When Chiefs Choose Sides: Why the Endorsement of HH by Southern Province Traditional Leaders Is a Dangerous Precedent- Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

When Chiefs Choose Sides: Why the Endorsement of HH by Southern Province Traditional Leaders Is a Dangerous Precedent

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

I recently watched a video broadcast by ZNBC in which several traditional leaders from Southern Province openly endorsed President Hakainde Hichilema’s candidature for the 2026 General Election. I was not only disappointed; I was alarmed. This public show of political allegiance by custodians of our culture is not a benign gesture. It is a breach of constitutional principle, a distortion of tradition, and a troubling threat to the health of Zambia’s democracy.

1. A Clear Violation of the Constitution

Let us begin with the law. Article 168(2) of the Zambian Constitution is unequivocal:

> “A chief shall not be partisan and shall not participate in partisan politics.”

This is not a suggestion. It is a legal directive. The Constitution explicitly bars traditional leaders from participating in politics, precisely to preserve their impartiality and protect their role as non-partisan guardians of unity. Chiefs are not politicians. They are entrusted with the sacred responsibility of serving all their subjects, regardless of who they vote for.

Endorsing a sitting President who is seeking re-election is not a passive act. It is active political participation. It is partisan. And it violates not only the Constitution but also the public trust.

2. Erosion of Cultural and Moral Authority

Traditional leaders derive their legitimacy from moral neutrality and cultural continuity. When they wade into political waters, they muddy that legitimacy. They stop being symbols of unity and become agents of division.

What message does it send to their subjects who support other parties? Are they still welcome in the palace? Are their voices still valid? The chieftaincy cannot function as a neutral arbiter while wearing the campaign colors of a political party.

This endorsement is not only divisive; it is corrosive. It erodes centuries of respect and credibility that traditional institutions have painstakingly built. Chiefs are supposed to be the last refuge of fairness, not the front line of electioneering.

3. Dangerous Political Consequences

The political ramifications are even more troubling. Coming from a region that is often simplistically portrayed as a political stronghold of one party, such endorsements reinforce dangerous narratives of ethnic or regional loyalty. They deepen the perception of tribal politics and threaten national cohesion.

Worse still, they create undue influence over voters. In many rural areas, the word of a chief carries enormous weight. When a chief endorses a candidate, it can feel like a command rather than a choice, particularly in communities where questioning traditional authority is culturally taboo.

This undermines the principle of free and fair elections. It compromises the integrity of the vote. And it sets a disturbing precedent where traditional leadership is used as a political tool rather than a unifying force.

Conclusion: Chiefs Must Choose Culture or Campaigns

This is more than a single political endorsement. It is a test of our democratic maturity. Do we want a Zambia where every institution is politicized, or do we want spaces that rise above the noise of election cycles?

Our traditional leaders must decide who they are: custodians of heritage or participants in political theatre. They cannot be both.

If we allow this trend to go unchecked, we risk turning the chieftaincy into an arm of political parties. In doing so, we destroy one of the few remaining pillars of non-partisan unity in this country.

Zambia does not need chiefs who campaign. Zambia needs chiefs who counsel, who unify, who protect, and who lead all of us.

Let them return to that calling before it is too late.