L
The devil in delimitation: why Hichilema is desperate to create new constituencies
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
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. Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons why Hichilema is dying to create additional constituencies.
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 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. 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. 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.
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, Northwestern, 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. 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.
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. 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. However, according to Article 59 of the Constitution, size and geographical spread of constituencies are unimportant factors to consider when delimitating the boundaries constituencies. 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. 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: 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) The implication of this data is twofold. 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 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: “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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
