President Hakainde Hichilema yesterday said there is a certain section that feels entitled in the country, and were attacking him because of the region where he comes from.
He wondered why there was so much hatred against him, to the point where people wanted to go on the streets to protest against his constitutional amendment process, when the same people allegedly did not oppose the other presidents who amended the constitution.
The OASIS Forum, made up of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB), Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ) among others, have announced that they would conduct protests on November 28, over the constitutional amendments, which they argue were being done hastily done in order to benefit the President and the ruling UPND as the country heads into the 2026 general elections.
But President Hichilema warned against such a move.
“What if you go in the streets and find somebody who is stronger than you?” he asked.
At one point, the President said, “the level of hatred against me is shocking”, and lamented that he did not choose where to be born.
He warned that no thuggery sitting behind a Church will be allowed.
Clearly, Hichilema is unsettled over the planned protests for November 28, 2025.
And we totally disagree with him when he claims that he is being opposed over the constitution because of the region he comes from. Hichilema can’t use his region to try to shield himself from being held accountable over a national undertaking he wants to foist through. A document whose process was already ruled irregular by the highest court, the Constitutional Court.
And he is not the first president to be opposed over the constitutional making process. The same OASIS Forum he is castigating today actually played a critical role in the early 2000s when they stopped then president Frederick Chiluba from amending the constitution so that he could run for a third term of office. Chiluba did not claim that he was being opposed because he was Bemba speaking and came from Luapula, or because he was short and brown. He did not claim that he was being opposed because he had ‘big ears’ or because he was a ‘kachema’. And when Zambians rejected Edgar Lungu’s Bill 10 he did not cry foul that he was being opposed because he came from Eastern Province, or because he was thin and tall. Levy Mwanawasa also did not cry foul that he was opposed because he came from Copperbelt rural when his National Constitutional Conference was opposed by Zambians.
When the PF defeated the Constitutional Conference when the same came for a vote under Rupiah Banda, he did not cry foul that his administration’s amendments had been defeated because he came from Eastern Province. Why is Hichilema always fascinated in bringing in the issue of his region whenever he is confronted on national matters? This is the same Hichilema who after repeated election loses claimed that he would have been President already if not on account of where he came from. Zambians must not allow Hichilema to tacitly inject regionalism and try to appeal to regional sensitivities whenever he is confronted on matters of public interest.
And the amendment processes that were conducted by the other presidents need to be understood in the context that they were made. It was in the interest of the nation for Dr Kenneth Kaunda’s administration to amend the constitution for the return of multipartism in the 1990s, and that is what the overwhelming majority wanted. And Dr Kaunda did not threaten the people who were speaking for the return of multipartism that ‘they were going to meet someone stronger than them on the streets.’ He allowed the people to freely express themselves without inciting his supporters to rise against those who were speaking for a return to multipartism.
Dr Kaunda realised that it was his duty as president to protect the civil liberties of people. What Hichilema should be doing is encouraging the protesters to go ahead and express their views in whatever form, including protests, as long as the same is not violent. He swore to defend the Constitution which upholds these same rights when he was taking the oath of office. And if there are those who are stronger that the protesters on the streets, his job is to warn the same stronger ones to respect the rights guaranteed to all the citizens in the constitution.
And when he says that the other presidents were not opposed when they sought amendments to the constitution, which is a total lie, as they too where opposed when it was viewed that their processes ran counter to to the interests of majority Zambians. And even if by hook or crook, through the arrogance of numbers, some managed to pass the retrogressive amendments such as the one that barred Dr Kaunda from running for office under Chiluba’s administration, is that something Hichilema should be proud of?
And more on the issue of amendments, the amendment passed in 2016, despite its many weaknesses, on the whole it was a progressive piece of legislation which brought in very important clauses such as the 50%+1, and running mate clause among other important pieces.
However, in Hichilema’s mind, any constitutional amendment that comes up no matter how crooked it is, and no matter how crooked some of the processes he is referring to, the same must pass because they also passed under other presidents. What kind of thinking is this? What kind of methodical unreasonableness is this?
We urge the OASIS Forum and all the well meaning Zambians not to yield to Hichilema’s threats over a matter of such public importance which he wants to bulldoze through. He wants to be allowed to increase constituencies to favour his party, when the country is clearly struggling economically, and that no one should speak against such insensitivity because they will be accused of attacking him because of the region he comes from.
He is talking about dialogue. How many times has he met the key stakeholders and still persisted on the same course that is being opposed by Zambians?
Actually, he started this same process over very questionable grounds when he claimed that he had agreed with the youths and women to amend the constitution. Which youths or women he was referring to, only he knows.
By Daily Revelation Editor
President Hakainde Hichilema yesterday said there is a certain section that feels entitled in the country, and were attacking him because of the region where he comes from.
He wondered why there was so much hatred against him, to the point where people wanted to go on the streets to protest against his constitutional amendment process, when the same people allegedly did not oppose the other presidents who amended the constitution.
The OASIS Forum, made up of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB), Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ) among others, have announced that they would conduct protests on November 28, over the constitutional amendments, which they argue were being done hastily done in order to benefit the President and the ruling UPND as the country heads into the 2026 general elections.
But President Hichilema warned against such a move.
“What if you go in the streets and find somebody who is stronger than you?” he asked.
At one point, the President said, “the level of hatred against me is shocking”, and lamented that he did not choose where to be born.
He warned that no thuggery sitting behind a Church will be allowed.
Clearly, Hichilema is unsettled over the planned protests for November 28, 2025.
And we totally disagree with him when he claims that he is being opposed over the constitution because of the region he comes from. Hichilema can’t use his region to try to shield himself from being held accountable over a national undertaking he wants to foist through. A document whose process was already ruled irregular by the highest court, the Constitutional Court.
And he is not the first president to be opposed over the constitutional making process. The same OASIS Forum he is castigating today actually played a critical role in the early 2000s when they stopped then president Frederick Chiluba from amending the constitution so that he could run for a third term of office. Chiluba did not claim that he was being opposed because he was Bemba speaking and came from Luapula, or because he was short and brown. He did not claim that he was being opposed because he had ‘big ears’ or because he was a ‘kachema’. And when Zambians rejected Edgar Lungu’s Bill 10 he did not cry foul that he was being opposed because he came from Eastern Province, or because he was thin and tall. Levy Mwanawasa also did not cry foul that he was opposed because he came from Copperbelt rural when his National Constitutional Conference was opposed by Zambians.
When the PF defeated the Constitutional Conference when the same came for a vote under Rupiah Banda, he did not cry foul that his administration’s amendments had been defeated because he came from Eastern Province. Why is Hichilema always fascinated in bringing in the issue of his region whenever he is confronted on national matters? This is the same Hichilema who after repeated election loses claimed that he would have been President already if not on account of where he came from. Zambians must not allow Hichilema to tacitly inject regionalism and try to appeal to regional sensitivities whenever he is confronted on matters of public interest.
And the amendment processes that were conducted by the other presidents need to be understood in the context that they were made. It was in the interest of the nation for Dr Kenneth Kaunda’s administration to amend the constitution for the return of multipartism in the 1990s, and that is what the overwhelming majority wanted. And Dr Kaunda did not threaten the people who were speaking for the return of multipartism that ‘they were going to meet someone stronger than them on the streets.’ He allowed the people to freely express themselves without inciting his supporters to rise against those who were speaking for a return to multipartism.
Dr Kaunda realised that it was his duty as president to protect the civil liberties of people. What Hichilema should be doing is encouraging the protesters to go ahead and express their views in whatever form, including protests, as long as the same is not violent. He swore to defend the Constitution which upholds these same rights when he was taking the oath of office. And if there are those who are stronger that the protesters on the streets, his job is to warn the same stronger ones to respect the rights guaranteed to all the citizens in the constitution.
And when he says that the other presidents were not opposed when they sought amendments to the constitution, which is a total lie, as they too where opposed when it was viewed that their processes ran counter to to the interests of majority Zambians. And even if by hook or crook, through the arrogance of numbers, some managed to pass the retrogressive amendments such as the one that barred Dr Kaunda from running for office under Chiluba’s administration, is that something Hichilema should be proud of?
And more on the issue of amendments, the amendment passed in 2016, despite its many weaknesses, on the whole it was a progressive piece of legislation which brought in very important clauses such as the 50%+1, and running mate clause among other important pieces.
However, in Hichilema’s mind, any constitutional amendment that comes up no matter how crooked it is, and no matter how crooked some of the processes he is referring to, the same must pass because they also passed under other presidents. What kind of thinking is this? What kind of methodical unreasonableness is this?
We urge the OASIS Forum and all the well meaning Zambians not to yield to Hichilema’s threats over a matter of such public importance which he wants to bulldoze through. He wants to be allowed to increase constituencies to favour his party, when the country is clearly struggling economically, and that no one should speak against such insensitivity because they will be accused of attacking him because of the region he comes from.
He is talking about dialogue. How many times has he met the key stakeholders and still persisted on the same course that is being opposed by Zambians?
Actually, he started this same process over very questionable grounds when he claimed that he had agreed with the youths and women to amend the constitution. Which youths or women he was referring to, only he knows.
Related
You can share this post!
Banda describes her removal from acting DG position at ZAMMSA as beautiful
Hichilema accuses protest organisers over constitution of hiding behind ethnicity
Related Articles
Indiscriminate Police checkpoints
Jito’s observation on chaos in Middle East threatening…
Electoral Promises