24 hours is not something any government should be proud of in a nation where people pride themselves in enjoying uninterrupted supply.
ZESCO Ltd has attributed the improved electricity supply experienced in the last five days to increased imports, water flow in some catchment areas and President Hakainde Hichilema’s recent visit to Zimbabwe. The utility company revealed that they have increased electricity imports from around 300 to over 600 megawatts.
But in an interview with Daily Revelation yesterday, Kalaba wondered why the government failed to move speedily on the same arrangements that could have helped the nation dearly in the last three years the country had
MAKEBI ZULU DEMANDS WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 7, CALLS IT A THREAT TO RULE OF LAW
Prominent Constitutional Lawyer and Patriotic Front (PF) Presidential Contender Makebi Zulu has called for the immediate withdrawal of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025.
He described it as a direct assault on constitutionalism and the rule of law.
Mr. Zulu said the Bill, which was previously declared illegitimate by the Constitutional Court, cannot be salvaged through what he termed “fine-tuning” or cosmetic changes.
He argued that the process behind the Bill remains fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.
Mr Zulu reminded the public that the Constitutional Court had ruled the Bill failed to meet the requirement of wide public consultation.
He emphasised that any constitutional amendment must be people-driven and led by an independent expert body, not by the Executive or partisan committees.
Mr Zulu criticised the Government’s decision to form what he described as an “illegal technical committee” with no legal mandate, no Act of Parliament, and no legitimacy.
He said the committee’s purpose was to sanitise an unconstitutional process and mislead the public into accepting a Bill already condemned by the courts.
Mr Zulu warned that Bill 7 contains provisions that could weaken democratic institutions, distort representation, and make it easier for future governments to manipulate state structures.
He cited widespread concern from civil society organisations, legal experts, the Church, and governance advocates.
Mr Zulu commended the Law Association of Zambia for refusing to participate in the clause-by-clause review, stating that doing so would legitimise an illegality.
He stressed that the only legitimate way forward is for the Government to withdraw the Bill, disband the technical committee, and establish a truly independent and broadly representative body to lead national consultations, in line with the Constitutional Court’s guidance.
Mr Zulu maintained that the Constitution belongs to the people of Zambia and cannot be altered by any temporary parliamentary majority through a process that violates the Constitution itself.
VETERAN POLITICIAN WARNS ZAMBIA WILL CONTINUE STRUGGLING IF EMOTIONS DRIVE NATIONAL DECISIONS
By Nelson Zulu
Veteran politician Dr. Mbita Chitala has warned that Zambia is likely to continue struggling in all sectors because national matters are handled with emotions rather than rational deliberation.
In an interview with Phoenix News, Dr. Chitala has observed that most decisions are driven by personal feelings and ego which undermine any effort to resolve issues and produce lasting solutions.
He pointed to the protracted burial impasse involving former president Edgar Lungu as worrying, even as the country prepares to end the year with uneven economic performance as examples of problems that could have been avoided.
Dr. Chitala has emphasized that Zambia has drifted away from traditional practices of community consultation and practical problem-solving, pointing to the lack of constructive dialogue, failure to apply common sense, and the dominance of personal interests as contributing factors to the persistence of avoidable conflicts.
He has since called for a renewed focus on dialogue, consensus-building, and pragmatic decision-making, stating that this will help prevent disputes from escalating into prolonged delays and enable political and community leaders to work together more effectively.
CF PROMISES JOBS, EXPORTS AND GROWTH THROUGH AGRICULTURAL OVERHAUL
Citizens First president Harry Kalaba says Zambia’s agricultural potential remains far from fully realised, despite having more than 42 million hectares of arable land. He notes that less than 15 percent is currently under cultivation, with irrigation still limited, resulting in low national output and weakened food security.
Kalaba argues that ongoing structural challenges continue to hinder farmers, including limited storage facilities and the high cost of supporting programmes such as the Farmer Input Support Programme, which he says has not helped enough farmers transition into commercial production.
He says CF will prioritise agriculture by overhauling FISP to reward performance, ensuring farmers who use the support effectively can access irrigation, machinery and extension services. Kalaba has also announced plans to expand irrigation through a National Irrigation Grid to increase irrigated land from six to 20 percent within ten years.
He says the CF intends to create 12 Agro-Processing Parks along major transport and power corridors to support value addition in high-demand export crops such as avocados, macadamia, citrus, paprika, soya, beef and dairy.
According to Kalaba, these initiatives will be financed through improved mineral revenue management, recovered arrears highlighted by the Auditor General, and private sector partnerships. The party plans to establish a K2 billion Agricultural Transformation Fund to provide affordable financing for farmers.
Kalaba says Zambia can become the region’s leading food supplier, contributing up to 30 percent of GDP and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs with the right leadership.
Relatives drag CF youth chairperson for grabbing dead relative’s property
CITIZENS First National youth chairperson Maxwell Chongo has been dragged to court by a widow and her son for allegedly fraudulently grabbing their late relative’s property and secretly changing ownership into his name without their knowledge or consent.
In a statement of claim filed before the Lusaka High Court, Priscillar Ng’ambi, the widow of the late Frank Nga’mbi, and Chilumba Ng’ambi, suing as administrators of his estate, have also cited Chongu’s wife Rozyna Mumba, the Commissioner of Lands, the Attorney General, and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) as defendants.
Chongo is accused of fraudulently effecting a change of ownership on Property No. L/12576/M/C, which belonged to the late Nga’mbi until his death.
According to the plaintiffs, they are the duly appointed personal representatives of the estate and only discovered the alleged fraudulent act when they conducted a search at the Ministry of Lands.
The land register, they say, revealed that Chongo had purchased the property and was issued a certificate of title by the Commissioner of Lands.
They stated that the second defendant, Ms. Mumba, placed a caveat on the property, claiming she was an “intending purchaser”.
The records also showed a restriction notice placed by the ACC, which flagged the manner in which Chongo allegedly acquired the property. Although the ACC initially handled the matter, investigations were later taken over by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), which now holds documents relating to ownership of the property.
The plaintiffs claim that before the alleged illegal transfer, they were collecting K14,259 per month in rentals from students occupying the house.
The tenants remain in the property but have allegedly been paying rentals to Chongo for 62 months, amounting to K883,500, which the family now wants refunded. They argue that the transfer was effected behind their backs despite their lawful position as administrators of the estate.
The estate administrators are seeking a series of remedies, including the removal of the caveat placed by Ms. Mumba and the removal of the ACC restriction notice.
They also want the certificate of title issued to Chongo cancelled and the property reverted to the estate of the late Nga’mbi.
They are demanding that Chongo pays K883,500, being rental income allegedly collected from the time he changed ownership to the commencement of court proceedings.
They are also seeking damages for the alleged fraudulent acquisition of title, an interim injunction restraining Chongo and his wife from collecting further rentals, interest on all outstanding sums.
LECTURERS TO MARCH ON STATE HOUSE OVER UNZA CRISIS
THE University of Zambia Lecturers and Researchers’ Union has resolved to stage a peaceful march to State House in protest against the longstanding and unresolved challenges affecting the University of Zambia and its employees.
UNZALARU General Secretary Dominic Liche said the peaceful protest was scheduled for Friday, December 19, 2025 09:00 hours, to bring to the attention of President Hakainde Hichilema to pay attention to the urgent needs of the institution.
In a memorandum to members dated December 8, 2025, Liche said the march would seek to draw the attention of Hichilema over the longstanding and unresolved difficulties at the country’s higher institution of learning.
“Following a resolution of UNZALARU members at a General Meeting held on 4 November 2025 at the Graduation Square, a peaceful protest march to State House has been scheduled for Friday, 19 December 2025, starting at 09:00 hours at the Great East Road Campus,” he said.
Liche explained that the march would proceed from the Great East Road Campus to State House with the hope of meeting Hichilema.
“The march will go through Great East Road, Addis Ababa Road, Chikwa Road, and Independence Avenue before reaching State House and handing over our petition to President Hichilema,” he said.
Liche said UNZALARU wanted President Hichilema to address outstanding gratuities and pensions dating as far back as 2016.
He said the workers wanted Hichilema to address the problems relating to the superannuation scheme under the Zambia State Insurance Corporation (ZSIC), delayed institutional grant disbursements from the government and inadequate wage bill coverage.
“The challenges also include persistent delays in the payment of allowances, unsustainable restructuring of the University, interference by the Emoluments Commission in the negotiation of conditions of service, deteriorating infrastructure and teaching facilities, inadequate research funding, and insufficient office space for staff, as well as inadequate student accommodation,” he said.
Lichen said UNZALARU had formally notified the Zambia Police Service about the march.
“The Police requested further information through a meeting, and we attended the meeting at which all the necessary information was provided. We will communicate additional updates as soon as official feedback is received. We encourage our members to attend this very important protest march,” said Liche.
MADURO SAYS TRUMP WANTS VENENZUELA’S OIL. BUT IS THAT THE REAL US GOAL?
(BBC) Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro says escalating pressure from the US comes down to one thing: Washington wants to grab the South American nation’s vast oil reserves.
This week the American military seized an oil tanker, which was allegedly carrying Venezuelan oil being shipped in violation of US sanctions, and threatened action against other ships.
The move followed a series of military strikes on Venezuelan boats, which the US alleges are drug-trafficking vessels. President Donald Trump has called on Maduro to leave office, accusing him of sending narcotics and murderers to the US.
So is it Venezuela’s oil that Trump really wants? And would it actually be worth it?
How much oil does Venezuela have?
It is true that with an estimated 303 billion barrels, Venezuela is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
But the amount of oil the country actually produces today is tiny by comparison.
Output has dropped off sharply since the early 2000s, as former President Hugo Chavez and then the Maduro administration tightened control over the state-run oil company, PDVSA, leading to an exodus of more experienced staff.
Though some Western oil firms, including the US company Chevron, are still active in the country, their operations have shrunk significantly as the US has widened sanctions and targeted oil exports, aiming to curb Maduro’s access to a key economic lifeline.
Sanctions – which the US first put in place in 2015 during President Barack Obama’s administration over alleged human rights violations – have also left the country largely cut off from the investment and the parts it needs.
“The real challenge they’ve got is their infrastructure,” says Callum McPherson, head of commodities at Investec.
In November, Venezuela produced an estimated 860,000 barrels per day, according to the latest oil market report from the International Energy Agency.
That is barely a third of what it was 10 years ago and accounts for less than 1% of world oil consumption.
Does Trump want Venezuela’s oil?
Some in the US have made the case for intervention in Venezuela by pointing to the opportunities for American businesses to revive the oil industry.
“Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day,” Florida Republican congresswoman María Elvira Salazar said in a recent interview on Fox Business.
“American companies can go in and fix all the oil pipes, the whole oil rigs and everything that has to do with… oil and the derivatives.”
Trump might seem open to such arguments.
He campaigned on the slogan “drill, baby, drill” and has generally called for expanding oil production, which he has tied to lower prices for Americans.
But when it comes to Venezuela, the White House has said it is concerned about drug trafficking and what it sees as Maduro’s illegitimacy.
Lately, Mr. Hakainde Hichilema has openly expressed his dislike for public protests, categorizing them as an illegitimate form of criticism. He has been relentless in opposing citizens who seek to exercise their democratic rights in this manner by incorrectly claiming that protests can scare away investors or lead to property damage. As if he had never participated in a peaceful protest in this country before, both as a citizen and an opposition leader.
But this stance taken by Mr Hichilema is not surprising. Since coming into office in 2021, Mr. Hichilema has presided over a visible shrinking of Zambia’s democratic and civic space. Not a single opposition rally has been permitted. Protests by government critics and political opponents have been blocked.
Laws such as the Cyber Security and Crimes Act, tribal hate speech, and other provisions related to speech have been bolstered in ways that curtail freedom of expression. And yet, in any true democracy, the right to criticise government is not a privilege but a foundational freedom. This is a simple fact that Mr. Hichilema appears unwilling to recognise and respect.
Tragically, Mr Hichilema has deluded himself that as Head of State, he can prescribe how he should be criticised by the citizens. He seems determined to depart from the traditional democratic norms and reshape this country in his own preferred image. And anything that stands in his way or falls outside his shortsighted comfort zone is aggressively dismissed as hatred. May God help him and the country.
Clearly, what Mr. Hichilema fails to grasp is that true leadership is anchored in feedback and does not attempt to control the manner in which citizens express displeasure. As doing so is incompatible with standard democratic principles, weakens governance, and speaks to insecurity rather than strength of a leader.
It’s a well established fact that genuine leadership understands the difference between legitimate criticism and hate speech, and leaves the adjudication of such matters to the justice system, not to the personal discretion of an individual, especially the Head of State.
It is therefore improper, unethical, and unacceptable for Mr. Hichilema to act both as a player and as the referee in the country’s political arena. Zambia cannot afford a leader who reacts defensively to every criticism and labels dissenting voices as “haters.” A president cannot dictate the terms of engagement with the citizens who entrusted him with power.
Mr. Hichilema must realise that feedback, whether pleasant or uncomfortable, is key for accountability, institutional growth, and public trust. He must also remember that Zambia and its democracy existed long before his presidency, and they will continue long after it. Therefore, his desire to remodel society according to his personal preferences and attitudes will not succeed. This nation has come a long way and sacrificed too much, to be reduced to terror, insecurity, and toxicity.
Ala ichalo lishilu tabakaka weka kuti lya kwipaya. No single individual, no matter how intelligent or good they may be, can manage a nation alone. We need each other in every aspect of our nation’s existence, whether it’s in politics, development, or prosperity.
We therefore urge Mr Hichilema to embrace feedback as a tool for national progress and not something to suppress, regulate, or fear.
It’s time Mr Hichilema realised that this country will not permanently be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.
Fred M’membe President of the Socialist Party Zambia
CONTEXT | LAZ Walkout, Hichilema’s Union Dialogue & the Shifting Bill 7 Debate
The political temperature around Bill 7 is rising fast, and Thursday’s dramatic encounter between the Law Association of Zambia and the Parliamentary Select Committee has become the latest fault line. LAZ entered the room determined to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill. The Committee insisted the session was limited strictly to substantive clauses.
When LAZ refused to move beyond its introduction, Committee Chairperson Imanga Wamunyima said, “LAZ has made a submission which it does not wish to read or speak to. You have only addressed your introduction. We now require you to speak to the key issues relating to the objects of the Bill.” With LAZ standing its ground, the session ended abruptly.
Critics online claimed Wamunyima was “bought,” but the Chairperson maintained that procedural concerns were sub judice and outside the mandate of a Select Committee, which is not a court.
LAZ President Lungisani Zulu defended the association’s stance by citing the Constitutional Court’s findings in the Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila case. He argued that the initiation of Bill 7 breached Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 and 92 of the Constitution. “Any act or omission contrary to the Constitution is illegal,” Zulu said.
However, the Select Committee countered that the Court did not declare Bill 7 itself unconstitutional, only that the initiation process was flawed.
The distinction matters. Parliament insists it is considering a “proposed law,” one that has not yet been interpreted by any court. This is why the Committee pressed LAZ to speak to its written submission on the Bill’s content, which LAZ declined to do.
On the sidelines, some LAZ members now argue the association has crossed into political advocacy. They have petitioned for an Extraordinary General Meeting; asking whether LAZ’s affiliation to OASIS Forum still reflects the will of its membership. These petitioners want a vote “by poll” to settle the matter.
The rising intra-institutional debate signal a broader struggle over legitimacy: who speaks for the nation, and who defines constitutional propriety. LAZ nearing crossroads.
Meanwhile the political narrative around the Bill continues to shift. Early criticism focused on content i.e. delimitation, mixed-member representation, the two-thirds threshold. Now most opposition commentary has moved almost entirely to process, as the legal case is easier to frame than the technical details of electoral reform.
But the claim that “there was no consultation” sits uneasily with the fact that the Technical Committee received more than 11,864 submissions, one of the largest consultative data sets in Zambia’s constitutional history. Whether this number is adequate is a fair debate. However, dismissing it outright feeds the perception that some groups believe national processes require their personal endorsement before they qualify as “legitimate.”
While legal battles and political pressure groups occupy the spotlight, State House is deliberately repositioning itself through dialogue. On Thursday, President Hakainde Hichilema hosted labour unions at State House and described the meeting as “frank and constructive.”
Hichilema added, “We firmly believe that however complex our national difficulties might be, they are best resolved through dialogue rather than through actions that endanger life and property.”
The timing is not accidental. With opposition voices framing the regime as authoritarian, the President continues to reclaim the language of consultation and stability.
These developments unfold as the Select Committee moves into its most consequential week. Its report will shape parliamentary debate and determine whether MPs find enough political courage to vote according to principle or factional loyalty.
The youngest MP in the House, Chairperson Wamunyima, sits at the centre of this storm. His insistence on procedural discipline has angered PF-aligned voices online who accuse him of partisan alignment.
However, the Committee’s work is guided by strict Standing Orders: it is not a forum for judicial review. It is a fact-finding body mandated to receive submissions on content and send recommendations to the House.
As the Bill moves toward the Second Reading next week, Zambians should prepare for an escalation in both rhetoric and legal manoeuvres. But the essential democratic truth remains unchanged. Parliament will decide this Bill.
Supporters and opponents alike must rely on MPs, not hashtags, to determine the outcome.
The public must stay informed, but clarity begins with understanding what each institution can and cannot do.
Readers with information, insights or opinion pieces are invited to write to us at editor.peoplesbrief@gmail.com.
Gavel in the Spotlight: Hon. Imanga Wamunyima Jr.’s Duty to Impartiality Is Not Optional
The role of a Parliamentary Select Committee Chairperson in Zambia’s National Assembly is built on one central principle: impartiality. When a committee is gathering submissions on a matter as important as a constitutional amendment, such as Bill No. 7, the Chairperson must act as a neutral referee, not a participant in the debate.
This is why the conduct of Hon. Imanga Wamunyima Jr., MP for Nalolo and Chairperson of the Select Committee, has raised serious concerns.He openly criticized the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) President during the committee session and later reinforced his position through a social media post, suggest a worrying breach of parliamentary norms and Standing Orders.
Under parliamentary procedure, a Committee Chairperson represents the Speaker when presiding over proceedings. This comes with one critical expectation: strict neutrality. The Chairperson is responsible for regulating debate, ensuring order, and allowing all witnesses to present their views freely. Committee sessions are not platforms for personal or political confrontation.
They are fact-finding forums designed to help Parliament make decisions based on objective, balanced submissions. When a Chairperson attacks, challenges, or pressures a witness, as was the case, it undermines the integrity of the process and violates the principle of fairness that is central to parliamentary democracy.
Beyond the committee room, Hon. Wamunyima’s decision to make a social media post immediately after the exchange—“eyes on the ball”, blurred the line between his official duty and personal political agenda. As Chairperson, he is expected to set aside his own views and facilitate open dialogue. Public commentary that appears to validate his earlier behaviour risks giving the impression that the proceedings were driven by partisan interests rather than the national interest.
For a constitutional matter that affects every citizen, this erosion of neutrality is not a minor issue; it threatens the legitimacy of the committee’s eventual report, especially given that the Bill 7 and the constitutional amendment process were declared illegal by the court. The behaviour of the Chair sends a troubling message that the Bill must pass regardless, and that the UPND government must be granted its “shopping list” through Bill 7.
This incident also has wider implications for democratic institutions. LAZ, a key stakeholder in legal and constitutional matters, plays a major role in safeguarding the rule of law. When the Chairperson publicly challenges the association’s official position during a hearing, it sends the wrong signal to other institutions and citizens who may wish to provide honest submissions.
Stakeholders must feel safe, respected, and free from intimidation when presenting before Parliament. Anything less risks silencing important voices and weakening the democratic process—already under strain considering how the UPND government under President HH has handled the constitutional reform process.
In the end, the Chairperson’s gavel is not a weapon for political argument, it is a symbol of integrity, decorum, and fair procedure. Zambia’s democracy depends on leaders who understand and respect this responsibility.
Hon. Imanga Wamunyima Jr.’s conduct serves as a reminder that the country is bigger than the Chairperson, and that those trusted with guiding national dialogue must rise above personal positions and political loyalties. Impartiality in parliamentary committees is not just preferred, it is non-negotiable.
The Struggle Continues
Sensio Banda Former Member of Parliament Kasenengwa Constituency Eastern Province
LAZ DRAMA UNFOLDS IN PARLIAMENT AS LUNGISANI ZULU’S THEATRICS FALL FLAT BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
A dramatic scene erupted at Parliament when the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), led by its President Lungisani Zulu, appeared before the Select Committee tasked with receiving public submissions on Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7. But instead of engaging in the expected legal discourse, Zulu—flanked by OASIS Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe—seemed more interested in putting on a spectacle than presenting substantive oral submissions.
In a moment that felt more like political theater than civic engagement, Zulu refused to deliver LAZ’s oral submission, apparently hoping to stage a grand public showdown for the cameras. However, Committee Chairman and Nalolo MP, Hon. Imanga Wamunyima Jr., swiftly shut down the theatrics. Firm and unmoved, he reminded Zulu that the Committee was not a stage for dramatics but a constitutional platform for serious contributions.
With the Committee refusing to indulge the stunt, Zulu and his delegation were promptly dismissed—bringing an abrupt and unceremonious end to what was clearly meant to be a headline-grabbing performance.
![[SABC News] – Controversy Over Zambia’s Bill 7: A Conversation with Dr. Fred M’membe](https://i0.wp.com/zambianobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Screenshot_20251211-183606-1.jpg?fit=696%2C608&ssl=1 "[SABC News] – Controversy Over Zambia’s Bill 7: A Conversation with Dr. Fred M’membe")
