Why are Tongas, Lozis, and Zambians from Northwestern Province reluctant to publicly criticise Hichilema’s leadership failures?

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

There must be honour and principles in life.

I will tell you a story…

A photographer made his money and consequently earned a living by taking pictures no matter how gruesome they were. His pictures were much sought after and always got to the front page of the main newspapers. Even when someone prominent was taking a bath, he could find a way to capture their unshaven bits. That photograph put bread on his table.

One day, his very close friend, and a very prominent figure, got involved in a road traffic accident. As his house was along the highway, he saw the accident from the window of his house. The photographer grabbed his camera and rushed to the accident spot. On arrival, he positioned himself well and took the ghastly pictures from different angles.

The ambulance arrived about 30 minutes after the photographer had reached the scene. He took the photographs of the ambulance and the paramedics rushing to help. He did not lend a hand. His friend was taken to the hospital.

After his pictures were published by major newspapers the following day, he was very pleased. Later, he went to the hospital to check on his friend. On arrival, the doctor said “Oh, you are the photographer who arrived first at the scene and got these pictures?”, to which the photographer responded in the affirmative.

“Are you the one who called for the ambulance?”, the doctor asked.

“No”, l am not. The ambulance services came on their own. Someone else must have alerted them. I got there at 12: 02 and the ambulance arrived at 12:32”, the photographer responded.

The doctor said “I am sorry sir. Your friend died on arrival at the hospital. The ambulance was nearby but we only received a distress call from a good Samaritan who notified the ambulance services about the accident 26 minutes after you got to the scene. It seems we got there late. As opposed to focusing on taking ghastly pictures, you should have been more principled. Had you phoned the ambulance before or immediately after you arrived on the scene , we may have managed to save your friend’s life.”

The photographer said, “principles do not not put bread on my table. I admit, those pictures are ghastly, but I am going to be paid for those photographs and l will eat…to take more.”

The bitter truth – and the moral of the story – is that many people are primarily driven by the primitive and savage animal instinct to stave off death. And yet ultimately, they die anyway, A small group of human beings have evolved beyond this animal level: they lead, because they are not captive to base animal instincts; they have tamed them. Such human beings have a higher consciousness, and conscience. I strive to be one of them.

I have tried under very difficult circumstances to create a moral code to live by. I have seen my friends and colleagues in civil society and academia abandon governance values that I thought we held dear before the 2021 election. Today, these friends and colleagues are either quiet when the same wrongs we condemned under Edgar Lungu happen or they are now on the other side, defending actions that we condemned when done by the previous administration. Others have fashioned a new role for themselves: delegitimising Hichilema’s critics by attacking their person rather than showing weakness in what the critic has said.

Some of them have even turned their backs on me, treating me like a pariah. My crime? Holding the current president to account as I did to his predecessors. I have managed to hang on, but it has not been easy. As a matter of fact, I have, at times, felt alone. In January 2024, government agents, relying on details on my national registration card, went to my village in Senanga district to investigate my ethnic roots. The 6-member team told my rural folks that they have been sent by the authorities in Lusaka to ascertain whether I was an ethnic Bemba masquerading as a Lozi because ‘some people in government’ could not understand how an ethnic Lozi could criticise the leadership of a man who comes from ‘our region’ – the first president from there.

I was not surprised when my village folks informed me about this disturbing development because I had several months earlier been tipped by prominent civil rights campaigner Brebner Changala that several senior UPND figures had complained on a WhatsApp group on which he is a member about my criticism of Hichilema’s administration and called for a probe into my ethnic roots. It is true that I am considered a traitor or sellout by those who think in narrow ethnic terms, including intellectual and professional elites from my region (lawyers, academics, economists, journalists, activists, etc.) who were critical of the governance pitfalls of former president Lungu but have maintained a deafening and incriminating silence on Hichilema’s transgressions. I can only imagine what these same people would have said if Bill 7 was proposed by Edgar Lungu or if Lungu disregarded a judgement of the Constitutional Court stating that Bill 7 is illegal because it was a product of an unconstitutional process.

I worked with Tonga, Lozi and northwestern colleagues at the height of the PF misgovernance. Their academic criticism of the regime was top notch. We were all doing it together and so happily because it was the right thing to do. I am now discovering that many of these were just ethnic nationalists or staunch supporters of Hichilema who have now been accorded various privileges or are simply happy that “one of our own” is in power. Their mouths are now shut even to the very concerns they opposed under the PF. Under the UPND, it is harder to find a Tonga or Lozi who stands up to Hichilema’s leadership failures.

One or two may be disgruntled here and there, but many are fanatical supporters of the president, largely driven by ethnic-regional cleavages and loyalties. While those originating from my ethnic-region community had no issue with my criticism of Lungu’s rule, they now find fault in nearly any substantive criticism that I raise against Hichilema’s leadership. As well as weaponising intellectual and moral positions to advance personal and political considerations, members of this community treat me as a traitor whose criticism of Hichilema’s leadership actions risks undermining their cause for ethnic-regional supremacy.

Politics can reveal the truest character of people we had some respect for at a distance. I sometimes ask myself: what has happened to these people? How is it possible that something that was unacceptable under Lungu should be acceptable under Hichilema? How do these people live with themselves? Why is it that we seem to have different standards for Hichilema compared to those who came before him? How come we have made it seem like the responsibility of holding the government to account falls on those who hail from the region where the president does not come from? Some of my questions were answered yesterday when a member of Hichilema’s Tonga ethnic group sent the message below to my inbox on X:

“Good morning Sishuwa, I love your objectivity. I enjoy reading your articles and what I love the most about your personality is you are not moved to answer any opposing negative comments with hostility or anger but handle them with such Intelligence and maturity. May God and ancestors keep you healthy, strong and give you long life. We need more minds like yours. Sorry I fear to answer this way on your tweets because I fear my tribe and can’t afford a lawyer. Have yourself an awesome Sunday!  receive your flowers Sir ”

Although heartwarming on the surface, this message is extremely sad. That someone is afraid of expressing themselves on the governance affairs of their homeland because of their ethnic identity shows how deeply polarised we have become as a country. The message also sheds light on why so few Tongas, Lozis and Northwesterners publicly criticise Hichilema’s leadership even in instances where they may have criticised similar actions under previous presidents. Some are not ethnic-regional nationalists who support the current administration as “our own baby” even when it does wrong things. To the contrary, they are Zambian nationalists who have critical views of the current administration but fear that giving such views public expression would attract serious backlash and social isolation from fellow Zambians from this region who expect them to support Hichilema and the ruling party on account of their ethnic-regional origins. As a result, they resort to self-censorship. The writer is clearly one of such people.

Others from Southern, Western, and Northwestern provinces – collectively known as the Zambezi region since the river Zambezi passes through them – do not criticise Hichilema’s leadership because they are either eating, have relatives in the echelons of power, or believe that criticising him amounts to arming the opposition. I am sure there are several other reasons, but the message provide insight into the reluctance of our fellow citizens from the Zambezi region to publicly criticise Hichilema.

In addition to denying the president the benefit of public feedback on his performance, the danger of this narrow minded or general collective regional thinking is that ethnic groups from other regions may in future find it difficult to vote for Hichilema or support a presidential candidate from the Zambezi region because of this herd mentality being shown by his supporters as well as the reluctance by those of us who hail from the same region to call out Hichilema’s governance excesses.

As an individual from the Zambezi region, who spoke out against Lungu’s presidency that was unduly dominated by Bembas and Easterners and marginalised Tongas and other ethnic groups from the Zambezi region, I have come to terms with the fact that in life, we live with the choices we make. Today, many Zambians have been reduced to choosing between eating well and sleeping well. As I did under Lungu and his predecessors, I have chosen sleeping well — and I am at peace. If my colleagues from the Zambezi region join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer have the ethnic card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred.

I do think that the fear of death is the ultimate weapon those who oppress us use against us. Securing victory over this fear is essential and necessary for true freedom. Without this degree of freedom, we have a price tag over our head. Freedom is the most expensive commodity on Earth, secured ultimately by our very lives. It is the loneliest state and yet the most truly alive state of being.

LAZ Must Stop Acting Like a Political Lapdog & Reclaim Its Objectivity

By Magret Mwanza

The recent move by the Law Association of Zambia to rush to the Constitutional Court to challenge the Speaker of the National Assembly over a figurative speech regarding Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 is not only premature, it is dangerously political, legally questionable, and ethically reckless.

Let us be clear, the Speaker merely stated that if the sponsor of the Bill, the Minister of Justice decides to resume the legislative process, then Parliament would proceed with the subsequent stages of the Bill. That statement is conditional, hypothetical, and procedural in nature.

Yet LAZ, without first seeking clarification from Parliament or the Speaker herself, opted to interpret the statement as an active defiance of the Constitutional Court’s earlier ruling and immediately sprinted to court. This was a grave error in judgment and a disturbing misrepresentation of LAZ’s mandate.

As an institution that claims to exist to advance the rule of law and constitutionalism, LAZ had the duty and, indeed the obligation to first exhaust all avenues of administrative engagement.

A simple written query or request for formal clarification from the Office of the Speaker would have sufficed.

This would have shown maturity, diligence, and fidelity to procedure. Instead, LAZ chose the nuclear option, litigation. One wonders, was this about legal principle or political performance?

The Constitution of Zambia is clear on how amendments must be handled. Article 79 mandates consultation and publication before the first reading, and the Constitutional Court rightly ruled that the process that led to the tabling of Bill No. 7 was flawed for lack of adequate public consultation.

The President himself deferred the Bill for further dialogue, effectively pressing the pause button on the process. This is where things currently stand. So, what exactly is LAZ suing over? A theoretical threat?

It is troubling that LAZ is increasingly being seen not as a neutral guardian of constitutional order but as a willing political tool, especially for opposition parties desperate to score points against the current government.

This is not the LAZ of old that inspired public confidence and institutional respect. Today’s LAZ appears to be descending into the abyss of partisan lawfare, choosing spectacle over substance and activism over analysis.

The role of LAZ must be distinguished from that of opposition parties. LAZ must not behave like the legal wing of political organizations that have failed to win public trust at the ballot box. By prematurely litigating over parliamentary procedures, especially hypothetical ones, LAZ undermines the integrity of both Parliament and the Judiciary.

It projects a posture of legal militancy rather than sober stewardship of the Constitution.

The rule of law is not served by courtroom theatrics or symbolic lawsuits. It is served by rigorous engagement, accurate interpretation of legal texts, and respect for institutional processes.

LAZ’s decision to drag the Speaker to court without seeking clarification was not just ill-advised, it was intellectually lazy and constitutionally unmerited. It reflects an eagerness to score political points rather than a desire to uphold the supremacy of the law.

Furthermore, LAZ’s approach sets a dangerous precedent. If every statement by a Speaker, Minister, or President is taken out of context and hauled before the courts without first seeking clarification, then Zambia’s democracy will collapse into paralysis. This is not how mature legal institutions behave. This is not how democratic societies thrive.

Yes, LAZ has a right to litigate. Yes, it must defend constitutionalism. But it must also exercise wisdom, restraint, and independence. It must rise above the fray of politics and act with honour. Otherwise, it risks becoming a lapdog of opposition propaganda, barking not when the law is breached but when it is politically convenient to do so.

By Amb Emmanuel Mwamba

Submit ZMMSA Audit Report to the National Assembly as Required by the law

Looting the Treasury; K16million Contract Guven to Unregistered Supplier

The Auditor-General is required to submit audit reports to both the President and the Speaker of the National Assembly, ensuring parliamentary oversight.

The Public Audit Act, particularly Act No. 29 of 2016, aims to enhance the independence and functions of the National Audit Office (NAO) and promote transparency and accountability in public administration through effective oversight and audit of public funds.

In this case the Special Audit conducted by PriceWaterHouse on behalf of the Auditor-General on Ministry of Health and on the Zambia Medicines and Medical Supplies Agency (ZMMSA) was only handed over to the President and Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security, Jack Mwiimbu informed the nation that a copy was given to Law Enforcement Agencies.

In the absence of a report being submitted to Parliament will likely result in a cover-up and selective prosecution.

Submit the Report to Parliament as required by the law.

Mabvuto Phiri writes ……✍️

Edgar Chagwa Lungu never renounced his status as former Head of State of Zambia.

Even when the law suspends the benefits of a former president who returns to active politics, the title or status of former president is not suspended.

He remains former president.

In fact, even after his benefits were suspended, ECL fondly and proudly signed his correspondences and addresses as the 6th president of Zambia and treasured this status until his death. .

Even in death, he remains the 6th president of Zambia.

This is not a personal and private title but an official state title in respect of the office he held.

Those who claim that ECL became a private person after his benefits were suspended should have asked ECL to drop his official statesman title of 6th president of Zambia if they truly wanted him to be a private person.

He should have made a pronouncement that he should never be addressed as 6th president of Zambia because he had become a private person.

That way, we would have stopped bothering his family.

Elias Chipimo Dismisses Claims of Political Comeback, Reaffirms Focus on Economic Empowerment

Former National Restoration Party (NAREP) President Elias Chipimo Jr. has rubbished circulating claims that he is returning to active politics, describing the reports as “false” and “damaging.”

In a strongly worded statement released on Monday, Chipimo clarified that he has not re-entered the political space nor is he planning to launch a new political party, contrary to what has been suggested on social media platforms in recent days.

“The statement circulating on social media claiming that I have returned to active politics and will soon be launching a new political party is false,” said Chipimo.

While he did not name specific individuals behind the misinformation, Chipimo hinted that he has suspicions about those responsible and their motives.

“It is not yet clear who originated the statement, although I have some idea as to the possible motives for doing so,” he said.

Chipimo, who left the political scene six years ago, emphasized that his current mission is centered on uplifting underserved communities through entrepreneurship and economic inclusion.

“My focus over the past 6 years since I left the political arena has been to apply my God-given talents towards building a better Zambia by raising the levels of excellence in private sector delivery, particularly at the entrepreneurial level,” he stated.

He further disclosed that he is considering legal action against those behind the viral claim, citing the personal and professional harm the statement has caused.

“While I reserve my right to report and take action against the originators of this story for the damage it has already caused me, I currently remain steadfastly committed to the work I embarked on when I left active politics.”

Chipimo’s remarks come just as he and his colleagues were celebrating the 30th anniversary of Corpus Legal Practitioners, the prestigious law firm he founded in 1995.

“It is unfortunate that the false statement began circulating on the day my colleagues and I were celebrating the 30th anniversary of Corpus Legal Practitioners… a firm I founded that has set a high bar for excellence and innovation in legal service delivery,” he noted

Chipimo underscored that his efforts remain dedicated to promoting economic ownership and access to generational wealth for all Zambians.

“This work is focused on delivering economic ownership and facilitating access to generational wealth at scale for all Zambians,” he affirmed.

July 15, 2025
©️ KUMWESU