SUNDAY CHANDA DISMISSES CLAIMS OF K3 MILLION PAYOUT AS BASELESS HOGWASH
Kanchibiya… Monday December 1, 2025 – Kanchibiya Member of Parliament Sunday Chanda has dismissed as false a list circulating on social media that alleges he is among individuals who received K3 million.
He said the claims were baseless and urged those spreading them to “do better”.
Hon. Chanda explained that his work in Parliament has always been driven by the interests of the people of Kanchibiya, stating that every motion he has moved–ranging from advocacy for improved conditions of service for Councillors, regulation of online betting, the NAPSA lumpsum and broader pension reforms, to defending the rights of miners and heavily indebted workers–has been guided by a single principle: what best serves his constituents and the Zambian people.
He added that his voting record is equally anchored in this commitment, stressing that his compass in public service “remains unchanged”.
Regarding the Bill 7, Chanda said he would only take a position after it is formally presented before him in Parliament.
He stated that once he studies it, he would communicate his stance–whether for or against–publicly and transparently.
The lawmaker urged the public to dismiss the ongoing claims about a supposed K3 million “share”, describing the rumours as unfounded.
HARRY KALABA CONDEMNS THE SUSPENSION OF TALKS WITH OASIS FORUM
He writes…
Mr Hakainde Hichilema has now suspended all talks with the Oasis Forum. Honestly, I wish I could say I am shocked but Mr. Hakainde’s body posture during that meeting told the whole story before a single headline was written. It was the classic “my way or the highway” script, performed with the same stubborn flair Pharaoh displayed when he refused to let the Children of Israel go.
The Oasis Forum went in hoping for dialogue, for respect for the Constitution and for peace. Instead of welcoming advice, it seemed like State House was more focused on stopping a peaceful protest than dealing with the real issues affecting Zambia. At this point it feels like the idea of citizens gathering to pray or speak worries this administration more than the injustices people are speaking about.
This hardened approach is becoming predictable. Zambia asks for engagement but Mr Hakainde answers with what clearly looks like arrogance. The nation asks for leadership but what we see is defensiveness. Civil voices ask for dialogue but the door is shut.
Pharaoh’s heart did not harden in one day. It hardened little by little every time he chose pride over humility and power over people. And right now we are watching a similar pattern unfold.
If ignoring the Oasis Forum is meant to intimidate, it will not work. If suspending dialogue is meant to silence the conscience of the nation, it will not work. And if this is what the new dawn represents, then daylight has clearly failed to break through.
Zambia deserves better. And people will continue to speak up whether State House listens or not.
BRIEFING | UPND Hardens Position as CSO Leaders, Faith Groups Teem at State House
The ruling United Party for National Development has moved decisively to defend Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7, framing it as a targeted intervention designed to avert future constitutional instability.
Speaking at the Anderson Mazoka Secretariat in Lusaka, UPND Media Director Mark Simuuwe said critics of the Bill had “lost the debate” because their objections lacked legal grounding and practical alternatives.
Simuuwe argued that civil society organisations had been “accommodated at every turn,” noting that the Bill was deferred at their request and that the Law Association of Zambia submitted six names to the Technical Committee.
“The President listened,” he said. “Government responded, but some groups chose to mislead the public. Their petition was dismissed for being frivolous.”
The ruling party also condemned clergy who have taken overt political positions during the Bill 7 campaign. Simuuwe said congregants were “raising concerns of religious capture,” adding that churches are free to participate in governance but should not hide political commentary behind the pulpit.
UPND maintains that Bill 7 is targeted, citing its limited scope of 13 amendments. Simuuwe contrasted it with the former Patriotic Front government’s Bill 10, which he described as “a near overhaul” containing 117 amendments.
He listed what he called “dangerous proposals” under Bill 10, including the attempt to alter Zambia’s Christian character in the Preamble, abolish service commissions, weaken oversight on public borrowing and merge policing functions under one political authority.
On delimitation, Simuuwe emphasised that the Constitution already requires a boundary review every ten years. “This process began in 2019,” he said. “To proceed, the clause fixing constituencies at 156 must be amended. This is not an opinion. It is a constitutional requirement.”
Simuuwe added that new constituencies do not increase voter numbers and therefore do not change presidential outcomes.
The ruling party insists the Bill addresses a real constitutional risk under Article 52, which currently allows unlimited withdrawal and refiling of nominations.
According to Simuuwe, this loophole could enable an incumbent to extend time in office during an election.
“It is a potential constitutional crisis,” he said.
Meanwhile, pro-Bill CSOs and church leaders from across the country have gathered at State House, calling Oasis Forum an “urban elite group” and urging government to respect the submissions made through the Technical Committee.
Their message is that no single church or CSO “is more Zambian than the rest.”
This mobilisation follows a turbulent weekend. Government suspended dialogue with the Oasis Forum after accusing it of arriving with a fixed position rather than specific clauses or alternative proposals.
The Forum countered with a detailed letter outlining constitutional concerns, referencing the Mukandila and Zulu judgment and insisting that any reform must begin with a fresh, people-driven process.
The confrontation has created two parallel narratives. Anti-Bill voices claim the amendment process lacks legitimacy and transparency. Pro-Bill actors argue that Parliament alone has the constitutional mandate to amend the law and that national consultations cannot be subordinated to CSOs holding prayer rallies with largely elite attendance.
Simuuwe said the ruling party backs the government’s decision to close structured dialogue.
“We agree to disagree,” he said.
“Even if Oasis Forum rejects the process, Parliament will proceed.”
State House engagements are continuing this afternoon, with the President currently meeting organisations that support the reform process.
The People’s Brief will publish a full explainer after the public engagements conclude. Stay with us.
The Electoral Commission of Zambia –ECZ- has received a letter from the National Assembly notifying the commission of a vacancy in the Chawama parliamentary seat.
ECZ Chief Electoral Officer, BROWN KASARO, confirmed this afternoon that the letter was received on Friday, November 28, 2025.
Mr. KASARO said the commission will provide guidance on the way forward.
On Friday, Chawama Member of Parliament, TASILA LUNGU, lost her seat.
This follows a resolution by the National Assembly to invoke Article 72( of the Constitution, which allows the Speaker to inform the Electoral Commission of Zambia of any parliamentary vacancy.
COPPER QUEENS BOYCOTT TRAINING OVER ALLOWANCES, FAZ PRESIDENT SAYS INDISCIPLINE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
By Mukwima Chilala
Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) president Keith Mweemba has disclosed that some Zambia Women National Soccer Team players, the Copper Queens, boycotted playing over allowances at the ongoing Three Nations Tournament in Malawi.
The Copper Queens are in Malawi for a Four Nations tournament involving the hosts and neighboring Zimbabwe.
However, Mweemba revealed that almost the entire team boycotted playing, with only six players showing up to train.
The FAZ president made the revelations during the ongoing Football Indaba in Lusaka, saying that indiscipline will not be tolerated.
He added that some players have been inciting others and causing unrest in the team, and those involved will be sidelined.
The players returned to training after engagement with the Football Association of Zambia, with Zambia playing to a 1-1 draw against hosts Malawi on Sunday.
The Indaba has been organized by the Ministry of Sport and has attractive the attendance of various stakeholders in football including Zambia National Soccer Team legends.
THE Supreme Court of South Africa is yet to set a date for hearing the lawsuit in which the Lungu family is challenging the court’s decision to order the repatriation of former President Edgar Lungu’s body back home.
Lawyers representing former First Lady Esther Lungu told the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court on Friday that the foreign court has not announced the date for hearing of the case.
Charles Changano, one of the lawyers, said this when he applied for an adjournment in a case in which Mrs Lungu and others are charged with theft of motor vehicles.
Mr Changano told journalists that the matter involving his client was heard in chambers before being adjourned to a later date since she is still abroad.
“We said we do not know the date of burial and the Supreme Court in South Africa has not yet given a date to the hearing of the case on the late President’s repatriation of the remains to Zambia for burial. We also said that we do not know how far negotiations have gone between the late President’s family and the Zambian government,” Mr Changano said.
He explained that the defence consequently applied for a 30 day adjournment.
The case will now come up on December 29 for mention.
UPND ENDORSES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL NO. 7, SAYS OPPONENTS HAVE “LOST THE DEBATE”
Lusaka — The ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) has formally endorsed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7, insisting that the proposed changes are necessary to avert a future constitutional crisis and strengthen governance systems in the country.
Speaking during a press briefing at the Anderson Kambela Mazoka Party Secretariat in Lusaka, UPND Media Director Mark Simuuwe said those opposing the Bill had “lost the debate” because their arguments lacked merit and substance.
Mr. Simuuwe accused some civil society organisations (CSOs) of attempting to “blackmail” government despite being accorded space to engage constructively.
He explained that CSOs had initially requested President Hakainde Hichilema to defer the Bill to allow for more consultation.
“The President listened. Government responded by deferring the Bill, and in addition, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) submitted six names to be part of the Technical Committee,” he said.
He said despite the accommodation, some groups continued to mislead the public, adding that their court petition was dismissed for being frivolous.
“They are blackmailing the President, and that is why their bid was thrown out of court for wasting the Court’s time,” he said.
Mr. Simuuwe also criticised some clergy whom he accused of engaging in political commentary under the guise of religious leadership. “If they want to be politicians, they are welcome. But the videos circulating show that congregants themselves are unhappy with their approach,” he added.
He urged the public should pay attention to the progressive clauses in Bill No. 7 rather than political interpretations being pushed by critics.
Mr. Simuuwe stressed that the Bill is being misrepresented by those equating it to the much-criticised Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 10 of 2019, which the UPND opposed while in opposition.
“Time has come to tell the people the truth. Bill 7 is being reduced to politics, but it is not Bill 10,” he said. “Under Bill 7 we are only looking at 13 proposed amendments, while Bill 10 had 117 amendments and amounted to a near-overhaul of the Constitution.”
He cited several controversial provisions in Bill 10, including attempts to; amend the Preamble to redefine Zambia’s Christian character; reintroduce deputy ministers; abolish civil service commissions; politicise the House of Chiefs through elections; allow the President to create districts without checks; weaken oversight on government borrowing, and amend Article 193 to merge law enforcement functions which could have weakened investigative agencies.
“This is how evil and dangerous Bill 10 was,” Mr. Simuuwe said.
Mr. Simuuwe stated that Bill No. 7 seeks to address specific constitutional gaps, including the Article 52 issue relating to election nominations, which he argued currently does not limit how many times candidates may withdraw and refile.
“This is a potential constitutional crisis. It could allow a sitting President or other office holders to remain in office longer than necessary,” he warned.
Mr. Simuuwe also highlighted that delimitation, the redrawing of constituency boundaries, must occur every 10 years as required by the Constitution. This process began in 2019.
“For delimitation to proceed, the clause that fixes the number of constituencies at 156 must be amended. This is not an opinion from UPND or Oasis Forum; it is a constitutional requirement,” he said.
Mr. Simuuwe further explained that the Bill introduces elements of affirmative action, which aligns with international practice and aims to enhance representation of women, youth, and marginalised groups.
He dismissed concerns raised by the Oasis Forum and some opposition parties who argue that the amendment process lacks consensus.
“The Constitution-making process cannot always achieve 100 percent consensus. There is only one government. Other groups are stakeholders, but Parliament is the only body with a constitutional mandate to amend the law,” he said.
Mr. Simuuwe added that government had already accepted to discontinue structured dialogue after the Chief Government Spokesperson announced its closure.
“We agree to disagree. Even if Oasis Forum rejects the process, Parliament will proceed. We had remained quiet after the deferment to allow citizens to contribute, but now it is clear some are spreading falsehoods,” Mr. Simuuwe said.
The UPND Media Director has reaffirmed the ruling party’s support for Bill No. 7, insisting that it is a targeted and progressive amendment.
“A good legal system adapts to prevailing circumstances. We endorse Bill No. 7 because it is necessary, and those opposed to it have lost the debate,” he said.
Mr. Simuuwe reiterated that the party will not allow attempts to derail or “blackmail” a process that is constitutionally mandated and aimed at safeguarding Zambia from potential constitutional uncertainty.
LATEST: DIALOGUE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS HAS FAILED – OASIS FORUM …..Calls on members of the public to join the Campaign against Bill 7, which the Oasis Forum will roll out.
PRESS STATEMENT 1st DECEMBER 2025 The Oasis Forum— regrets to inform the public that it decided to pull out of the dialogue on the constitutional amendment process when it became clear that the government was adamant on its position to continue with an illegality. It is for this reason that on 29th November, 2025, following its sitting, the Oasis Forum wrote to the President its principled stance on the matter, which letter was delivered to the smaller team representing the Government on 30th November, 2025.
We do not believe that dialogue is tenable when the underlying concerns remain unaddressed. Our concerns are as follows: • Illegality of the Process: The current process is in breach of the orders of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, continuing the process based on Bill 7, which the Government insists on, is effectively rubber-stamping Bill No. 7, whose initiation the Constitutional Court declared a nullity due to a lack of mandatory broad public consultations in the framing of the proposed amendments. The report and ensuing Bill from the work of the Technical Committee will itself be illegal.
• Lack of Legal Framework and Independence: The work of the Technical Committee lacks a legal framework to ensure its independence and public accountability, risking undue executive influence over what should be a citizen-driven process. • Restrictive Terms of Reference (TOR): The TORs unilaterally prescribed by the government restrict citizens’ submissions to the same clauses in Bill 7, effectively resurrecting an illegitimate, election-centred agenda and precluding a holistic reform.
• Failure to Withdraw Bill No. 7: Despite the Constitutional Court nullifying the initiation of Bill No. 7 of 2025, the Bill remains before the National Assembly, further entrenching an illegitimate process. • Tying to the 2026 Electoral Timeline: Rushing the reform process by tying its timeline to the 2026 General Elections compromises inclusivity and national consensus, diverting urgency from critical immediate needs like the cost of living, water shortages, and employment. There is no justification why the supreme law of the land must be amended in a rushed manner, less 30 days, as though there is no tomorrow.
Dialogue Outcomes: Government Intent to Proceed. Despite presenting these profound, unresolved concerns, our dialogue, including the meeting with the President, has yielded nothing. The government remains bent on proceeding with the current illegal and flawed process and has refused to withdraw Bill No. 7 from Parliament formally.
We reaffirm our non-negotiable preconditions for any meaningful dialogue: 1. Bill 7 must be formally withdrawn from Parliament. 2. A fresh constitutional reform process must be commenced, supported by legal safeguards, and be genuinely inclusive, not rushed, and holistic. Should these be attended to by Government, we remain available to return to the dialogue table.
A Call to Action for All Zambians: The refusal to heed advice on withdrawing the illegal Bill 7 or offering alternative, legally sound options is a serious threat to the integrity of Zambia’s foundational law and may result in anarchy. The government’s current approach demonstrates an apparent lack of interest in genuine, people-driven dialogue.
We therefore call upon all Zambians to stand in defence of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and good governance. We only have one Zambia. The Oasis Forum will continue to use all available legal means possible and possible engagement of the international community to ensure that the government withdraws Bill 7, which threatens our national values and principles of democracy as well as constitutionalism, good governance and integrity.
We urge the Government of the Republic of Zambia to WITHDRAW BILL NO 7 IMMEDIATELY and commence a legitimate, transparent, and people-driven constitutional reform process where amendments will be framed by the owners and not by the Government. We urge members of the public to join the Campaign against Bill 7, which the Oasis Forum will roll out.
Yours faithfully, For and on behalf of The Oasis Forum Beauty Katebe Chairperson – The Oasis Forum
Court Postpones DANNY PULE Seditious Practices Case
By Alice Lubasi
The Lusaka Magistrate Court has adjourned to December 5, 2025, the seditious practices case for Christian Democratic Party -CDP- President, DANNY PULE.
This is after the state failed to make an appearance before the court to proceed with the matter.
In this matter, Dr. PULE is charged with seditious practices and expressing tribal remarks.
When the matter came up for ruling on case to answer, Acting Chief Resident Magistrate, SYLVIA MUNYINYA warned that she will have no choice but to dismiss the matter if the state will not be present next time.
Magistrate MUNYINYA consequently adjourned the matter to this Friday, December 5, 2025.
JUST IN: MUTALE MWANZA IN COURT OVER CHICHI DAISY POST
Journalist Mutale Mwanza is at the Lusaka Magistrate’s Court to answer to allegations that she cyber harrased fellow media personality Daisy Mwansa Lufumpa, alias Chichi Daisy.
Ms Mwanza is charged with Harassment utilizing means of electronic communication Contrary to Section 69 of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act.
It is alleged that on November 7, 2024, the accused, of the M-Nation, used her Facebook page called M-Nation with the intent to intimidate, harass or cause emotional distress to Ms Lufumpa.
The journalist and media socialite published unprintable words against the complainant, whom she also accused of copulating with a named politician.
Ms Mwanza, whose aged is 40, according to the indictment, is sheduled to take plea before Lusaka magistrate Mbuywana Sinvula today.
OASIS FORUM PULLS OUT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM TALKS CITING “ILLEGALITY” OF PROCESS
…..Bill 7 must be withdrawn. A fresh constitutional reform process, one that is legitimate, transparent, and people-driven, must be commenced
Lusaka… Monday 1 December 2025 (SMART EAGLES)
The Oasis Forum has withdrawn from the ongoing constitutional reform dialogue, accusing the government of insisting on an “illegal and flawed” process and refusing to address key governance and rule-of-law concerns.
Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe said the organisation could not continue participating in a process that “remains in breach of the orders of the Constitutional Court” and lacks legitimacy.
“We do not believe that dialogue is tenable when the underlying concerns remain unaddressed,” Ms. Katebe said.
“The government is adamant on its position to continue with an illegality, and our engagement has yielded nothing.”
Illegality and Lack of Safeguards Cited
The Forum argues that the reform process, anchored on Bill No. 7 of 2025, violates the Constitutional Court’s earlier ruling that nullified the Bill’s initiation due to insufficient public consultation.
According to Ms. Katebe, the Technical Committee tasked with receiving public submissions lacks a legal framework that would guarantee independence and public accountability.
“The work of the Technical Committee is open to undue executive influence,” she said, adding that the terms of reference imposed by government restrict submissions to the same clauses in the nullified Bill 7, thereby “resurrecting an illegitimate, election-centred agenda.”
Call for Withdrawal of Bill 7
The Oasis Forum insists that Bill 7 must be formally withdrawn from Parliament before any meaningful dialogue can resume.
“Bill 7 must be withdrawn. A fresh constitutional reform process one that is legitimate, transparent, and people-driven — must be commenced,” Ms. Katebe stated.
The Forum also criticised the decision to tie the reform process to the 2026 electoral calendar, saying the rushed timeline undermines inclusivity and distracts from urgent national issues such as the cost of living, water shortages, and unemployment.
“There is no justification why the supreme law of the land must be amended in less than 30 days, as though there is no tomorrow,” she said.
Warning of Potential Instability
Ms. Katebe warned that proceeding with Bill 7 in its current form “is a serious threat to the integrity of Zambia’s foundational law and may result in anarchy.”
“The government’s current approach demonstrates an apparent lack of interest in genuine, people-driven dialogue,” she said.
Public Mobilisation
The Forum says it will now employ all available legal avenues and may engage the international community in efforts to pressure the government to halt the process.
“We urge the Government of the Republic of Zambia to withdraw Bill No. 7 immediately,” Ms. Katebe said.
“We also call upon all Zambians to stand in defence of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and good governance. We only have one Zambia.”
She encouraged citizens to join the nationwide campaign against Bill 7, which the Oasis Forum plans to roll out in the coming days.
ay-Z’s paternity case has officially been put to bed, with the billionaire rapper and businessman deciding not to pursue attorney fees against Rymir Satterthwaite after the decade-long case.
Per Complex, Satterthwaite, in a lawsuit, had claimed that Jay-Z, born Shawn Corey Carter, was his biological father. Jay-Z, 55, however, vehemently denied those claims.
And though Jay-Z ultimately won the case brought before the Los Angeles federal court, recently filed federal court records showed that the veteran rapper allowed a judge-imposed deadline to exhaust without seeking attorney fees. Last week, the judge also ruled to close the case, and also ruled that the time frame for the Dead Presidents rapper to pursue legal fees had been exhausted.
The case being dismissed came after Satterthwaite opted not to pursue his lawsuit against Jay-Z in July. Satterthwaite, in the lawsuit, claimed that Jay-Z was his biological father, but the rapper had declined to undergo a paternity test to determine if that was the case. Satterthwaite also alleged that Jay-Z was using his legal connections to toss the case. Following the dismissal of the case in July, Satterthwaite claimed that he had not stopped the fight, and he was rather going on another trajectory.
“I have not stopped my fight. I did withdraw my case, but it’s for a reason. It’s not because I’m stopping it or I’m going to refile. It’s just a lot going on behind closed doors […] I have not gotten any DNA test. I have not gotten a settlement. It is not over,” he said in a livestream.
Responding to the claims in a previous statement, Jay-Z’s attorneys described Satterthwaite’s actions as a “decades-long harassment campaign,” adding that his allegations were “fabricated” and “rejected.”
Prior to the dismissal of the case, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett similarly tossed out a linked lawsuit with prejudice on November 4, Complex reported. This meant that those same claims could no longer be brought before a federal court. Satterthwaite’s godmother and legal guardian, Lillie Coley, filed those claims. Coley, who is a paralegal, had also claimed that Jay-Z was avoiding a paternity test and using his legal connections to bury the case.
Both Coley and Satterthwaite claimed that in the early 1990s, Jay-Z and Satterthwaite’s mother were in a relationship. For years, the case was also brought before New Jersey courts. But judges, on multiple occasions, ruled that they did not have the power to order Jay-Z to undergo a paternity test.
THAILAND – A 65-year-old woman in Nonthaburi, on the outskirts of Bangkok, shocked her family when she knocked from inside her coffin after being declared dead.
Chonthirat Sakulkoo, who had been unwell for two years, was cared for by her brother, Mongkol Sakulkoo. When she was found unresponsive, Mongkol assumed she had passed away and began preparations for her cremation.
“All the documents had been issued, and we placed her in a coffin,” Mongkol explained.
However, before the cremation, Mongkol took Chonthirat to Chulalongkorn University Hospital to fulfill her wish to donate organs, but the hospital refused to accept her without an official death certificate.
At the Wat Rat Prakongtham crematorium, staff also insisted on a doctor’s certification before proceeding. It was during this discussion that Chonthirat suddenly knocked from inside the coffin.
Mongkol, surprised, asked to have the coffin opened, where family members were stunned to see her eyes slightly open and knocking.
Doctors later diagnosed Chonthirat with acute hypoglycaemia, a condition that causes dangerously low blood sugar and can mimic death-like symptoms.
She is now receiving proper medical care at Bang Yai Hospital.
US President, Donald Trump has announced that his administration intends to keep a pause on asylum decisions in place for “a long time,” stating he has “no time limit” in mind for lifting the measure.
The policy freeze was implemented in the aftermath of a deadly shooting near the White House on November 26, 2025, which resulted in the death of 20-year-old National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom and critically wounded another.
The President made his intentions clear regarding the pause, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has linked to a list of 19 countries already facing US travel restrictions.
“We don’t want those people,” Trump stated. “You know why we don’t want them? Because many have been no good, and they shouldn’t be in our country.”
The DHS confirmed to reporters that the affected nationalities include citizens from countries such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, and Myanmar, which have been subject to travel restrictions since June.
The asylum freeze was implemented immediately following the Washington D.C. shooting. A 29-year-old Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in connection with the incident.
Lakanwal had entered the United States as part of a resettlement program following the American military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Despite being part of a CIA-backed “partner force” fighting the Taliban, he had been granted asylum in April 2025—during the current Trump administration.
Following the event, the President pointed blame at what officials termed lax vetting by the previous administration for Lakanwal’s admission to the country during the 2021 Afghan airlift.
The President had previously signaled his hardline stance on immigration, writing after the shooting that he planned to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover.” The current, indefinite freeze on asylum decisions for the 19 listed countries appears to be the first significant step toward that goal.
TULIP SIDDIQ MP GIVEN JAIL SENTENCE IN BANGLADESH AFTER TRIAL IN HER ABSENCE
LABOUR MP and former minister Tulip Siddiq has been sentenced to two years in prison in Bangladesh after being put on trial in her absence alongside 16 other people over corruption allegations.
She was found guilty of influencing her aunt, Bangladesh’s ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to secure a plot of land for her family in the outskirts of the capital Dhaka, a claim she strongly denies.
Siddiq, who is based in London and has rejected the charges, is unlikely to serve the sentence.
The Labour MP said the process had been “flawed and farcical from the beginning to the end”.
“I’m absolutely baffled by the whole thing – I’ve still had no contact whatsoever from the Bangladeshi authorities despite them spreading malicious allegations about me for a year-and-a-half now,” she said.
“There’s been absolutely no summons sent to me, there’s no charge sheet, I’ve had no correspondence from them – I’m not difficult to find, I’m a parliamentarian.”
She said she had engaged lawyers in the UK and Bangladesh.
“I feel like I’m in some sort of Kafkaesque nightmare,” she added.
“The only reason I know I’m being convicted is because I read it in the newspapers. So this is trial by media, which is deeply unfair.”
Since Hasina’s regime was overturned, prosecutors in Bangladesh have launched a number of wide-ranging legal cases against the former leader, her past associates and family members.
The trial involving Siddiq – who quit as a Treasury minister in January over controversy around her ties to her aunt – has been playing out in Dhaka since August.
Siddiq continues to face a number of outstanding charges.
Court documents included claims that Siddiq “forced and influenced her aunt and the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina using her special power to secure [a plot of land] for her mother Rehana Siddiq, sister Azmina Siddiq and brother Radwan Siddiq”.
A prosecutor for Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission previously said Siddiq was tried as a Bangladeshi citizen as authorities had obtained her Bangladeshi passport, ID and tax number.
Siddiq’s lawyers have disputed she is a Bangladeshi citizen, telling the Financial Times she has “never had” an ID card or voter ID, and “has not held a passport since she was a child”.
She was sentenced by Judge Rabiul Alam to two years in prison and a 100,000 Bangladeshi Taka fine ($821; £620). If she fails to pay, six months will be added to the sentence.
When the trial began, the MP said prosecutors had “peddled false and vexatious allegations that have been briefed to the media but never formally put to me by investigators”.
A statement on her behalf continued: “I have been clear from the outset that I have done nothing wrong and will respond to any credible evidence that is presented to me. Continuing to smear my name to score political points is both baseless and damaging.
Hasina’s conviction for crimes against humanity is testing India-Bangladesh ties Bangladesh leader declines to meet Tulip Siddiq A Labour spokesperson said the party could not recognise the judgement.
“As has been reported, highly regarded senior legal professionals have highlighted that Tulip Siddiq has not had access to a fair legal process in this case and has never been informed of the details of the charges against her,” the spokesperson said.
“This is despite repeated requests made to the Bangladeshi authorities through her legal team.
“Anyone facing any charge should always be afforded the right to make legal representations when allegations are made against them.”
It is understood Ms Siddiq is not subject to investigation or party disciplinary proceedings and retains her Labour Party membership and the Labour whip in the House of Commons.
Last week, a group of senior lawyers raised concerns with Bangladesh’s representative in the UK over how the trial had been conducted.
Signatories to that statement included ex-Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and Lady Cherie Blair, a human rights lawyer and wife of former Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair.
In a letter first reported by the Guardian, they said Siddiq had not been able to secure proper legal representation during the trial, adding: “Such a process is artificial and a contrived and unfair way of pursuing a prosecution.”
The verdict comes two weeks after Hasina was sentenced to death in a separate trial over her role in a brutal crackdown against the protests which ultimately forced her from office in July 2024.
She was found guilty of crimes against humanity over the deaths of an estimated 1,400 people at the hands of the police.
That trial was held in Hasina’s absence, as she has been in exile in India since being ousted. She denied the charges.
Siddiq, whose mother is the former prime minister’s sister, continues to face a number of outstanding charges in Bangladesh, including two ongoing trials in relation to the allegations at the centre of Monday’s verdict.
She is also being investigated over the alleged transfer of a flat located in a lucrative area of Dhaka to her sister.
Siddiq and her family have also been investigated in relation to allegations of embezzlement around a £3.9bn deal in 2013 connected to a Russian-funded nuclear power plant deal.
Siddiq has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in relation to the allegations, which originated with claims made by Bobby Hajjaj, a political opponent of Hasina.
Bangladeshi authorities have said they estimate that around $234bn (£174bn) was appropriated through corruption during Hasina’s reign.
Responding to the latest verdict, the Awami League, the political party which Hasina leads, described it as “entirely predictable” and “firmly denied” the allegations against the former prime minister and her family members.
“The process fails to pass any reasonable test of judicial fairness – a point that has been made forcefully by both local and international legal experts,” the party said.
Hasina also accused Bangladesh’s judiciary of being controlled by an “unelected government run by the Awami League’s political opponents”, namely the interim government headed up by Dr Muhammad Yunus.
Prior to Siddiq’s resignation from the British government, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s independent ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus said he had not found “evidence of improprieties” following an investigation.
However, he said it was “regrettable” Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of her ties to Hasina.
While Siddiq continued to insist she was not guilty of any wrongdoing, she quit her junior ministerial role in order not to be a “distraction” for the government.
The UK does not have an extradition treaty in place with Bangladesh. It is categorised as a 2B country, meaning clear evidence needs to be presented to lawyers and judges to authorise any extradition.
Siddiq was not compelled to return to Dhaka for the trial despite authorities there issuing an arrest warrant.
frican leaders used a gathering in Algiers on Sunday to revive a long-standing demand for the world to formally acknowledge colonial-era abuses, treat them as crimes under international law and pursue reparations for the harm inflicted across the continent.
The conference, hosted in Algeria’s capital, brought together diplomats and senior officials intent on advancing an African Union initiative first endorsed earlier this year. The AU’s resolution seeks a coordinated continental stance on how justice and reparations should be approached for communities still living with the consequences of colonization.
In opening the conference, Algerian Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf drew on his country’s painful past under French rule to argue that compensation and the recovery of seized assets are overdue. A structured legal approach, he said, would ensure restitution is viewed as “neither a gift nor a favor.”
“Africa is entitled to demand the official and explicit recognition of the crimes committed against its peoples during the colonial period, an indispensable first step toward addressing the consequences of that era, for which African countries and peoples continue to pay a heavy price in terms of exclusion, marginalization and backwardness,” Attaf declared.
While modern international law prohibits practices such as torture, apartheid and slavery, and bars the acquisition of territory by force, colonialism is notably absent from these conventions. That omission dominated conversations at the AU’s February summit, where leaders examined proposals to define colonization as a crime against humanity and develop a unified approach to reparations.
The economic devastation of colonial rule remains a central grievance. Historians and economists say Africa’s losses run into the trillions, as European powers extracted gold, diamonds, rubber and other resources, routinely employing violent methods while enriching themselves at the expense of local populations.
Pressure has also grown for European museums to return the thousands of African cultural objects taken during the colonial era, a push that many African governments view as inseparable from broader justice demands.
Attaf indicated that Algeria was a deliberate choice for the venue. The country endured some of the harshest forms of French domination and fought a protracted and bloody war for independence. Nearly a million European settlers held enormous privileges while Algerians faced discrimination, conscription and repression. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in the revolution, as French forces used torture, mass disappearances and village destruction in an attempt to maintain control.
“Our continent retains the example of Algeria’s bitter ordeal as a rare model, almost without equivalent in history, in its nature, its logic and its practices,” Attaf said.
That historical experience has shaped Algeria’s stance on Western Sahara, a territory once colonized by Spain and now at the center of a dispute between Morocco and the pro-independence Polisario Front. Attaf described the issue as one of incomplete decolonization, echoing the African Union’s official position, even as more African states line up behind Morocco’s claim. He called Western Sahara “Africa’s last colony” and praised the Sahrawi people’s efforts “to assert their legitimate and legal right to self-determination, as confirmed — and continuously reaffirmed — by international legality and UN doctrine on decolonization.”
For decades, Algeria has urged that colonial crimes be addressed through international legal mechanisms, though its leaders often navigate the matter cautiously to avoid reigniting tensions with France, where the memory of the war remains politically delicate.
French President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 labeled parts of the colonial history a crime against humanity, but he declined to issue a formal apology and urged Algerians not to remain anchored to past grievances.
Mohamed Arezki Ferrad, who is a member of Algeria’s parliament, told The Associated Press that any compensation must go beyond symbolic gestures. He pointed out that France has still not returned several looted Algerian artifacts, including Baba Merzoug, a 16th century cannon kept in Brest.
Connie and Shona Ferguson shared a timeless love that inspired many people across Africa. Their bond carried warmth, joy, and deep respect. Fans admired their unity because it felt natural and full of grace. The couple built a powerful legacy that blended family, faith, and creativity.
Their best days reflected laughter, shared dreams, and unwavering support. They moved through life as true partners who celebrated every milestone together. Their love glowed brightly and uplifted everyone around them. Today, Connie continues to honour that bond with heartfelt devotion and beautiful memories.
Connie Ferguson remembers Shona on their wedding anniversary Connie marked their wedding anniversary with emotion and gratitude. She shared a touching tribute that honoured Shona and her late mother. Connie spoke about their wedding day with warmth and gentle pride.
She remembered their love as rare, beautiful, and worth celebrating forever. She said, “Sweet sweet memories,” as she reflected on their special date. Connie described Shona as her king and eternal love. She thanked him for everything and promised to keep honouring their bond.
She also remembered her mother with deep affection. Connie called them her angels and celebrated their lasting presence. She said they live on because she remembers them. The message carried love, strength, and heartfelt remembrance.
Fans react After Connie Ferguson shared a post on Instagram, remembering her late husband, Shona, on their wedding anniversary, fans cherished it.
@Redi Tlhabi “We love you. We celebrate you and delight in your joy and courage. Seeing you thrive is comforting. Cheers to your special loves, we remember them with you and say a prayer for your continued healing. May your loved ones continue to rest in God’s ample bosom”
@Cynthia Wakonyo “Sending you hugs from Kenya our dear Connie 輸”
@Biji | Couture Designer “What a beautiful memory I remember your wedding day like it was yesterday ❤️❤️❤️”
@Neo Mpshe “Our Father , Papa rona , Vader …original OG’s . What a beautiful memory@connie_ferguson .May his soul through the mercy of God , rest in continuous peace.❤️”
A new security alert has named the ten cars most targeted by hijackers in South Africa this year. The list, compiled from police and insurance industry data, shows a clear preference for popular bakkies and affordable sedans, turning everyday drives into potential targets for criminals. The report, detailed by The Daily Inquirer, paints a worrying picture for motorists, indicating that hijackings are calculated crimes focusing on specific makes and models.
The Hit List: From Bakkies To Budget Cars The data reveals a stark hierarchy in the vehicles criminals seek. Topping the list are robust double-cab bakkies, followed by common passenger cars found on nearly every street. According to the analysis of SAPS and insurance industry reports, the most targeted vehicles for 2025 are:
Toyota Hilux
Volkswagen Polo Vivo
Toyota Fortuner
Ford Ranger
Hyundai
Nissan NP200
Kia Picanto
Toyota Corolla Quest
Isuzu D-Max
BMW 3 Series
The security report indicates that the Toyota Hilux and Volkswagen Polo Vivo are the two most hijacked vehicles nationwide. The report is quoted as saying:
“The Toyota Hilux remains the king of the road for all the wrong reasons. Its parts are in constant demand, and its value across the border makes it a prime target for syndicates. Similarly, the Volkswagen Polo Vivo is ubiquitous and incredibly easy to move on the black market or break down for spares.”
Hijacker Tactics Exposed The methods used by hijackers are becoming increasingly brazen and sophisticated. The report outlines several common ploys that drivers should be aware of to avoid falling victim to them. One prevalent method is the ‘follow-home’ robbery, where criminals track a target from a shopping centre or petrol station to their residential address.
Another dangerous tactic involves staging a minor ‘accident’ to force a driver to pull over and exit their vehicle. The Daily Inquirer explained:
“We are seeing a significant rise in the ‘block-off’ method at intersections, especially in the evenings. A second car will box you in, making escape impossible. There are also cases of criminals impersonating traffic or law enforcement officials to get drivers to stop in isolated areas.”
Fighting Back With Technology And Awareness While the statistics are alarming, security experts and insurance companies emphasise that proactive measures can drastically reduce risk. The combination of heightened awareness and modern technology is a powerful deterrent against hijackings.
The report states that a vehicle fitted with a tracking device is often recovered within hours. Beyond tracking systems, immobilisers are a crucial first line of defence. A representative from a major insurance underwriter, who wished to remain anonymous, stated:
“We see a clear pattern where vehicles with no additional security are targeted first. An aftermarket immobiliser, a visible steering wheel lock, and even smash-and-grab window film can make a criminal think twice. They are looking for the path of least resistance.”
The overarching advice from all security quarters is to prioritise personal safety. Motorists are urged to remain vigilant, vary their routes, and avoid distractions like mobile phones when approaching their homes or sitting in traffic
A best-selling author who made her name writing about relationships has revealed she split up from her husband for more freedom, while admitting that he is still footing her bills.
Cathi Hanauer, 63, separated from New York Times journalist husband Daniel Jones, also 63, 30 years on from their 1992 wedding, after growing apart. The couple shares two children.
Hanauer said that before the wedding, she grew uneasy about committing to a monogamous life with Jones, but her former spouse persuaded her to go through with the traditional “forsaking all others” vows.
Their relationship came under strain after their offspring left home for college.
Hanauer, who has written three novels and a bestselling book of essays, said the end of her working relationship with Jones put further distance between them. They ultimately split after unsuccessful relationship counseling.
‘We hugged, apologized for our shortcomings and freed each other,’ Hanauer wrote in a New York Times opinion piece titled We Had a Long, Mostly Good Marriage. It’s OK That it Ended.
She insisted that the separation was not a sign that their marriage had failed, but instead marked a natural and healthy end after decades of happiness.
Hanauer said there had been no cheating or arguing prior to her split with Jones, admitting that her children were upset by the split, but says they have since come around.
She said she has enjoyed numerous dates as a single woman, including time spent with a retired cop, an engineer, a doctor, and a TV producer.
Meanwhile, Jones has a new girlfriend whom Hanauer says she gets along well with.
But Hanauer also revealed that she and Jones have not formally divorced.
She said the couple had managed to strike an agreement without lawyers that ‘feels fair to us both.’
Hanauer said Jones continues to pay for her health insurance and also gives her a monthly stipend.
She justified her reliance on her ex by saying the writing that they did together helped boost Jones’s career too.
The couple created The Times’s smash-hit Modern Love column, where readers share deeply personal stories about love, marriage, and divorce.
US President Donald Trump has commuted the prison sentence of former investment manager David Gentile, who was convicted of defrauding investors of $1.6billion.
Gentile, a Scientologist, reported to prison on Friday, November 14, just days before Trump commuted his sentence, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to provide details of the clemency action.
He was set free on Wednesday, November 26, spending only 12 total days in jail.
Adam Gana, a lawyer representing those defrauded by GPB in arbitration, was irate and said Gentile’s case should be beyond politics.
The stories that we’ve heard are just heartbreaking, and it’s just unbelievable that somebody like that would receive a commutation. This is not a case that should be political. This guy belongs in prison,’ he told The New York Times.
Gentile had been the CEO and co-founder of GPB Capital, which had raised $1.6 billion in capital to acquire companies in the auto, retail, health care, and housing sectors.
He and his partner, Jeffry Schneider, were accused of cheating more than 17,000 retail investors who were falsely promised an eight percent return on their investments.
Trump sparks outrage as he commutes prison sentence of former private equity executive who defrauded investors of $1.6billion He had been sentenced to seven years in prison after an August 2024 conviction for his role in what the Justice Department at the time described as a scheme to defraud more than 10,000 investors by misrepresenting the performance of three private equity funds.
‘The stories that we’ve heard are just heartbreaking, and it’s just unbelievable that somebody like that would receive a commutation. This is not a case that should be political. This guy belongs in prison,’ he told The New York Times
There were over 1,000 victim statements submitted to the court at Gentile’s trial.
‘I lost my whole life savings. I am living from check to check,’ wrote one.
American singer John Legend has opened up again about the unusual legal drama he faced before he could officially call himself “John Legend.”
According to the 46-year-old star, there was already a man in the entertainment industry using a very similar name — and not just any man, but a p*rn producer who also did rockabilly music, Daily Mail reported.
On the MGM+ show Words + Music, Legend explained:
“Lo and behold, there’s a p*rn producer — I kid you not — who dabbled in rockabilly music, and he went by Johnny Legend.”
Because Johnny Legend also made music, the situation became a possible trademark infringement case. This meant the R&B star couldn’t legally use “John Legend” without an agreement.
“We had to find Johnny Legend, negotiate with him, and cut a mutually exclusive deal,” John said. “He was Johnny Legend, and I was John Legend. He wouldn’t sue me, I wouldn’t sue him.”
Legend joked that he kept his promise:
“I didn’t produce any p*rn, didn’t make any rockabilly music pretending to be Johnny Legend.”
The bizarre saga began after spoken-word poet J. Ivy first gave him the name “John Legend” while they were working on Kanye West’s The College Dropout album in 2004. At the time, Legend didn’t even have a record deal yet — but the name stuck.
The original Johnny Legend, described on IMDb as an actor, director, rockabilly singer, film historian, and wrestling promoter, reportedly released a crude comedy film Teenage Cruisers in 1977 and recorded several rockabilly tracks.
Niger’s military regime has announced that it is placing uranium produced by the Somair mine onto the international market. This move escalates the standoff with the French nuclear giant Orano, which previously operated the mine before the regime nationalized it in June 2025.
The announcement, made on state television Tele Sahel, cited comments from junta head General Abdourahamane Tiani.
The decision is framed as an assertion of sovereign rights over Niger’s natural resources. General Tiani reportedly claimed it was “Niger’s legitimate right to dispose of its natural riches to sell them to whoever wants to buy them, under the rules of the market, in complete independence.”
This action comes amid rapidly shifting geopolitical alliances. Following the 2023 coup, Niger has increasingly turned away from its former colonial power, France, which it accused of supporting separatist groups.
Closer Ties to Russia: Concurrently, Niger has sought help from Russia, particularly in combating the country’s jihadist insurgency. Russia’s Energy Minister previously expressed Moscow’s interest in mining uranium in Niger.
The dispute over uranium mining is at the heart of the rift between Niamey and Paris.
Nationalization: In 2024, Niger removed Orano’s operational control of its three main mines: Somair, Cominak, and Imouraren, which holds one of the world’s largest uranium deposits. The nationalization of Somair in June 2025 effectively stripped Orano of its operational rights.
Legal Action: While Orano officially retains a majority stake in the subsidiaries, the company has initiated multiple arbitration procedures to try and win back operational control and assert its legal rights over the stockpiled uranium.
Orano has strongly condemned the move to sell the uranium, calling it a breach of a September international arbitration ruling that prohibited the sale or transfer of the material without the company’s consent.
Niger’s uranium is a key strategic commodity for Europe. In 2022, Niger supplied approximately one-quarter of the natural uranium used by European nuclear power plants, according to data from the atomic organization Euratom. The redirection of this supply to the open international market, potentially toward new buyers like Russia, injects new uncertainty into the global uranium supply chain.
NATO could be forced to fire the first shot against Russia as Vladimir Putins escalating shadow war on Europe pushes the alliance toward a possible shift in strategy, a top admiral has warned. Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of Nato’s Military Committee, said the alliance may be left with no choice but to adopt a preemptive posture, a significant shift from its long standing policy of reacting only after provocation.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Dragone said NATO is now reassessing its stance in the face of mounting Russian sabotage operations across Europe. He explained, “We are studying everything. On cyber, we are kind of reactive. Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about.”
For years, European nations have linked a series of fires, explosions, undersea cable cuts and cyberattacks to the Kremlin. Incidents have ranged from a blaze at a Ukrainian owned warehouse in east London to the severing of Baltic Sea cables and airspace violations involving unidentified drones, including one that shut down Copenhagen airport. Dragone said that cyber retaliation would be the simplest and quickest option since many NATO members possess offensive cyber capabilities, but responding to physical sabotage or drone incursions would be more complex while still possible. He added that under certain circumstances a “preemptive strike” could be considered defensive, though he acknowledged it was “further away from our normal way of thinking and behaviour” and raised questions of legality, jurisdiction and responsibility.
Several NATO member states, especially those in eastern Europe, have been urging the alliance to abandon its purely reactive stance. A Baltic diplomat told the Financial Times, “If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us. Hybrid warfare is asymmetric. It costs them little and us a lot. We need to be more inventive.”
Moscow responded angrily to the idea of a more forward leaning NATO. Denis Gonchar, Russia’s ambassador to Belgium, accused the alliance of “intimidating its population with the Kremlin’s non existent plans to attack” and claimed member states were “preparing for a major war with Russia.”
While NATO debates its posture, high level diplomatic talks between the United States and Ukraine continued in Florida as both sides attempt to hammer out the framework of a potential peace deal. US Senator Marco Rubio said he was cautiously optimistic, stating, “We continue to be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic, particularly given the fact that as we’ve made progress, I think there is a shared vision here that this is not just about ending the war. It is about securing Ukraine’s future, a future that we hope will be more prosperous than it has ever been.” Rubio acknowledged the complexity of negotiations, saying, “There are a lot of moving parts, and obviously there’s another party involved here. That will have to be a part of the equation, and that will continue later this week, when Mr Witkoff travels to Moscow.”
Steve Witkoff, President Trumps special envoy, is expected to meet Russian officials as negotiations move forward. This renewed diplomatic push follows a contentious US and Russia drafted blueprint for peace that European leaders criticised as too favourable to Putin. A counterproposal was later drafted in Geneva, and Washington has since signaled a willingness to adjust its terms. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he expected the Geneva outcomes to be “hammered out” during the Florida meetings.
Kyiv is also under growing pressure from Washington to make concessions, even as Zelensky finds himself in the most politically fragile position since the war began. Sundays talks were the first held without his influential chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who resigned after a corruption scandal. Yermak had served as Ukraines chief negotiator and enforcer throughout the conflict.
Meanwhile, European nations remain on alert as Russias shadow campaign continues. Last month a Royal Navy warship shadowed two Russian vessels in the English Channel, and suspicions remain high over repeated damage to Baltic Sea infrastructure. As Putin intensifies covert operations, the debate within NATO over whether to remain reactive or act preemptively is rapidly gaining urgency.
A 16-year-old Indian girl who was allegedly gang-r@ped by three attackers, including a minor, and forced to drink acid at her home in Uttar Pradesh’s Hamirpur district has passed away.
According to Times of India, the victim succumbed at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, early Friday, November 28, 2025 after a month-long battle with death across multiple facilities.
Police had on November 9 detained the minor accused and sent him to a juvenile home. The other two suspects were arrested Friday and were being interrogated, Jalalpur PS Inspector Ajit Singh said.
After the crime which occurred on October 28, the girl’s family had first taken her to a community health centre in Sarila, which referred her to Jhansi Medical College, where she was treated for about 12 days.
When her condition didn’t improve, she was shifted to Hamirpur district hospital, and then to Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur, where she remained under treatment for about 15 days.
As her condition remained critical, doctors referred her to SGPGI, Lucknow, where she was treated for another two days.
Unable to afford Rs 2 lakh sought by the hospital for surgery, her family then moved her to KGMU.
At KGMU’s surgery ward, doctors said she required an immediate blood transfusion.
Inspector Singh arranged two units of blood through hospital staff. Transfusion was done on Thursday night, but it was too late by then. Around 1am, the girl suffered from breathing difficulties and was put on ventilator. She passed away at 2am.
A few hours before her d3ath, officers from Lucknow Police had recorded her statement.
Donald Trump lashed out at a female reporter after she asked him about his recent MRI scan.
Speaking on Air Force One on Sunday, November 30, the US president said he “aced” a cognitive test during his latest checkup.
A reporter then asked the US President what part of his body was checked during the MRI scan.
“I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing,” Trump told the reporter.
This is the third female reporter Trump would insult in one month.
Trump previously took aim at veteran New York Times reporter Katie Rogers, calling her “a third-rate reporter who is ugly, both inside and out,” and before that, he told Bloomberg’s White House correspondent, Catherine Lucey, to be “quiet, piggy.”
US President Donald Trump has delivered an ultimatum to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a recent phone call, telling him, “You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” according to the Miami Herald.
The United States reportedly offered safe passage for Maduro, his wife Cilia Flores, and their son if he agreed to depart immediately.
The offer was also said to extend to several top allies. However, Caracas refused to accept the conditions, prompting the talks to collapse.
US President Donald Trump on Sunday acknowledged that he had recently spoken with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro but refused to give details.
Speaking to reporters, Trump said, “I wouldn’t say it went well or badly.” His guarded comments came after he publicly warned that Venezuelan airspace should be considered “closed in its entirety,” a declaration made hours after the failed exchange amid rising tensions and after the US sent major military assets to the Caribbean, adding to its tense standoff with Caracas.
According to the Miami Herald, the call, held late in the week of November 16, stalled when Maduro sought two guarantees — global amnesty for himself and senior members of his circle, and the right to retain command of Venezuela’s armed forces even if he allowed free elections.
The paper quoted a source familiar with the call saying, “First, Maduro asked for global amnesty for any crimes he and his group had committed, and that was rejected. Second, they asked to retain control of the armed forces … In return, they would allow free elections.”
Washington reportedly dismissed both proposals and instead demanded that Maduro step down at once. The Maduro government attempted to arrange another call with Washington but received no response.
A defense expert familiar with Venezuela’s military and state-linked cartel networks warned that Maduro and key figures in his regime could now be facing their most serious threat yet.
Following the breakdown, Trump sharply escalated pressure on Venezuela. He warned that US military operations “by land” could begin “very soon” and ordered aircraft to avoid Venezuelan airspace.
A FlightRadar24 map later showed no international aircraft flying over the country.
Flights to Aruba and Curaçao took longer alternative routes, and major airlines halted services after a Federal Aviation Administration warning about “heightened military activity.” Venezuela retaliated by revoking the operating rights of several foreign carriers and accused Washington of “colonial aggression.”
OASIS FORUM WRITES TO PRESIDENT HAKAINDE HICHILEMA
29th November, 2025 His Excellency Mr. Hakainde Hichilema The Republican President Plot 1, Independence Avenue State House Lusaka
Dear Mr. President
RE: OASIS FORUM POSITION ON BILL 7 DIALOGUE
Reference is made to the captioned matter.
Following the Press Release from State House dated 23rd November, 2025 inviting organizations planning to protest against the current constitutional reform to meet inside State House, for structured, solution-oriented conversations, Oasis Forum responded to the call and met with you Mr. President on 28th November, 2025.
The Oasis Forum, a consortium comprising the church, civil society and the legal profession, did initially formally write an Open Letter to you Mr. President on 11th November, 2025, imploring you as the Head of State to take decisive action on a number of critical concerns with the current Constitutional reform process to safeguard the integrity of Zambia’s foundational law. In the said Open letter, Oasis Forum made it clear that it stood ready to engage constructively with a process that meets the standards of transparency and inclusivity that the Zambian people deserve.
We want to make it clear Mr. President, CONSTITUTION MAKING, INCLUDING AMENDING, IS ABOUT PROCESS AND CONTENT.
In the case of Bill 7, BOTH THE PROCESS AND CONTENT ARE OF GRAVE CONCERN to the OASIS FORUM.
Our specific concerns with Bill 7 include:
1. Bill 7 Violets Specific Orders of the Constitutional Court Regarding Constitutional Reform Process The Constitutional Court in the case of Celestine Mukandila and Munir Zulu vs Attorney General declared that the decision by Government to initiate a constitution amendment process culminating into Bill 7 before undertaking wide consultations with the People goes against the spirit of Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9. 61, 90, 91 and 92 of the Constitution (As amended by Act No 2 of 2016). The Court further ordered and directed Government to comply with the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring a People driven process led by an independent body of experts in conducting wide consultations with the people. It was the Court’s considered position that the initiation of the Constitution amendment process must come from the people and there should be a tangible and visible process of broad-based consultations to support legitimate amendments to the Constitution.
By its Judgment, the Constitutional Court stressed that although the legislature is given the power to make law, when it comes to the Constitution, that power is that of amending and not that of framing the amendments. The People are the owners of the decision to do away with a particular provision and to replace it with another provision. This critical consultative and decision-making stage is what gives legitimacy to the Constitutional amendments which eventually bind to the Constitution and become one with it. This ensures that the Constitution is properly located as the Supreme law of the land with all other laws deriving their authority from it in a normative hierarchy.
Additionally, considering that Zambia is under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive and the Legislature are and can only be agents of the People, but never the Principal. They are empowered to represent the People, in other words, to act for and on People’s behalf and not to replace them. It was the Constitutional Court’s considered view the that Technical Committee on Drafting the Zambian Constitution process should be replicated or something of similar magnitude should be pursued in initiating Constitutional amendments. The Court considered that this is what constitutes what can be understood to be the wide consultative process necessary to alter the existing content of the Constitution.
Further, that in the said process, Government and State actors should be facilitators of a people driven process led by an independent committee of experts which should collect views directly from the people and existing records of submissions by the People. Only after these proposals are put to the People in a structured manner such as through District, Provincial and National level discussions and adoption can they be put through the process in Article 79 of the Constitution.
In light of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court, it follows that the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 which was initiated without the cited mandatory antecedent wide public consultations is a nullity.
However, Government’s position is that it has complied with the Judgment of the Constitution Court by merely constituting a Technical Committee and giving it terms of reference to consult only on the same 13 clauses in Bill 7, and nothing else, plus the mandate to ‘redraft’ the same Bill 7 which is already currently deferred in the National Assembly with the intention that the process must resume on the floor of the House as though no orders nullifying the initial process were made by the Court.
It is our position that this is not compliance, it is stage managing, it is rubber stamping an illegal bill. There must be a fresh initiation, and not continuation, of the Constitution amendment process which must come from the people and there should be a tangible and visible process of broad-based consultations to support legitimate amendments to the Constitution. This not what the Technical Committee is doing and the result of the work of the technical Committee will itself be illegal.
2. Lack of Legal Framework and Transparency The Committee’s work currently lacks a supporting legal framework to guarantee its operational independence and public accountability. The constitutional articles cited to enable the Committee primarily relate to executive functions, risking undue executive influence over a citizen-driven process. In addition, the members of the Technical Committee were appointed in their individual and not representative capacity and without any consultation with stakeholder institutions. The Technical Committee members therefore owe their allegiance to no one but the President, who is the appointing Authority, thereby undermining the people’s input in the process.
3. Restrictive Terms of Reference The Committee’s Terms of Reference (TOR), raise serious concerns as they restrict citizens’ submissions to constitutional articles unilaterally prescribed by the UPND Government that mirror those in the Bill 7 despite the Constitutional Court declaring the initiation of Bill No. 7 of 2025 a nullity. Citizens and stakeholders were not given any chance to contribute to the terms of reference thereby undermining public trust. Any attempt to base consultations on the discredited Bill effectively resurrects an illegitimate process. With unilateral and restrictive terms of reference, the citizens are constricted to an election centered agenda and nothing else, robbing them of an opportunity for a genuine, holistic reform of the Supreme for their benefit which must include the expansion of the Bill of rights to include economic and social rights.
The fact that previously the referendum failed should not mean citizens will never be given a chance to expand the bill of rights. In fact, one of the reasons for the failure of the last referendum was timing, it was tied to the 2016 elections.
4. Formal Withdrawal of the Discredited Bill 7 We note that despite the Constitutional Court declaring the initiation of Bill No. 7 of 2025 a nullity, the Bill remains before the National Assembly. This attempt to base new consultations on the on this Bill effectively entrenches an illegitimate process. As a precondition, for any fresh Constitutional reform, Government must formally withdraw Bill No. 7 from Parliament. It is not only unfair to use citizens to rubber-stamp a pre-conceived political agenda, but this also represents a serious breach of the rule of law, by demonstrating that the Executive does not regard pronouncements of the Constitutional Court.
5. Delinking from the 2026 Electoral Timeline Constitutional reform must focus on strengthening democratic institutions and expanding the Bill of Rights not serving as a quick fix for electoral purposes. Tying the Committee’s timeline and roadmap to the 2026 General Elections inevitably compromises inclusivity and national consensus.
We don not agree with the narrative that development can only be delivered to the people when constituencies are smaller when constituencies are political units not economic units. Districts can be created immediately, to deal with big constituencies. We do not also believe that it is fair to ask people to submit on whether they want to increase constituencies through delimitation but not availing the public the delimitation report, on which such a critical decision must be based.
Additionally, it is our considered view that the provisions of Bill 7 have the potential to unfairly abdicate the oversight role of the legislature to the Executive. Without an effective oversight role of the legislature over the Executive, rights and liberties of citizens as well the Constitutional integrity cannot be assured.
It is for this reason that the Oasis Forum’s desirable outcome of the dialogue on the Constitutional Reform Process was that:
1. Bill 7 being withdrawn from Parliament. 2. A fresh process supported by legal safeguards is commenced. 3. Such new process be inclusive, not rushed and holistic.
If Government attends to the concerns above, the Oasis Forum would be available to continue with the dialogue process on the Constittutional reform process.
Your Excellency, the Oasis Forum comprising the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), the Non-Governmental Gender Organizations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC), and the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the promotion of Constitutionalism, Rule of Law, and Good Governance for the benefit of all citizens.
Yours Sincerely;
Beauty Katebe Chairperson For and on Behalf of Oasis Forum #zambianwhistleblower #ZWB
Unspoken Constitutional Fact: Bill No. 7 of 2025 Has No Legal Existence
By John Sangwa, SC
Introduction
On 28 November 2025, the Oasis Forum met with the President to urge him to abandon his plans to amend the Constitution before the next general election.
The purpose of the engagement was to emphasise the importance of constitutional stability, meaningful public participation, and adherence to the rule of law during an electoral period.
Unfortunately, the outcome was not satisfactory. It became clear that the President remains determined to proceed with constitutional amendments despite the Constitutional Court’s judgment and the representations made to him.
This determination to alter the Constitution in such circumstances has created widespread confusion and concern. Many citizens are unsure about what the law requires, the stage of the constitutional process, whether any Bill legally exists, and the implications for Zambia’s democracy.
It has therefore become necessary to provide a clear explanation of the constitutional position.
The public deserves to understand: (a) (b) why Bill No. 7 of 2025 does not exist in law, why the Constitution as amended in 2016 must not be amended for partisan convenience, and (c) why amending the Constitution months before an election is dangerous and democratically improper. This explanation is essential, not only to dispel misinformation, but also to safeguard constitutional order and ensure that citizens are fully informed about the consequences of proceeding outside the legal framework established by the Constitution and affirmed by the Constitutional Court.
What follows is a three-part analysis:
(a) (b) (c) Part I explains why Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 legally does not exist, why no debate on the said Bill is currently lawful, and why the Technical Committee and its work should be the subject of discussion.
Part II demonstrates that the Constitution as amended in 2016 was a bipartisan national settlement that should not be reopened for partisan or electoral advantage.
Part III shows why amending the Constitution months before an election is dangerous, destabilising, and a profound threat to democratic governance.
Taken together, these Parts explain why Zambians must resist any attempt to amend the Constitution at this moment, and why the only responsible national debate should centre on why the Constitution must not be amended at all, especially so close to an election.
PART I: The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 Does Not Exist
In early 2025, Zambia entered a period of significant constitutional uncertainty. The events began on 8 March 2025, during International Women’s Day celebrations, when the President unexpectedly announced that the Government intended to amend the Constitution.
This announcement came without prior notice and without any form of public consultation. Amending the Constitution is a momentous act in any democracy, and in Zambia it has historically involved broad national engagement. Yet this time, no national discussion had taken place at all.
A few days later, the Minister of Justice, Hon. Princess Kasune, reinforced the President’s announcement and went further. She disclosed that a draft Constitutional Amendment Bill had already been prepared and would soon be introduced in Parliament. On 26 March 2025, she confirmed this position before the National Assembly. Many Zambians rightly felt excluded from a process that should have been participatory and transparent.
Citizens Go to Court
Because Government had neither consulted the public nor established any official constitutional review mechanism, a group of citizens filed Constitutional Petition No. 2025/CCZ/009 on 1 April 2025. They argued that: the Constitution belongs to the people of Zambia; the people must be consulted before any amendments are initiated; no proper procedure or consultation had taken place; and Government had therefore acted outside the law.
They noted that previous constitutional reform efforts, such as the Mwanakatwe Commission and the 2011 – 2012 Technical Committee, were grounded in extensive public participation,expert review, and broad national consensus. None of these safeguards were followed in 2025.
Government Moves Ahead Anyway
Despite the petition being before the Court, Government continued with its plan. On 23 May 2025, it published the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 in the Government Gazette. On 25 June 2025, the Bill received its first reading in Parliament.
This increased national concern, given that the legality of the process had not yet been determined by the Constitutional Court.
The President’s Deferment of the Bill
On 26 June 2025, as criticism mounted and the Court had not yet ruled, the President announced that Bill No. 7 would be deferred to allow for more consultation. At that stage, the deferment appeared to be a temporary political move. It did not withdraw the Bill, cure its constitutional defects, or address the concerns raised in the petition.
Legally, nothing had changed, the Bill remained on the Order Paper, and the core constitutional issues remained before the Court.
Everything changed the following day. On 27 June 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered its final judgment. The Court held that: the entire process leading to Bill No. 7 was unconstitutional; Government must conduct meaningful public consultation before drafting or introducing a Constitutional Amendment Bill; all actions taken in relation to Bill No. 7 were invalid and void.
The Court did not merely pause the process, it extinguished it. From that moment, Bill No. 7 no longer existed in law. The President’s deferment became irrelevant once the Court declared the entire process a nullity.
A New Committee Is Formed
Following the Court’s ruling, the President was obligated to restart the process properly. On 20 October 2025, he issued the Terms of Reference for a Technical Committee, an expert body mandated to guide a new, lawful, and inclusive constitutional review process.
The Committee was tasked with: (a) studying the Constitutional Court’s judgment; (b) examining the issues Government wished to amend; (c) conducting nationwide public consultations; (d) reviewing past constitutional reform processes; (e) preparing a detailed report; (f) and drafting a new Constitutional
Amendment Bill only if the public’s views justified doing so.
The establishment of the Committee marked the beginning of an entirely new process and confirmed that Bill No. 7 could not be revived. Note on the Legal Status of the Technical Committee.
It is important to note that the legality of the Technical Committee’s appointment and the validity of its Terms of Reference are not addressed in this article. Those questions are currently the subject of active litigation before the Constitutional Court in Cause No. 2025/CCZ/0029.
For that reason, this analysis proceeds on the basis of the Committee’s existence as a matter of fact, without expressing any view on whether its establishment complies with the Constitution or the law. The focus of this article remains limited to the constitutional implications of the Court’s judgment of 27 June 2025 and the legal position regarding the non-existence of Bill No. 7.
What the Appointment of the Technical Committee Means
The creation of the Technical Committee and the issuance of the terms of reference on 20 October 2025 fundamentally reshaped the constitutional landscape. Its implications can only be understood in relation to two earlier events: the deferment of Bill No. 7 on 26 June 2025, and the Speaker’s ruling of 9 July 2025 claiming that Parliament could still proceed with the.Bill.
1. Implications for the Deferment
The deferment had been only a pause, not a solution. But the appointment of the Committee after the Court’s judgment had deeper meaning. It signalled acceptance that the original process was unconstitutional. It effectively abandoned Bill No. 7 in both law and practice. It established the Committee as the only path forward.
2. Implications for the Speaker’s Ruling
The Speaker had insisted Parliament could continue with Bill No. 7. But the President’s actions.contradicted this: The President followed the Court, not the Speaker. Parliament cannot meaningfully debate an invalid Bill while a new one is being prepared.
The Speaker’s ruling therefore lost practical relevance.
Why Debate Must Wait Until the New Bill Is Published
When Government first attempted to amend the Constitution, it did so without consulting the people. The Constitutional Court found that: there was no meaningful public consultation, and the procedure used was fundamentally defective. Because of these defects, Bill No. 7 does not exist in law.
The Technical Committee is now the only mechanism for restarting the process. It is tasked with gathering public views and possibly drafting a new Bill. Until it completes its work: no valid Bill exists, and there is nothing to debate.
Even once a new Bill is drafted, Article 79 requires it to be gazetted for 30 days before debate.
During that period, the public may scrutinise it, and any citizen may challenge unconstitutional content or procedure in the Constitutional Court. Until such a Bill is lawfully produced and gazetted, all debate is speculative.
If There Must Be Any Debate, It Should Be About Why the Constitution Must Not Be Amended at This Time
Close to an election, with no crisis, no public demand, and no valid Bill, the only meaningful national discussion is: Why should the President not amend the Constitution at all, especially months before an election? This is the debate Zambia must have, and the only one that respects the rule of law and constitutionalism.
PART II: The Constitution of 2016 Was a Bipartisan Settlement and Must Not Be Reopened for Partisan Convenience The second and most fundamental reason to oppose attempts to revive or reintroduce amendments akin to Bill No. 7 is that the Constitution as amended in 2016 is not an ordinary statute.
It is the product of a long, difficult, and ultimately bipartisan national compact, not a political instrument to be adjusted whenever a ruling party sees an opportunity.
The Constitution as amended in 2016 was the culmination of a reform process that began in 1991 and involved successive governments, opposition parties, civil society, and diverse sectors of society. Both the Patriotic Front (PF) and the United Party for National Development (UPND) participated fully, debated intensely, and jointly endorsed its final form.
The UPND had every opportunity to raise any concerns or propose further refinements at the time.
If the changes the UPND now seeks were genuinely necessary, urgent, or foundational, they could and should have been proposed during the 2016 constitutional negotiations, when the party fully participated, or at the very least in 2019 when the PF introduced the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019.
Introducing them hurriedly, unilaterally, and without consensus in 2025 is therefore neither justified nor credible.
Reopening the Constitution now undermines the deliberate and inclusive settlement that both major political parties agreed to less than a decade ago.
Constitutional Stability Requires Broad National Consensus
A Constitution is not meant to change with every election cycle. It is the foundational framework that ensures stability, continuity, predictability, and national unity. The Constitution is intended to reflect a broad-based national consensus, not the shifting preferences of whichever political party happens to form government. Allowing a ruling party to reopen the Constitution simply because the political moment appears favourable is profoundly dangerous.
When constitutional amendments become tied to partisan timing: legitimacy is weakened, institutions become unstable, the rule of law is eroded, and public confidence declines.
This is not how a constitutional democracy protects itself.
The PF Was Wrong Before 2021, and the UPND Is Wrong Now
This principle is not new, and it is certainly not selectively applied. The PF’s attempt to amend the Constitution through Bill No. 10 before the 2021 general election was wrong in law and principle, and many Zambians including the UPND rightly rejected it.
At that time, the critique was simple: No ruling party should unilaterally reopen the Constitution for partisan advantage. That critique applies equally today. The UPND’s attempt to reopen the Constitution through Bill No. 7, especially months before an election, is just as improper as the PF’s attempt was.
The supreme law must not be rewritten to suit the political preferences of whichever party temporarily holds power. The Constitution must be respected across administrations, not manipulated by them.
A Constitution Must Stand Above Party Politics
Once constitutional amendment becomes a tool of political convenience, the Constitution loses its authority and becomes indistinguishable from ordinary legislation. This is dangerous.
A Constitution that changes whenever a ruling party wishes to change it: weakens public faith in institutions, politicises the rule of law, destabilises governance, and transforms the Constitution into a partisan battleground. The result is predictable: instability, division, and the gradual corrosion of constitutionalism.
A stable constitutional order, accepted by all political actors, is essential for national unity,
peaceful transitions of power, and the preservation of democratic norms.
PART III: Why the Constitution Must Not Be Amended Before an Election
Even if a valid Bill existed today, which it does not, and even if the Technical Committee had completed its work, which it has not, amending the Constitution months before a general election would still be an extraordinarily dangerous and democratically improper act.
Constitutional amendments made on the eve of an election threaten the stability, fairness, and legitimacy of the electoral process. They risk undermining public trust at the precise moment when the country needs unity and predictability.
This Part explains why any attempt to amend the Constitution before the next election must be firmly rejected.
1. Constitutional Amendments Before Elections Undermine Fairness and Neutrality The Constitution sets the rules for: how elections are conducted, how public power is exercised, how disputes are resolved, and how institutions function.
Changing these rules shortly before an election destabilises the political environment. It creates uncertainty about: the rights of voters and candidates, the powers of key institutions, the rules governing electoral disputes, and the structure of the political playing field.
No democracy should alter its constitutional framework at the very moment that framework is about to be tested. Doing so undermines institutional neutrality and public confidence in the electoral process.
2. Constitutional Amendments Near an Election Create Suspicion and Distrust Regardless of the stated intentions, constitutional amendments close to an election inevitably raise suspicion. Citizens and political actors will reasonably wonder: Why now? Why not after the election? Is the ruling party attempting to tilt the political playing field? Are these changes designed to secure electoral advantage?
Even if these suspicions are false, the perception alone damages national cohesion. It polarises the political landscape, heightens mistrust, and undermines the legitimacy of the election outcome. A credible election requires a credible constitutional environment.
3. Stability Is Essential During Electoral Transitions Election periods are delicate moments that require: certainty, predictability, legality, and institutional stability. Constitutional change at this time introduces confusion at precisely the wrong moment. Institutions such as: the Electoral Commission of Zambia, the Judiciary, political parties, the police and security services, and public administration need a stable constitutional framework to ensure a peaceful, credible, and well-managed election. When that framework changes suddenly, institutional confusion follows.
4. There Is No National Crisis Justifying Urgent Constitutional Change
Some countries amend their constitutions urgently when facing: constitutional breakdown, national emergencies, civil conflict, or institutional paralysis. Zambia faces none of these situations.
The Constitution as amended in 2016 is functioning. There is no breakdown, no dysfunction of state institutions, and no urgent crisis requiring immediate amendment. Without a crisis, urgency becomes a political invention, and invented urgency is a hallmark of constitutional manipulation. If the Constitution is not broken, it does not need to be fixed.
5. Amending the Constitution Before an Election Sets a Dangerous Precedent
If the ruling party amends the Constitution shortly before an election, it sets a precedent that future governments may follow. The result is a cycle in which: every party amends the Constitution before elections, each alters the rules for partisan gain, constitutional stability collapses, and the supreme law loses its authority.
This is how democracies decay. This is how constitutionalism dies not suddenly, but incrementally, one self-serving amendment at a time.
6. The Constitution Must Stand Above the Electoral Calendar
A Constitution is meant to stabilise the political system, not respond to electoral timing. Serious constitutional reform must take place: outside election periods, through broad national consensus, with full public participation, and after careful, national reflection.
Amending the Constitution on the eve of an election reverses these principles. It politicises the supreme law, undermines its legitimacy, and invites future manipulation. A Constitution must never become a tool of political strategy.
PART 4: The Constitution Must Stand Above Politics, Power, and Election Timetables
Zambia is at a defining constitutional moment. The Constitutional Court has already held that the so-called Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 does not exist in law.
The President’s deferment of the Bill cannot revive it. The Speaker’s ruling cannot validate it. The only process is now vested in the Technical Committee appointed in October 2025, which is still carrying out its mandate. Until that Committee completes its work and until a fresh Bill is published in the Gazette in compliance with Article 79, there is nothing before the nation to debate.
The insistence on proceeding with constitutional amendments before a general election therefore raises deeper questions, questions about leadership, legitimacy, and the future of constitutional democracy in Zambia.
The Constitution as amended in 2016, is not a partisan creation. It was a bipartisan national settlement, reflecting long years of public participation and political compromise. If the Constitution can be reopened merely because a ruling party finds it politically convenient to do so, then it stops being a national compact and becomes a political weapon. That is not constitutionalism. It is constitutional manipulation.
And even if a valid Bill existed, which it does not, it would still be democratically unacceptable to amend the Constitution months before an election. Election periods require stability, neutrality, and predictability. Altering the supreme law on the eve of an election threatens the fairness of the electoral environment, invites suspicion, destabilises institutions, and sets a dangerous precedent that future governments may exploit.
The Constitution must not be rewritten to suit political convenience. It must not be reshaped according to electoral calculations. It must not be adjusted to secure partisan advantage. A Constitution must stand above politics, above momentary power, and above the shifting fortunes of political parties.
It is the anchor of the Republic. If that anchor is loosened, the entire system is set adrift.
At this moment, Zambia does not need constitutional amendments. It needs constitutional stability. It needs respect for the rule of law. It needs leadership that places the nation above partisan interest.
If there must be any national debate now, it should be about this central question: Why should the President not amend the Constitution at all, and especially not on the eve of a national election? The answer is simple: Because Zambia’s democracy, stability, and constitutional order depend on restraint, not on reckless alteration of the supreme law.
The Constitution belongs to the people. It must be protected by the people.
🇿🇲 ELECTIONEERING | Makebi Preaching the Lungu Gospel in Fractured PF
Makebi Zulu has a new mobilisation approach. With the PF convention suspended, internal factions paralysed, and Edgar Lungu’s religious fanatics political base drifting in silence, Zulu has stepped into the vacuum with a preacher’s rhythm and a politician’s precision. His latest message is simple. Finish the National House of Prayer. Restore the spiritual legacy of Edgar Lungu. Reawaken the “Christians for Lungu” base that once believed Lungu was anointed.
Over the weekend, Zulu stood before congregants at St John UCZ in Kabwe and repeated a promise that mirrors Lungu’s own rhetoric. “There is power in unity of purpose,” he said. “We must stand together, work together, and pray together for the prosperity of our nation.”
The language was not accidental. It was deliberate political signalling aimed at a Christian constituency that still views Lungu as a chosen vessel.
The House of Prayer has become his chosen campaign altar. He called it a national symbol, a unifying sanctuary, and a place where citizens will gather to seek God’s guidance. In PF circles this is more than an infrastructure project. It is a reminder of the Lungu era, when State House operated through scripture, prayer breakfasts and religious networks.
Makebi knows that among PF’s old spiritual warriors, the House of Prayer carries emotional power.
At the centre of this revival is a familiar figure. Former Minister of National Guidance and Religious Affairs Godfridah Sumaili remains close to the elders who surround Makebi. Her influence inside Christian networks is quiet but deep.
Madam Sumaili built the language that framed Zambia as a moral battlefield during the Lungu years. Her presence around Makebi signals that the old religious machinery is preparing for activation once more.
Inside PF, Makebi’s religious mobilisation is being read through two lenses. His supporters see boldness. A candidate who is not waiting for a convention, who is willing to rebuild the party’s lost spiritual identity and who is speaking to a base that feels ignored.
His critics see calculation. A candidate stitching together Lungu’s old constituencies for personal gain while avoiding the hard reality that PF remains leaderless and divided.
But the most important audience is the one outside PF structures. The Pentecostal Clergy groups that once defended Lungu with prophetic zeal. Many of them have retreated from political commentary, embarrassed by the past or unsure about 2026. Makebi is now calling them back into the arena.
His message is crafted to revive the idea that PF still carries a divine mandate. In his framing, finishing the House of Prayer is not construction. It is restoration.
This strategy is also a political test. If he can re-energise the Christians for Lungu base while the party’s political wings remain paralysed, he strengthens his claim to be the natural heir to Lungu’s constituency. If the base refuses to answer, he exposes the limits of religious mobilisation in the post-Lungu era.
For now, Makebi is building momentum through churches, media appearances and local gatherings. He speaks with the posture of a saviour, not a candidate. He promises unity in a party that is not united. He promises peace in a political landscape that is unsettled. He promises moral clarity in a movement that is struggling to define its future.
This is political theatre rooted in scripture. It may work. It may collapse. But it is the clearest signal yet that Makebi Zulu is not waiting for PF structures to endorse him.
He is building a spiritual constituency around himself while others argue about procedures.
Whether that constituency translates into convention votes or national appeal remains the question that will define the PF race.
BRIEFING | Govt Halts Talks as Oasis Forum Sets Out Demands
The constitutional reform debate entered a new phase late Sunday after Government abruptly suspended dialogue with the Oasis Forum, citing a lack of “constructive engagement”. Hours later, the Forum released a detailed 14-page letter restating its objections to Bill 7 and outlining the conditions under which it would resume talks.
Government Position: Process Has Broken Down
Chief Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa announced that follow-up talks scheduled for Saturday had been discontinued. He said Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha led the delegation but found that the Oasis Forum arrived “with the same fixed position” presented during Friday’s State House meeting.
“The Forum was not prepared to engage constructively. Effective dialogue requires mutual commitment and good faith,” Mweetwa said.
Government argues that Oasis failed to identify specific problematic clauses, offered no alternative proposals, and rejected the Technical Committee’s ongoing consultations across all ten provinces.
Officials insist the constitutional review is legally compliant, people-driven through the Committee’s outreach, and aimed at strengthening equity, inclusion and service delivery.
Oasis Forum Position: Process Illegitimate, Bill Must Be Withdrawn
In a strongly worded letter dated November 29th, Oasis Forum told President Hichilema that both the process and content of Bill 7 are “of grave concern”.
The Forum cites the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Mukandila & Munir Zulu v. Attorney General, arguing that:
“Bill 7, which was initiated without the mandatory antecedent wide public consultations, is a nullity.”
The Forum maintains that:
– The Technical Committee lacks an independent legal framework
– The Terms of Reference are restrictive and mirror a bill already nullified
– Citizens are being guided into an “election-centred agenda”
– Government must withdraw Bill 7 before any credible dialogue occurs
– The process should reopen the Bill of Rights, not simply adjust constituencies
“There must be a fresh initiation of the constitutional amendment process which must come from the people,” said Chairperson Beauty Katebe.
Friday’s Events Cast a Shadow
The breakdown follows Friday’s highly publicised sequence in which the Forum first held a black-clad prayer rally attended by several opposition leaders and former ministers, then proceeded to meet the President at State House.
The optics fuelled competing interpretations:
– Government supporters argue the Forum entered with positions, not issues, compromising negotiation space.
– Opposition actors celebrated the Forum’s hard stance, calling it “courageous” and “protective of democracy”.
Neutral observers note the Forum’s prayer rally resembled an elite opposition reunion, raising questions about whether it represents broad citizen sentiment or a particular political demographic.
Political Undertones Deepen
Anti-Bill 7 voices have escalated their rhetoric, insisting Parliament is compromised. Pro-Bill 7 voices argue the legislation should be tested on the floor, just as Bill 10 was defeated in 2020, not pre-judged by civil society positions.
Government now insists it will continue engaging other CSOs on Monday, signalling a shift away from the belief that Oasis Forum is the sole national mirror of consensus.
Technical Committee Still Central
Government reaffirmed that the Committee has undertaken nationwide consultations, and its submissions will shape the next legislative roadmap. The Forum, however, rejects this, arguing that the Committee is neither independent nor sufficiently broad-mandated.
What Happens Next?
With the Forum demanding withdrawal of Bill 7 and Government insisting the process is already compliant, the reform effort enters uncertain territory.
What remains clear is that Zambia’s constitutional reform is no longer merely a legal debate. It is now a political contest over legitimacy, sequencing, and institutional authority.
SISHSUWA SISHUWA, THE UNI TEACHER WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHERE ITEZHI – TEZHI IS LOCATED OR HOW MANY CONSTITUENCES ARE IN LUSAKA PROVINCE
A response to Sishuwa’s latest hogwash
The devil in delimitation: why Hichilema is desperate to create new constituencies
(There is no devil in Delimination: the Devil is Sishuwa Sishuwa and his ignorance)
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
(Responses By Zambia Watchdog)
Of all the self-serving changes to the Constitution of Zambia that President Hakainde Hichilema is pushing to make before the next general election on 13 August 2026, the creation of new constituencies through delimitation is the most significant to him.
(This is an opinion with no facts. In writing, educated people are encouraged to distinguish facts from their own opinions. You can state facts then proceed to offer your own opinions. Anyway, some people have papers but no education. All the proposed changes in Bill 7 are significant otherwise they wouldn’t be there. There is no article or provision in the Zambian constitution that is insignificant.)
Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons why Hichilema is dying to create additional constituencies. (This, again, is an assumption founded on wrong information).
The first is to prevent the adoption-related weakening or even implosion of the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) ahead of the 2026 general election. Incumbent UPND members of parliament in the party’s traditional strongholds face strong competition for re-adoption. In Sesheke constituency, for instance, Romeo Kang’ombe is up against Fredrick Misebezi, one of Hichilema’s miscellaneous State House aides who is eying the seat. In Keembe constituency, Princess Kasune Zulu, who is also Minister of Justice, faces competition from Chipo Mwanawasa, Hichilema’s policy advisor who has already started campaign outreach programs like sinking boreholes and empowering farmers.
(In democracy, competition is healthy. In fact, it is the bloodline of democracy. It is in monarchies and dictatorships where incumbent Kings, Queens and dictators cannot be challenged. Zambia is none of the two. In Zambia, challenging incumbent presidents, mayors or MPs is inherent. Herein lies the folly of Sishuwa’s argument: In his mind, he thinks that if Kangombe or Misebezi is not adopted, then UPND will lose Sesheke constituencny.)
In Kafue, Mirriam Chonya is up against Buumba Malambo, the area council’s chairperson and one of Hichilema’s vociferous defenders. In Choma Central, long-serving MP Cornelius Mweetwa, who is also Minister of Information, faces competition from Vitaris Masopo, a local rancher, and Trevor Mwiinde, the UPND deputy national youth chairperson. Jack Mwiimbu, the Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security who has held the Monze parliamentary seat since 2001, is having sleepless nights because of a looming challenge from Victor Cheelo, a businessman and loyalist of Hichilema. In Chikankata and Magoye constituencies, incumbent MPs face competition from relatively established challengers in Harriet Matongo and Nachoombe Kabunda, respectively.
(By his own admission, all the potential candidates he has cited are loyal to president Hichilema. It follows therefore that all of them including their supporters will follow the president’s directive).
This illustrative picture of constituencies where sitting UPND MPs face known serious competitors provides the wider context within which Hichilema’s desperation to create new constituencies through delimitation should be understood. To avert the risk of having current MPs running as independent candidates if they are not adopted, or of joining or forming a rival party to challenge the UPND in next year’s election, Hichilema has devised a solution that he hopes would pacify the warring factions in the ruling party: divide all the above constituencies and others where there is greater internal party competition for adoption so that the interests of both the current and aspiring MPs can be accommodated. In effect, the president is seeking to change Zambia’s constitution to resolve differences in his party.
(If rubbish was a historian: what makes you think that these aspiring MPs will agree to be relocated to new constituencies? What if all the incumbent and aspiring MPs are from the same hood, village and want the same side? What if, as it is likely to be the case, there are more than four aspiring candidates in Choma Central for example? Is he going to create 4 more constituencies? You see, these are your own imaginations. Form new political party, like really?) Which political party can they join?
The second reason behind Hichilema’s desperation to create new constituencies is to give his party a clear majority in parliament after the 2026 election. Hichilema appears greatly concerned that he could ‘win’ the presidential election but lose control of the National Assembly, where rigging is harder, even with his supporters in charge of the country’s electoral management body. To avoid this prospect, the president proposed to alter the size of the National Assembly by creating new constituencies on the pretext that some of the existing ones are too big to be efficiently administered by a single MP. This was not long before the Electoral Commission of Zambia delivered to him a delimitation report that recommended that certain constituencies be split into two or three.
(So it is the Electoral Commission of Zambia that recommended that certain constituencies should be split? You are either confused or don’t know what you are talking about. You have been saying, without proof, that its HH who is desperately pushing to split the constituencies because this is significant only to him. Now you are saying it is actually the ECZ that recommended the delimination! Consistency is important. But of course, it’s difficult to be consistent when you are lying.)
The report is yet to be made public, but I have had sight of it. Most of the constituencies that are earmarked for division based on their size are in areas that have historically voted for the UPND: Southern, North-western, Central and Western provinces. In densely populated provinces like Lusaka and Copperbelt, where the ruling party’s support has declined considerably since the last general election, very few constituencies will be split – unless they have an established record of voting for Hichilema – because of the fear that the opposition would win the newly created seats.
(Ok. Let’s say you split Kanyama, into two constituencies, are you saying that even the way those people vote will be split? And we doubt you have or have had sight of that report. Knowing how irresponsible you are, you could have published that report already if you had it. Are you not the same clown who irresponsibly made false claims that PF MPs like Mundubile have each been given K3 Million to support bill 7? You don’t sound like a cautious person so we doubt you have the capacity to keep such a document to yourself. Do you have any evidence that support for HH in Lusaka has declined? Why not wait for Chawama byelection?)
Other provinces like Luapula, Muchinga, Northern and Eastern will only receive tokenist attention, as the primary focus is on creating new constituencies in safer zones – constituencies where the UPND is guaranteed of winning if they can avoid the splits discussed above. (You have always tried to incite people of these regions but clearly you have failed. Count how many byelections the UPND has won in those provinces so far)
The constituencies to be divided include Monze, Choma Central, Magoye, Mapatizya, Kazungula, and Namwala in Southern Province; Itezhi-tezhi, Keembe, and Nangoma in Central Province; Kafue, Kanyama, Chilanga, and Chongwe in Lusaka Province; Mufumbwe, Mwinilunga, Zambezi East, and Kasempa in Northwestern Province, and Senanga and Mulobezi in Western Province, among several others. Through gerrymandering, the president is hoping that his party will win most of these new seats, facilitating an even greater majority for the UPND and making it easier for it to make further changes to the Constitution in the future.
(Itezhi-tezhi constituency is not in Central province. For a person who teaches at University, we really expect you to be solid on basic facts. Surely, if you don’t know where Itezhi-tezhi is situated in Zambia, can anyone rely on you to give a political opinion? Who gave you your doctorate? Surely whoever awarded you that doctorate must be ashamed of both you and himself. Any person who went to university knows that the most important aspect of a research or write up is the facts. If you get the facts wrong, whatever you write is hogwash, as in this case.) There is no evidence that the constituencies you have mentioned above though you don’t know where they are, are the ones to be split. When you have an opinion, say so. Don’t mix your opinion with facts.)
The underlying political motivation behind the planned delimitation was accidentally revealed by Hichilema at a recent press conference where he justified the need for new constituencies on the ground that the geographical spread of the existing one is skewed in favour of regions that have historically voted against him and the UPND. “Over the years, there was discrimination in the delimitation of constituencies”, he complained on 25 November. (The president never said those things except the one you have put in brackets.) The need to split constituencies has been there even before the person you hate so much became president).
However, according to Article 59 of the Constitution, size and geographical spread of constituencies are unimportant factors to consider when delimitating the boundaries constituencies. (You are wrong, as usual. Size and geographical spread are actually key in determining delimitation)
What must be taken into account are the following considerations: the history, diversity and cohesiveness of the constituency; population density, trends and projections; ensuring that the number of inhabitants in each constituency is reasonable, taking into account the means of communication and geographical features; ensuring that constituencies are wholly within districts; and seeking to achieve an approximate equality of constituency population, subject to the need to ensure adequate representation for urban and sparsely populated areas.
(The fact that, that particular article of the constitution does not specifically mention size and geographical spread doesn’t mean that they are not important. If you had basic understanding of constitutional language, you could have realised that… ‘taking into account the means of communication and geographical features; ensuring that constituencies are wholly within districts, this includes size and geographical spread. But we understand your limitations. Let’s take for example the same Itezhi tezhi which you don’t know where it is. That vast constituency borders Mumbwa to the East, Namwala to the West, Monze to the South East and Kalomo to the South. You think this is not a good consideration for delimitation so that, that constituencies is wholly within the district?)
At present, Zambia has ten provinces and 156 constituencies. The distribution of the constituencies and population per province, based on the 2022 census data, is as shown below: (At least you got this one right. Congratulations).
Copperbelt – 22 constituencies (2.7m people)
Western – 19 (1.3m)
Eastern – 18 (2.4)
Southern – 18 (2.3m)
Central – 16 (2.2m)
Luapula – 15 (1.5m)
Lusaka – 13 (3m)
Northern – 13 (1.6)
Northwestern – 12 (1.2m)
Muchinga – 10 (922,213)
(Now, you really are a very ignorant person. Sir, Southern Province has 20 constituencies. Lusaka province has 12 constituencies while Central province has 15 constituencies. As a lecturer, you need to verify material before giving it to your learners, what more data you release to the entire world? This is really embarrassing. Maybe that is why most of the people you taught at UNZA are struggling to find jobs???)
The implication of this data is twofold. (You mean the wrong data above?)
The first is that the geographical distribution or spread of constituencies numerically favours provinces that have generally voted for the UPND. For instance, Southern, Western, Northwestern, and Central provinces share a total of 65 parliamentary constituencies between them. Northern, Eastern, Muchinga and Luapula provinces share a total of 56 constituencies, with the two urban provinces, Lusaka and Copperbelt, sharing the remaining 35. By claiming that previous delimitation exercises were discriminatory and therefore presenting the latest effort as aimed at curing that discrimination by allocating more constituencies to the historically disadvantaged provinces, Hichilema either genuinely misread the facts, was unforgivably ignorant, or was lying (again!) on a fundamental issue – and whichever it is, none is acceptable, especially when coming from a president.
(The president never mentioned any province. So you Sishuwa , you have misread the facts as proved above already, because you are unforgivably ignorant, and are lying (again!) on a fundamental issue – and this is unacceptable, especially when coming from a historian or Uni teacher.)
The second implication is that if delimitation was done transparently and impartially, most of the new constituencies should go to Lusaka, Copperbelt, and Eastern provinces. This is because they each have more people than the remaining seven provinces. For instance, Southern Province, with 2.3 million people, has 18 constituencies whereas Lusaka, with 3 million, only has 13. Some individual constituencies in Lusaka such as Mandevu have more people than entire districts elsewhere. Western and Northwestern provinces, each with only a third of Lusaka’s population, have 19 and 12 seats, respectively.
(Wrong facts again. Anyway, Delimitation should not just be about population density. There are many more practical reasons including geographical spread of a constituency)
As it therefore stands, the situation – i.e. the distribution of constituencies vis-à-vis population density – currently favours Hichilema. What the president is now trying to do is to use the argument of constituency size and geographical distribution to allocate even more seats to Southern, Western, and Northwestern provinces. In making the false claim that these three provinces have suffered discrimination in previous delimitation exercises, he is attempting to conceal the real motivation behind the latest exercise: partisan political considerations. If the president must publicly pronounce himself on previous efforts, particularly those that resulted in the creation of new constituencies, it should be to thank his predecessors for showing consistent favouritism towards the same provinces, though largely sparsely populated, that he incorrectly claims have been historically disadvantaged.
(You imagine stuff in your head then attribute the nonsense to someone else)
The third and final reason behind Hichilema’s desperation to create new constituencies is to pave the way for the next constitutional changes that will follow the 2026 election aimed at perpetuating himself in power. If the progressively unpopular Hichilema, who was recently pelted with stones by disappointed voters on the Copperbelt, manages to rig next year’s poll and secure a second five-year term, he would be constitutionally barred from standing for another term as the Constitution contains a clear two-term limit for the presidency.
(Most Zambians have condemned violence but we are not surprised that bitter souls like Sishuwa were happy at that incident. Here is a man promoting violence but cowardly hiding in South Africa. People are not honest. If you like physical fights, why don’t you come over we see how strong you are?).
Several presidential hopefuls in the UPND are working on the reasonable assumption that the president would step down at the conclusion of his two terms after which they would openly compete for the right to succeed him. They are wrong. The 63-year-old Hichilema is going nowhere any time soon. His plan is to use the impending constitutional changes to avert intra-party divisions, secure a two-thirds majority in parliament in next year’s general election, and, in the aftermath, move to make further changes to the Constitution of Zambia’, among which is to remove presidential term limits. (Assumption presented as facts from history teacher. We feel sorry for you students).
If there is anything that Hichilema learnt from his predecessors’ failure to pass election-linked constitutional amendment bills, it is that no matter what the public or civil society says in opposition to an incumbent president’s plans on the subject, constitutional amendment bills are won or lost in parliament. This explains why he is doing everything possible to raise the two-thirds majority that he needs in parliament to make changes to the Constitution. The president knows that if MPs knew his actual intentions, they may vote against the coming bill, thereby dealing a decisive blow to his post 2026 bid for absolute power. To hoodwink them, he has dangled several carrots, whose appeal cut across party lines, to increase their chances of supporting the bill. These include financial inducements, a proposal to delay the dissolution of parliament to 24 hours before the general election, which would allow MPs to retain their existing lucrative remuneration, and a related proposal that MPs, though paid, should do no work in the final three months that precedes the next general election.
(What is politics? You really expect HH to sit ndwii and watch people usurp power from him? And why should he do exactly what his predecessors did if it failed them? You Sishuwa and your likes in PF are doing everything possible including lying, to gain power. But you expect HH to sit and do nothing to consolidate power??? The lie of removing presidential limit has been recycled and all the previous presidents have been accused of the same.)
The president has further sought to specifically placate UPND MPs into supporting the constitutional amendment bill, which, if passed, would give him greater control over parliament. This explains why he is avoiding antagonising the MPs, especially those with established power bases in the party, by creating additional constituencies where they or their challengers can stand. Once he has used them to achieve his initial objective, he can then easily dispense with them after the election.
(We doubt there is any UPND MP who has established power. This is failing to understand how things really work in UPND. Ask one of your so-called established MPs in UPND to resign so that we test that establishment.)
Part of the other constitutional changes that Hichilema is pushing through before the 2026 poll include abolishing parliamentary by-elections and allowing the party where the affected MP came from to pick a replacement. If the coming bill passes, this proposal will greatly consolidate his power over MPs, enable him to purge those perceived as potential challengers from the UPND, and put him in a stronger position to have the decisive say on succession.
(This had been the cry of the people for a long time. The complaint has been that byelections waste a lot of money and time. By the way, even today, HH can get rid of any MP if he wanted to. He doesn’t need this to be in the constitution.)
With a clear majority in parliament, he can then change the Constitution and decide to remain in power for as long as age and health would permit him – effectively becoming a wamuyaya (life) president. Alternatively, the president could, when he finally gets tired, anoint a pliant successor who will protect him from possible prosecution for corruption and criminal misuse of state power. Already, there are credible rumours within UPND circles that Hichilema is grooming two of his presidential aides to succeed him much, much later. A senior UPND leader told me in September that the president’s plan is to get one or two of his aides into parliament next year and then appoint them to ministerial roles in the hope that this would secure them advantage in the succession race:
(It is the wish of every successful person to have a successor, be it in government or business. We don’t know if it’s also true in teaching history, even if you are often wrong on facts? But the idea of HH appointing Jito Kayumba or Levy Ngoma as his successor is a product of your imagination. Zambians will elect the next president.
“Our deputy SG [i.e. UPND deputy Secretary General Getrude Imenda] recently came out to say that long-serving UPND MPs should consider leaving the stage while still appreciated by stepping down to pave the way for fresh faces ahead of the 2026 general elections. She claimed that a dignified exit by veteran MPs would provide an opportunity for party renewal. But we know that she was sent by HH to test the waters by saying what she said. She was just his mouthpiece. Upon realising that he will need us to support Bill 7 in parliament, he used the SG [Secretary General Batuke Imenda] to do some damage control by claiming that the statement attributed to Ms. Imenda does not reflect the UPND’s official stance”, the official said before touching on the succession dynamics.
“Both the SG and the deputy SG work at the secretariat. When they issue public statements, why should we believe one and not the other? We are not kids. We know that the targeted MPs are Hon. Gary Nkombo, Hon. Mweetwa, Hon. Mwiimbu, and others from Northwestern. HH is uncomfortable with these MPs because they have rooted themselves in the party. He also seems to think that they have the capacity to undermine his rumoured intention to impose one of his lackeys at State House as successor. We have worked hard for this party and will not allow him to do as he pleases. When the time is right, you will see what will happen in the UPND”, they said.
(All these are just your wishes. You are trying to incite the MPs you have mentioned but you know that they are the ones who can be bruised.) But that would be good for you, right?)
If everything I have said so far paints a grim picture, it is only because the situation is grave, very grave. I do remain hopeful, however, that the people will defeat Hichilema and reclaim their democracy. Zambians hate violence. This explains why they are most comfortable with changing governments or removing unpopular leaders through the ballot, a mechanism that Hichilema is seriously eroding. They learnt it the hard way in 1972 with then President Kenneth Kaunda and in 1996 with Frederick Chiluba when both leaders manipulated the Constitution to advance their personal political interests. Since then and at critical moments in history, they have broken ranks and come together to defend democracy and the constitution from manipulation. We saw this togetherness in 2001 when the people rose against President Frederick Chiluba’s attempt to change the Constitution to seek a third term in office.
(When did you become the spokesperson for all of us? There is no war between the people and the President. So, this defeat you are talking about will not happen because there is no war. There are some differences in opinions but these are ironed out through the ongoing dialogue. This is very painful to you, we hear? You want the Oasis Forum to fight your war while you are drinking coffee in SA)
We, again, saw this togetherness in 2019 and 2020 when the people rose against President Edgar Lungu’s attempt to rewrite constitutional rules for self-preservation. We are now seeing the togetherness against Hichilema’s own attempt to rewrite constitutional rules for self-preservation. Much credit must go to the Oasis Forum who have been at the forefront of this principled defence of the Constitution and our democracy from executive-driven murderous attacks. In opposition, Hichilema praised the Oasis Forum as a consistent defender of public interest whenever they questioned the excesses of his predecessors. Today, the same person finds no shame in denouncing the Oasis Forum as people who just “hate” him and are seeking “regime change” when they question his leadership actions or hold him to account.
It is hard to understand and almost impossible to explain what has happened to the more sane Hichilema we had in opposition. The current one, who openly takes pride in blocking the Oasis Forum from exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly by demonstrating against his proposed changes to Zambia’s Constitution, looks like a cloned version of the one we had before the last general election. I must commend the Oasis Forum for calling his bluff on dialogue by agreeing to meet Hichilema at State House where they asked him in person to abandon the divisive changes he is trying to make to the Constitution. I know that Hichilema, ever intransigent, will proceed with his plans. He has repeatedly shown that he is not one to back down from his position even when he is clearly in the wrong.
In fact, the real reason why Hichilema met the Oasis Forum was not to listen to what they had to say with a view to changing his mind; it was to try and see if he could persuade the civic body into buying his position on constitutional reform. After all, the Forum represents the most organised and serious opposition to Hichilema’s plans to rewrite constitutional rules for his benefit. If he could compromise it, then he would have succeeded in creating legitimacy around his self-serving constitutional changes. Fortunately for Zambia, the men and women in the Oasis Forum are not for hire. They are forthright and upstanding Zambians who will never betray public interest.
(In fact, the real reason you are writing this is because you are disappointed that the Oasis Forum chose dialogue instead of the violence you had hoped for.)
The self-interested changes that Hichilema is desperate to make to the Constitution constitute the first step to establishing a de facto one-party state. The next step would involve making further changes to the national law after the 2026 election. If Hichilema succeeds with the first step, we would have allowed him to dig our collective grave and bury all of us alive. If he is not stopped in his tracks, I can predict that there will come a time in future when, following the country’s epic collapse including the total destruction of its democratic institutions, we will look back with regret at key moments where we could have halted his march to a constitutional dictatorship.
(Prophet of doom go away. Zambia will never collapse.) If you want to fight or lead people into riots, came and be in the forefront. But be assured you are unlikely to have a following. Maybe you have been away from Zambia for too long so you really don’t what is going on?
Now is the time to stop Hichilema before it is too late and in a manner that is less painful to everyone involved. The judiciary, though seemingly compromised, has one final opportunity to stop him. The National Assembly, though seemingly compromised, has one final opportunity to stop him. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Zambia lies in the hands of these two sites of power or institutions. Should the judges and the MPs abdicate their responsibility to protect the constitutional order, they would have succeeded in laying the foundation for what, I fear, might come next.
(No, no, no, The real reason you are bitter is that the president refused to appoint you as his political advisor. This was after credible information that you are not fit for that office. By the way doc, it’s ‘Seats of Power’, not ‘sites of power’. Happy to educate a doctor.
HICHILEMA HAS NEVER BEEN COMMITTED TO GENUINE DIALOGUE ON BILL 7
Mr Hakainde Hichilema’s suspension of dialogue with the Oasis Forum doesn’t come as a surprise to us. It was expected. It simply confirms what we have been warning Zambians about for months. Mr Hichilema has no genuine intention of listening to divergent views, no commitment to consensus, and absolutely no respect for constitutionalism when it threatens his continued hold on power.
From the very start, Bill 7 has been packaged as a reform, but its real DNA is dangerous, divisive, and authoritarian. Any politician who genuinely seeks national consensus on such a far-reaching amendment does not walk into a dialogue room with a predetermined position. They listen. They negotiate. They adjust. That is what true democracy demands. But Mr Hichilema has once again demonstrated that consultation is not part of his political culture.
What we are witnessing is a tired pattern. Mr Hichilema calls stakeholders to the table purely for public relations. He creates an illusion of engagement while refusing to shift even an inch from his predetermined agenda. He then walks away, blames the stakeholders, and pretends to be disappointed. Meanwhile, in the background, his machinery continues to push forward with the same destructive plan. He did it to the Lungu family. He has done it on countless national issues. And he is doing it again with Bill 7.
The attempt to accuse the Oasis Forum of being “unprepared to engage constructively” is nothing but a smokescreen. When a group raises principled objections, that does not make them unreasonable. It means they have strong grounds. It means they are thinking about the nation, not about pleasing Mr Hichilema. Mr Hichilema’s problem is not that stakeholders have no alternatives. His problem is that he don’t want alternatives. He wants submission.
Bill 7 is a direct attempt to concentrate power in the hands of one office. It is a carefully engineered assault on the democratic character of our Republic. Any attempt to bulldoze it without broad national consensus must be understood for what it is: an attack on the people of Zambia.
We want to make it absolutely clear that this suspension of dialogue is neither innocent nor procedural. It is tactical. Mr Hichilema is buying time. He is trying to weaken public outrage and break public resistance. He is preparing the next move, quietly and strategically. This is how Mr Hichilema executes his mingalato .
Zambians must not fall for this deception. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be lulled into silence while our Constitution is being raped in broad daylight. The destiny of this country can not be shaped by one person hiding behind bureaucratic language and staged consultations.
If Mr Hichilema refuses to listen to the people, then the people must respond in the only language tyrannical power understands —protracted and sustained peaceful, well organised, and resolute protest. Zambians have a constitutional right to stand up, to speak out, to speak up and to resist any attempt to tamper with the foundations of our democratic order.
We therefore make a clarion call to all citizens of our homeland, civil society organisations, churches, labour unions, professional associations, and youth movements to unite in defence of our Constitution. The time for passive observation is over. This is a national emergency. Bill 7 is not a small administrative amendment. It is a threat to our future.
Let’s refuse to be accomplices in the dismantling of our democracy. This country does not belong to Mr Hichilema alone. It belongs to us all in all our diversities and complexities.
CATHOLIC PRIEST URGES NATIONAL DIALOGUE FOR RECONCILIATION AHEAD OF 2026 POLLS
By Nelson Zulu
Catholic priest, Father Chewe Mukosa, has urged President Hakainde Hichilema to call for a national dialogue for reconciliation to ensure unity and love in the country ahead of the 2026 polls.
Father Mukosa said the move is a preventative measure to ease tensions and foster mutual understanding among political actors and citizens.
He has cited the current heightened debate over proposed constitutional amendments and remarks viewed as tribal by some political figures as reasons why an inclusive forum is necessary.
Father Mukosa is of the view that a national dialogue should provide a structured, non-confrontational platform where grievances can be aired, differences debated, and solutions crafted collectively, with the aim of reducing hostility and restoring trust in public discourse.
He has urged President Hichilema to act as a convener and be positive about the approach.
OPPOSITION ALLIANCE UNDERMINING NATIONAL STABILITY AND BILL NO. 7
A growing chorus of government supporters is raising alarm over what they describe as a coordinated effort by a group of opposition figures and aligned activists to derail the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 and destabilise national unity.
According to senior government sources, the same individuals who have been at the centre of controversy surrounding the delayed burial of the late former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu are now leading an aggressive campaign to mislead the public on Bill No. 7. The government argues that these actors are deliberately spreading a false narrative that Zambians have rejected the Bill, despite evidence of widespread support for constitutional reforms among ordinary citizens.
Those who said to be driving this agenda include Archbishop Alick Banda, Makebi Zulu, Brebner Changala, Celestin Mukandila, Brian Mundubile, Given Lubinda, Fred M’membe, and Mumbi Phiri. Government supporters argue that this group has repeatedly taken positions that inflame tensions, weaken public confidence in state institutions, and frustrate the government’s efforts to promote stability, transparency, and accountability.
Officials insist that Bill No. 7 represents a crucial step towards modernising Zambia’s governance framework by strengthening checks and balances, improving coordination among arms of government, and closing long-standing constitutional gaps. They further argue that the Bill is being opposed not on merit but for political expediency.
Government-aligned observers warn that politicising sensitive national matters, such as the burial arrangements of a former Head of State, shows a lack of respect for national processes and risks undermining the country’s collective values. They caution that creating confusion around constitutional reform is a deliberate tactic designed to generate instability and weaken Zambia’s democratic progress.
As Parliament prepares to deliberate on Bill No. 7, government representatives are urging citizens to remain vigilant against misinformation and to support reforms aimed at strengthening the nation. They argue that the loud voices rejecting the Bill do not represent the silent majority of Zambians who want unity, order, and a stronger constitutional system.
The coming weeks will determine whether Zambia moves forward on a path of reform and stability, or whether a vocal political alliance succeeds in derailing progress through what government supporters describe as fear-mongering and deliberate misrepresentation.
EMV EDITORIAL; DECLARING CHAWAMA SEAT VACANT, AN IMMORAL, EVIL AND ILLEGAL ACT
It is clear that President Hakainde Hichilema’s desperate quest to consolidate political power has no moral, ethical, or legal bounds.
When Mwense Council Chairperson, Humphrey Kapapula was murdered in September 2022 after being dragged from his vehicle in Mwense, it was apparent that this could have been a political murder.
However, there were no discernible efforts whatsoever, made to investigate the murder and pursue the suspects.
Instead, there were millions of kwacha mobilised and spent, with political violence perpetrated in efforts by the UPND to capture and win the seat.
It was clear that there were zero efforts applied to investigate the murder.
When both Kawambwa and Pambashe MPs and former Ministers, Nixon Chilangwa, and Ronald Chitotela, including Kawambwa Town Council Chairperson Kalumba Chifumbe were handed down contraversial conviction and jail terms, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Electoral Commission were in such a hurry to hold elections that despite a High Court Order from Chinsali to stop the elections, the institutions ignored the court orders, proceeded with impunity to declare the seats vacant and hold elections.
Similarly, although former Ministers; Bowman Lusambo and Joseph Malanji were eligible to participate and stand in their seats nullified through electoral petitions, Kabushi and Kwacha,President Hichilema personally took the seats as a challenge, campaigned in the two areas despite a Constitutional Court orders and ensured that the duo were prevented from participating in the elections.
The Electoral Commission of Zambia was without shame made to (mis)interpret the law, a matyer that is a preserve of the courts and bar the two.
Although the Constitution Court ruled that ECZ had illegally barred the two candidates and denied them constitutional rights, no remedial measures or fresh elections have been done.
The evil pattern became fully established and despite the parliamentarians facing targeted and fabricated charges, they were jailed to create a vacancy and although they are entilted to court appeals, their bail-pending appeal were flatly denied to create artificial absence in the constituencies and justify declaring these seats vacant and subesquently hold by-elections as seen in Petauke Central, Mfuwe and Lumezi constuencies.
It was also clear that President Hichilema’s cruelty would not spare the Chawama seat held by Tasila Lungu-Mwansa, daughter to his political arch-rival, President Edgar Lungu.
Hichilema targeted the family’s properties, the Patriotic Front Party’s motor vehicles and offices.
When Hon. Tasila Lungu was in the United States on maternity leave, there were several attempts and threats to declare her seat vacant and hold a by-election.
So it not surprising, that Speaker of the National Assembly, who has been a blunt instrument that President Hichilema has repeatedly used to end political careers of his rivals, last week used illegal methods to declare the Chawama seat vacant.
Even her own parliamentary committee informed her that Hon. Tasila was willing to attend parliamentary proceedings via video-conferencing facilities fully established during the pandemic.
Mutti chose tooverrulee the recommendations of her own committee and proceeded to declare the seat through a bogus “vote”.
Further, both President Hichilema and Mutti have been so insensitive and unafrican in failing to recognize that Hon. Tasila Lungu was in mourning and her father remains unburried due to President Hichilema’s own machinations.
It’s not enough that Hichilema can be blamed for the death of his predecessor as repeatedly denied him chances to seek medical treatment , but to proceed.
The Constitution in Article 70 and 71 provides that a seat will be declared vacant or an MP will lose their seat if an MP; resigns, joins another political party, defects, code of conduct through a Tribunal, loses citizenship, disqualification, imprisonment, loss of nomination. Abscence is not one of them.
This is a malicious and callous decision bot founded in law, not founded in morals.
Having stolen Lungu’s political party, the Party’s seats in Parlaiment, and with former President Lungu dead and unburied, it without doubt that Hichilema and Mutti are dancing on the empty grave of the unburied Lungu, taking satisfaction in the exercise to completely decimate his arch-rival.
HH is leader of Zambia, not president of a tribe – Changala
By Mubanga Mubanga
Civil rights activist Brebner Changala says President Hakainde Hichilema should know that he is a President of Zambia, and not of a tribe.
Last week during a press briefing at State House, President Hichilema said the Oasis Forum was opposed to Bill 7 as they hated him because of the region where he came from.
In an interview with Daily Revelation over the remarks by President Hichilema, Changala said the President was setting the Tonga’s against people from other regions. “That is where
The Livingstone Magistrate Court has adjourned judgment in a case in which Livingstone Mayor Constance Muleabai is charged with two counts of corrupt practices.
The ruling which was scheduled for delivery on November 28, 2025, has been postponed to December 17, 2025 following the accused’s reported illness.
Earlier, the court heard a testimony from the accused’s elder sister, Kumoyo Muyunda Muleabai, who is also one of her sureties who informed the court that Ms. Muleabai had been unwell for two days prior to her judgement day, suffering from high blood pressure and heavy menstrual bl£eding.
The surety further presented a medical report saying it was certified by a trained medical practitioner from a named health facility.
On the basis of the medical evidence, defence Counsel Boniface Chiwala of Messrs, Boniface Chiwala Legal Practitioners applied for an adjournment, arguing that the accused needed to be present for the delivery of judgment.
However, lead prosecutor Lucie Hamweemba from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) expressed concern that this was not the first time the accused had failed to attend court due to similar health conditions.
Ms. Hamweemba argued that continuously adjourning the matter would prolong proceedings and potentially affect the court’s schedule, noting that the accused’s condition appeared to be recurring.
Considering the submissions from both parties and the medical report presented, Magistrate Kasanda granted the adjournment and extended Ms. Muleabai’s police bond until the next appearance.
POLICE WARN AGAINST CYBERBULLYING FROM THE “02 BA NYANGANYA DOOR” VIDEO
Police say the mimicking of the “02 Ba Nyanganya Door” incident amounts to cyberbullying, urging the public to stop sharing and mocking the incident.
Police Spokesperson Godfrey Chilabi explained that the ongoing nichani nichani mockery only adds to the trauma already suffered by the victim, whose story has captured national attention.
Mr. Chilabi further discouraged the bapandura trend, stating that it promotes a culture of insensitivity and contributes to emotional harm.
In September, a businessman of Lusaka’s Mtendere Township was shot in the arm by robbers, and his interview with ZNBC later went viral on social media, with some named comedians and members of the public mimicking the victim.
HISTORIC SHIFT – HOW THE PRESIDENTIAL CONSTITUENCY ENERGY INITIATIVE WILL CHANGE ZAMBIA’S “CONSTITUENCY” FUTURE
– By Dr Situmbeko Musokotwane, MP, Minister of Finance and National Planning,
A few days ago, on 24 November 2025, Cabinet approved a decision that quietly but fundamentally reshapes how development will reach ordinary Zambians.
The Presidential Constituency Energy Initiative (PCEI) redefines what the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) truly means. It transforms CDF from being primarily a social support tool into a powerful engine of investment, ownership, and long-term local wealth creation.
For the first time in our history, each of Zambia’s 156 constituencies will receive dedicated CDF financing to build a 2-megawatt solar power plant. Each project is valued between K65 million and K85 million and will stand as a permanent, income-generating public asset owned by the people of that constituency.
This is visionary leadership in practical form, and I commend His Excellency Hakainde Hichilema for combining bold national vision with grounded developmental pragmatism.
The initiative means that communities will no longer merely be recipients of the Government’s support. They will now produce power, participate directly in national infrastructure development, and become shareholders in the country’s energy future.
This decisive step builds on the deliberate policy shift that began in 2021, when CDF was increased from just K1.6 million per constituency to over K35 million by 2025 and will be K40 million per constituency, in 2026. The increase is never about numbers alone. It is about transferring real economic power to the grassroots. With the PCEI, that power now takes visible form in solar panels rising from local soil, producing electricity, income, and jobs that remain within the constituency.
This energy leap is anchored in a broader transformation of the Constituency Development Fund itself. Since 2022, CDF has become one of the most powerful instruments for delivering equitable, inclusive, and sustainable development, generating a scale of community-level transformation not witnessed by many areas, since independence.
From 2022, more than 2,800 classroom blocks have been constructed and 422 rehabilitated, while about 670,000 desks have been procured, countrywide (as at September, 2025).
In health, 132 posts and 195 maternity annexes have been built, with additional facilities rehabilitated, bringing safer maternal care closer to families.
Access to clean water has expanded through the drilling of 1,941 boreholes, the installation of 531 water schemes, and the construction of 228 ablution blocks.
At the same time, 82,652 secondary school learners have received boarding bursaries, 151,518 youths have enrolled in skills-training programmes, and 47,246 women and youth groups have been empowered with grants alongside 14,773 who accessed loans to grow businesses.
These achievements are not abstract statistics but reflect a child who is now able to sit on a desk and concentrate on studies, a mother delivering safely in a modern maternity ward near home, communities drawing clean water from nearby boreholes, and young entrepreneurs building livelihoods within their own districts. This is the lived power of CDF.
The 2026 National Budget has further strengthened this trajectory. Government has increased the allocation to the Constituency Development Fund to K6.2 billion, translating to K40 million per constituency, up from K36.1 million in the previous year—an increase of K3.9 million per constituency.
This rising fiscal commitment confirms that decentralisation is no longer an administrative promise but a sustained national investment strategy.
From a public finance perspective, the PCEI model is both smart and sustainable. Part of the electricity generated by these solar plants will be sold to ZESCO, creating steady income that flows back to the constituencies that own the projects.
Over time, this will progressively reduce dependence on monthly Treasury grants and build permanent, locally controlled financial resources.
Communities will no longer wait endlessly for central funding. They will earn their own through excess power sales.
The ripple effects across the economy will be far-reaching. Local businesses that have long been locked out of large public contracts will now access meaningful work. Jobs will be created in construction, transport, supply chains, maintenance, administration, and security. Young people and women in rural districts will be able to find dignified work near their homes instead of being forced into overcrowded towns in search of survival.
At the same time, Zambia will gain cleaner energy, greater resilience to climate shocks, and stronger energy security for households and local industries.
This initiative also reflects a deeper national change in how public money is managed.
The hard reforms of recent years i.e. strengthening oversight, digitising payments, enforcing accountability, and decisively shutting down the leakages that once drained billions into private pockets, have allowed public resources to return to their rightful owners: the Zambian people. Every kwacha saved from previous waste and corruption is now being converted into something visible and useful: a solar panel in Chienge, a classroom in Shang’ombo, a clinic in Kaputa, and a job for a young person in Chavuma.
The success of this programme rests on disciplined leadership and collective resolve. It reflects the vision of President Hakainde Hichilema and the collective commitment of Cabinet to ensure that every kwacha delivers full value to citizens.
The Presidential Constituency Energy Initiative is therefore more than an energy venture. It is proof that decentralisation can be real, not just promised. It shows that public money can be made to work exactly where people live. It demonstrates that when governance is firm, disciplined, and honest, development stops being an abstract idea and becomes light in homes, work in communities, and hope in villages.
In practical terms, once the respective projects are complete across the provinces, it means the school child in rural Zambia will study under proper light instead of a smoky candle, with the ability to use computers and modern learning tools.
It means the salon and barber shop will operate longer hours, serve more customers, and grow into stable local businesses.
It means welders and carpenters will power their equipment consistently, increasing productivity, income, and skills transfer.
It means the mother who bakes to raise money for her children’s or grandchildren’s school fees will do so with reliable power, lower costs, and greater output.
It means domestic livestock keepers will power simple processing, storage, and security systems that protect and add value to their livelihoods. In these everyday victories—in homes, workshops, classrooms, and markets—the real meaning of decentralisation will be felt.
I therefore affirm that the Presidential Constituency Energy Initiative, is fiscal responsibility with a human face. It is not just about balancing books in Lusaka.
It is about ensuring that public resources touch every corner of the country and lift the lives of ordinary Zambians.
The PCEI is, quite simply, money working where our people live—because it is investment right where our people live.
Once again, I commend President Hichilema for his visionary leadership and his practical, developmental acumen.
I also commend the people of Zambia for their patience and supportive spirit in seeing that the Government implements economic transformation programmes, without leaving anyone, any region, behind.
EU Parliament Condemns Tanzania’s Human Rights Decline After Disputed Elections
The European Parliament has officially raised alarm over Tanzania’s worsening human rights climate following the highly contested October 2025 elections.
In a strong resolution, EU lawmakers, -Condemned reported election irregularities , including alleged vote tampering, exclusion of opposition candidates, and a lack of transparency.
-Raised concerns over post-election abuses — with claims of mass killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and political intimidation.
-Called for accountability — urging investigations, potential sanctions, and travel bans on individuals responsible for violations.
-Pushed for EU funding reforms — recommending a shift of financial support away from state institutions and toward civil society, human rights defenders, and grassroots democracy groups.
The European Parliament says Tanzania must restore political freedoms, protect opposition voices, and ensure justice for victims of post-election violence.
