*Why Sishuwa Sishuwa’s Predictions on Zambia’s 2026 Election Are Baseless and Politically. Short-Sighted*
*By Abuild Mubanga*
Sishuwa Sishuwa’s recent commentary on Zambia’s 2026 election is riddled with baseless conjecture, guesswork, and an obvious bias aimed at undermining President Hakainde Hichilema’s standing. What Sishuwa presents as analysis is instead a narrative fueled by selective interpretation, void of factual foundation, and driven more by desire than objective insight.
First, Sishuwa dismisses Hichilema’s re-election prospects as “wishful thinking,” asserting there is no empirical evidence to suggest he will secure a second term. However, this statement ignores the government’s significant strides in strengthening Zambia’s economy, stabilizing inflation, and restoring Zambia’s credibility on the international stage. President Hichilema inherited an economy crippled by debt and corruption under the Patriotic Front (PF), yet in a short time, his administration has focused on restoring fiscal discipline and repairing the damage done by his predecessor.
To suggest that these achievements have no bearing on the 2026 election outcome is to deliberately ignore the transformative impact this government has had. Sishuwa’s accusations that Hichilema is using state machinery to suppress opposition parties reveal another flaw in his analysis.
He cites alleged abuses, including the denial of public assembly for opposition parties and targeted arrests, without offering concrete evidence. It is disingenuous to portray routine law enforcement as political suppression. For instance, Zambia’s justice system operates independently and is expected to enforce laws impartially.
*The arrests Sishuwa references likely relate to cases where laws were violated, not an orchestrated attack on political rivals. Further, his claim that the government manipulated PF’s internal structure to facilitate by-elections is speculative at best and ignores PF’s own history of internal factionalism and mismanagement,* which has left it weak and fragmented. If Sishuwa insists on accountability, he must demand it equally across political lines, recognizing that no one should be above the law.
The claim that Hichilema’s administration is “packing” the Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Constitutional Court with loyalists is equally baseless. Every leader has the prerogative to make appointments that align with their vision for the country, provided these appointments adhere to constitutional guidelines and democratic norms.
Sishuwa’s insinuation that these appointments are somehow part of a plot to subvert democracy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of governance. When Hichilema assumed office, the judiciary and electoral bodies were already deeply tainted by a decade of PF influence. His duty, therefore, is to restore these institutions’ independence and public trust, not to preserve PF appointees who may hold entrenched biases against his administration.
Sishuwa’s narrative around the so-called absence of viable opposition alternatives also reveals his contradictions. If Hichilema’s popularity is truly dwindling and the opposition is gaining traction, as he implies, then why resort to wild claims about political repression? The truth is simple: the opposition lacks credibility, cohesion, and a compelling alternative vision. The PF has, time and again, shown that it is more focused on internal strife and division than on offering Zambia a credible path forward. To assume that Hichilema is attacking a “strong opposition” misrepresents reality; in truth, the opposition is its own worst enemy, plagued by scandal and infighting that precludes it from being taken seriously as a governmental alternative.
In his analysis, he attempts to cast former president Edgar Lungu as a significant factor in the 2026 election, overlooking the fact that Lungu’s legacy is deeply tarnished by accusations of rampant corruption, economic mismanagement, and the erosion of democratic principles. Zambia’s electorate has not forgotten the failures of the Lungu administration, and any attempt by him to re-enter the political arena will likely invigorate Hichilema’s base rather than weaken it.
The Zambian people understand what Lungu’s return would entail: a revival of the same disastrous policies that nearly led the nation to economic collapse. The assumption that Lungu’s influence remains a decisive factor is not only misleading but an insult to the intelligence of Zambian voters who have already rejected his leadership.
He further attempts to portray Hichilema’s administration as insecure, arguing that the government is “psyching” Zambians to accept a supposedly inevitable victory through voter manipulation. He fails to acknowledge that Hichilema’s support is built on a foundation of accountability, economic reform, and a commitment to transparency. These are not hollow promises but a practical response to the needs of the Zambian people, who have witnessed substantive change under this administration. While challenges remain, it is dishonest to suggest that Hichilema’s re-election bid is based solely on a lack of competition; it is instead rooted in a track record that contrasts sharply with the PF’s failures.
Sishuwa’s portrayal of Zambian voters as passive participants in a flawed democracy is particularly troubling. Zambians are politically astute, informed, and deeply invested in their nation’s future. They have consistently shown a willingness to hold leaders accountable through the ballot box.
The notion that voters will somehow accept a “rigged” election ignores both the resilience of Zambia’s democratic fabric and the vigilance of its citizenry. Should Hichilema win in 2026, it will not be due to voter suppression or manipulation but a recognition of his government’s efforts to restore national pride, economic stability, and a sense of purpose that was lost under PF.
Lastly, Sishuwa’s lament about supposedly regretting his vote for Hichilema in 2021 is a telling reflection of his misplaced expectations rather than an indictment of the president. Hichilema was elected to address systemic issues, including a debt crisis, governance challenges, and a lack of accountability that festered under PF.
While Hichilema’s administration may not have achieved all its goals within a mere few years, the reforms underway demonstrate a clear commitment to a better Zambia. If anything, his presidency marks a return to integrity and accountability in governance—a far cry from the corruption-laden regime he succeeded.
*Ultimately, Sishuwa’s article is a blend of exaggerated fears, personal grievances, and wishful thinking that fails to offer any viable solutions or realistic alternatives.*
Rather than providing a constructive critique, he succumbs to a defeatist narrative that disrespects the progress Zambia has made. The 2026 election is far from decided, but Zambia deserves a balanced discourse that acknowledges reality over rhetoric.
Zambia’s future depends on leaders who are committed to unity, transparency, and economic progress—not on naysayers who peddle baseless fears.