There is no devil in Delimination: the Devil is Sishuwa Sishuwa and his ignorance- Zambia Watchdog

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).

1. Copperbelt – 22 constituencies (2.7m people)
2. Western – 19 (1.3m)
3. Eastern – 18 (2.4)
4. Southern – 18 (2.3m)
5. Central – 16 (2.2m)
6. Luapula – 15 (1.5m)
7. Lusaka – 13 (3m)
8. Northern – 13 (1.6)
9. Northwestern – 12 (1.2m)
10. 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.