The Danger of Ambiguity: How the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Risks Undermining Democratic Tenure Limits in Zambia

By Dr Lawrence Mwelwa

In democratic systems, the term “term” is more than a legal definition—it is the very mechanism that regulates the rhythm of political accountability. It is how we measure leadership, limit power, and renew the people’s mandate. Yet, in the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, 2025, a dangerously ambiguous definition of this foundational word threatens to erode the very spirit of democratic governance.

At the heart of this controversy lies the newly proposed definition in Article 266, which states that a term begins when Parliament first sits after a general election and ends only when Parliament is dissolved. On the surface, this appears benign—technical even. But in practice, this formulation plants the seeds for constitutional instability, manipulation, and an unchecked extension of political power.

A Definition Without a Clock

The problem is simple yet profound: this definition is not time-bound. Instead of anchoring the term to a strict five-year limit—as democracies typically do—the amendment leaves the ending of a term to the event of Parliament’s dissolution. It is not bound to the calendar, but to political discretion. That is a dangerous shift.

Under the current constitution, a five-year limit on tenure exists. But this new wording introduces a legal loophole: as long as Parliament is not dissolved, the term continues, even if five years have elapsed. This creates an environment where a government can legally justify overstaying by simply not triggering dissolution. The President could, under a pretense of stability or crisis, keep Parliament sitting, and by extension, extend executive rule without elections.

Presidential Powers and Parliamentary Control

It gets worse. Article 81(5) of the amendment grants the President the authority to dissolve Parliament if it becomes dysfunctional. While this may sound like a necessary check, it is riddled with subjectivity. What defines “failure to perform legislative functions”? Who determines it? Although the amendment defers this decision to the Constitutional Court, we must not be naive. In a politicized environment, even judicial mechanisms can be pressured or manipulated.

In effect, this gives the President undue leverage over the lifespan of Parliament, enabling the Executive to time dissolutions and elections to suit political advantage—undermining the electoral calendar, and thereby the will of the people.

A Pandora’s Box of Succession Loopholes

Then comes the deeper issue of succession. The amendment is silent on whether a person who assumes office mid-term—be it President, MP, Mayor, or Councillor—serves a full term or a partial one. This was the core of the 2021 eligibility debate involving President Edgar Lungu, where the courts had to rule on whether his first partial tenure counted as a full term. By not clarifying this in the amendment, Zambia risks repeating history and opening the door for unlimited re-election arguments under the guise of unexpired terms.

Without clarity, someone could serve multiple consecutive terms under the justification that they were merely “completing” others’ mandates. This opens up Zambia to the danger of perpetual incumbency—a fate that history shows often ends in political crisis.

The People Lose Their Say

The ripple effects are not limited to Parliament and the Presidency. In the amendment, provisions allow for political parties to replace MPs, mayors, or councillors who vacate their office—without returning to the people through a by-election. If this process occurs within 180 days of a general election, a party may appoint a replacement. This weakens democratic participation. What was meant to be a system governed by citizen choice is increasingly becoming one defined by party decree.

The logic behind this seems administrative—perhaps to save costs—but the consequences are democratic. When the people lose their right to choose, even temporarily, the foundations of representative democracy are shaken.

Conclusion: Codifying Uncertainty is Courting Danger

Zambia’s constitutional amendment bill of 2025, in its current form, replaces precision with ambiguity. It does not strengthen democratic tenure—it muddies the waters. It allows term definitions to be manipulated. It gives the President the keys to Parliament’s survival. It fails to address succession rules clearly. And it allows for public offices to be filled by party fiat rather than public vote.

If the drafters of this bill aim to protect democracy, then they must do more than add reforms. They must ensure clarity, consistency, and constraint. For without clear boundaries on power, even the best constitutions become tools of entrenchment rather than empowerment.

Let us not codify uncertainty. Let us clarify it—before it is too late.

ELVIS NKANDU SAYS NO OPPOSITION CAN UNSEAT UPND IN 2026

By Nelson Zulu

UPND Deputy Spokesperson Elvis Nkandu has charged that no opposition party can unseat the ruling party in next year’s general elections.

Mr. Nkandu cites the party’s impressive track record, having fulfilled over 80% of its 2021 election pledges, as a key factor in its confidence.

He tells Phoenix News that the party’s achievements, including restoring salary increments, reversing employment moratoriums, implementing free education, and increasing Constituency Development Fund -CDF-, have endeared it to citizens.

Mr. Nkandu has affirmed government’s commitment to delivering on its promises, ensuring continued socio-economic benefits for Zambians.

He has acknowledged that while the electorate will have the final say in the 2026 polls, the UPND’s performance makes it the clear frontrunner.

PHOENIX NEWS

The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, 2025 pros and cons

By Dr. Lawrence Mwelwa

The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduces a number of commendable reforms that deserve recognition. The proposal to adopt a mixed-member proportional representation system is a progressive step that promises to enhance inclusivity in Parliament. By allocating proportional seats specifically for women, youth, and persons with disabilities, the amendment addresses historical inequalities and aims to broaden participation in national governance. Furthermore, aligning the terms of Parliament and councils to five years and standardizing procedures around electoral petitions reflect a genuine effort to streamline Zambia’s democratic processes and improve electoral efficiency.

However, despite these positive strides, the amendment’s redefinition of the term “term” in Article 266 poses a serious and dangerous constitutional loophole. By stating that a term begins when Parliament first sits and ends only when Parliament is dissolved—without enforcing the five-year limit already stated in Article 81—the amendment opens the door for abuse of executive power.

It gives the sitting President disproportionate influence over the political calendar. As long as Parliament is not dissolved, the government may argue that the term continues—regardless of how many years have passed. This undermines the fixed electoral cycle and could legally justify overstaying in power.

Worse still, the amendment strengthens presidential authority to dissolve Parliament on subjective grounds, such as when the legislature is deemed incapable of performing its duties.

Though the Constitutional Court is meant to provide oversight, the language used lacks clarity and enforceable standards, leaving room for potential manipulation. In an environment where the separation of powers is delicate, such vagueness can easily be exploited.

Equally concerning is the amendment’s silence on how partial terms are treated. If someone assumes office due to a vacancy—whether as President, Member of Parliament, or Mayor—will that time count as a full term? This very ambiguity led to legal controversy in the case of former President Edgar Lungu, whose eligibility for re-election became the subject of national debate. Rather than resolving that confusion, the current bill reproduces it, thereby risking future political instability and legal gridlock.

Additionally, by allowing political parties to replace elected officials without a by-election within 180 days of a general election, the bill limits voter agency. This move, while possibly aimed at administrative efficiency, weakens democratic participation and promotes the consolidation of power within party structures rather than with the electorate.

In sum, while the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduces reforms that are progressive and inclusive on the surface, its redefinition of the term “term” and the powers it grants to the executive pose significant threats to constitutional democracy.

For Zambia’s future to remain firmly rooted in democratic governance, the language around tenure, succession, and electoral timing must be precise, transparent, and safeguarded against manipulation. Democracy thrives on clarity—not convenience.

THE UPND’S CONSTITUTIONAL ILLUSION OF INCLUSION AMENDMENTS

By Thompson K Luzendi 

The UPND government’s Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is a masterclass in political deception. Under the pretence of promoting inclusivity, the ruling party has crafted a constitutional amendment that offers women, youths, and persons with disabilities nothing more than crumbs while quietly expanding its own power. This is not reform; it is tokenism dressed up as progress, and it exposes the UPND’s hypocrisy in stark disbelief, no one thought they would sink this low. 

The Bill’s most touted feature is its introduction of a mixed-member proportional representation system, supposedly designed to ensure fair representation for marginalized groups (women, youth and people with disabilities). But the numbers betray the UPND government’s fake assurance on inclusion, because this is a smokescreen. Lets look at the proposed inclusion by figures;

1. Women: A paltry 20 seats (just 8% of Parliament) are allocated under proportional representation. This is an insult to Zambian women, who make up more than half the population and have long demanded at least 50% representation. Instead, the UPND offers a fraction of that, ensuring women remain on the political periphery. 

2. Youths: The Bill reserves a meager 12 seats for youths, which is less than 5% of Parliament. This is not inclusion fellow citizens; it is a cynical attempt to pacify a demographic the UPND fears but refuses to genuinely include. 

3. Persons with disabilities: The most glaring insult is the allocation of just 3 seats, barely 1% of Parliament for persons with disabilities. This is not inclusion; it is charity, a performative gesture designed to tick a box rather than dismantle systemic exclusion. 

Meanwhile, the Bill expands constituency-based seats from 156 to 211, a move that overwhelmingly benefits entrenched political elites, most of them men while relegating marginalized groups to a symbolic afterthought. This is not an accident; it is a deliberate strategy to maintain the status quo while pretending otherwise.  There is nothing for the women, youth in people with disabilities in this proposed constitutional amendment.

This is the same UPND that campaigned on promises of a “new dawn” and greater inclusion. President Hakainde Hichilema once posed as a champion of diversity, yet his government’s constitutional amendments reveal a shocking indifference to real representation. Where is the boldness seen in Namibia, where 46% of parliamentary seats are held by women? Where is the ambition of Senegal, where 42% of local council seats are reserved for women? Instead, the women, youth and people with disabilities get scrap and the UPND expects applause. 

Worse still, the Bill does nothing to address the structural barriers that keep marginalized groups out of politics. There are no provisions for campaign financing support, no quotas for party candidate lists, and no safeguards against discrimination in elections. This is inclusion in name but only a hollow gesture meant to shield the UPND from criticism while changing nothing.  This is tantamount to tokenism for women, youth and people with disabilities.

Tokenism is a well-worn tactic of authoritarian regimes. In Uganda, Yoweri Museveni’s government touts gender parity in rhetoric while maintaining a male-dominated Parliament. In Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF celebrates “youth empowerment” while systematically excluding young voices from decision-making. The UPND is following the same script, using the language of progress to mask its refusal to share power. 

Zambians must reject this charade of a constitutional amendment. If the UPND truly believed in inclusion, it would have proposed for at least 50% representation for women in line with regional best practices. reserve meaningful seats for youths and persons with disabilities, not token numbers and remove barriers to entry, such as unfair nomination fees and party gatekeeping. 

Instead, the UPND government is offering a constitutional amendment that consolidates power for the few while throwing symbolic bones to the many. Zambians especially women, youths, and persons with disabilities. We must see this deception for what it is and demand better.

The UPND’s “new dawn” is now a dawn of empty promises. We call on all MP,s to reject this proposed constitutional amendment as it is a threat to democracy.
#zambianwhistleblower #ZWB
©️Zambian Whistleblower

Laura Miti’s Political Forecast: Based on What, Exactly?

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

I recently watched a program on DJ Showstar where civil society activist and President Hakainde Hichilema’s keen supporter, Madam Laura Miti, confidently proclaimed, “The President will win next year’s general election, but a lot of his MPs will lose.”

While she has every right to express her views, one must ask: what credible basis does she have for making such a bold and contradictory forecast? From where the majority of Zambians stand today, President Hakainde Hichilema is not riding a wave of popularity. He is drowning in a sea of public frustration and disappointment. No amount of intellectual guesswork can cover up that fact.

Let us look at the hard truths, one by one.

1. Economic Collapse, Not Recovery What was touted as an economic revival has instead become a nightmare for ordinary citizens. Fuel prices have skyrocketed. Electricity tariffs are crushing families. The price of mealie meal has gone beyond the reach of the average household. The Kwacha continues to lose value, and inflation is eroding incomes daily. This is not recovery; it is a full-blown economic crisis. And the blame rests with the very administration Madam Miti believes will be rewarded at the polls.

2. Abnormal Load-Shedding and Its Impact On top of everything else, Zambia is being battered by prolonged and abnormal hours of load-shedding, with some areas going without electricity for up to 16 hours a day. This is more than an inconvenience; it is a national emergency. Businesses are shuttering, especially in the informal sector, which forms the backbone of the economy. Barber shops, welding operations, saloons, butcheries, and internet cafés are grinding to a halt. Productivity in factories has dropped. Cold storage failures are causing spoilage of goods, while households struggle with food preservation and security. Students are unable to study, hospitals are strained, and even basic daily routines are disrupted. Load-shedding is a blow to the economy and a psychological weight on an already exhausted population. Yet, we are told to believe this government still commands strong electoral favor?

3. Broken Promises, Betrayed People Zambians were promised free education, a leaner government, job creation, and economic relief. Today, schools are overcrowded and underfunded. “Free education” is riddled with hidden costs. Youth unemployment remains rampant. Government structures are bloated and inefficient. What we were told would be a “New Dawn” has turned out to be a sunset on hope and trust.

4. A Democracy Under Siege Opposition voices are silenced under the excuse of “security concerns,” while UPND campaigns and rallies proceed without interference. Police tear gas is reserved for those who dare to speak out against the regime. This is not public safety; it is political suppression. Zambians are not ignorant. They see the hypocrisy, and they resent it deeply.

5. Cyber Crimes Act: Silencing the Masses The amended Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, far from being a tool for protection, has become a blunt instrument of censorship. It is being used to harass online critics, muzzle digital dissent, and tighten the government’s grip on information. What we are witnessing is not safety; it is surveillance. Not justice; it is control.

6. Cracks Within the UPND Internally, the party is unraveling. Grassroots members are sidelined. Regional tensions are rising. Factionalism is festering. Accusations of nepotism and elitism abound. The unity that once energized the UPND has been replaced by whispers of betrayal and internal sabotage.

7. Arrogance in High Places Once humble leaders now brush aside public concerns with disdain. Citizens demanding answers are labeled “bitter,” “frustrated,” or “sponsored.” There is no humility, no accountability, and certainly no urgency to fix what is broken. Instead of listening, the government mocks. Instead of acting, it lectures.

So Again, Madam Miti, On What Basis? How does the head win when the body is decaying? In our political reality, MPs draw strength from the President, not the reverse. If the President is rejected, so is his party. If the people are angry at the system, they vote against its leader. Let us be honest. The President is not separated from the failures of his MPs. He is the architect of the system they operate in. Trying to isolate him from their unpopularity is not only naive; it is intellectually dishonest.

Zambians are not waiting for analysis from a TV studio. They are living this crisis daily. They do not need forecasts. They need food, jobs, electricity, and truth. They will not be silenced by spin or swayed by elite commentary.

The 2026 election will be a referendum not just on the UPND but on the President himself. If things stay the way they are, no clever soundbite will stop the political judgment that is coming.

Let us call it what it is: the people are fed up, and they are ready to speak—not on talk shows, but through the ballot box.

John 8:32 “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”