PATRIOTIC Fornt (PF) vice president Given Lubinda’s remarks on why President Hakainde Hichilema risks losing his Community House after leaving office have ignited a national debate lately, and rightfully so. This is an issue that has been conveniently ignored for too long, yet it carries serious legal, financial and security implications for the nation.
Let’s be clear: HH’s refusal to move into State House was not just a personal preference; it was a blatant violation of protocol, an abuse of public resources and a reckless move that compromised Zambia’s national security. The law is very clear: the President of the Republic of Zambia is supposed to reside at State House. By choosing to operate from his private residence, HH effectively turned a personal property into a quasi-State House, and in doing so, he must now account for every ngwee spent on upgrading and securing that premises.
The financial implications alone are staggering. How much has the government spent on security infrastructure upgrades at Community House? What sort of intelligence tools and surveillance systems have been installed to ensure the President remains on top of national affairs? And most importantly, what happens to these installations after HH leaves office? Should taxpayers continue funding a residence that is not a public asset? These are legitimate questions that must be answered. Lastly, what is the daily cost of trekking from Community House to state House?
Beyond the financial burden, there is a much graver concern: the potential national security risks posed by HH’s decision. Community House has now become an alternative presidential nerve centre, raising the question of whether it has been linked to Nkwazi House – the official residence of the President. If so, this poses a long-term risk to future administrations, as intelligence and security systems at Nkwazi House could be compromised by continued surveillance from Community House. Has HH effectively weaponised his personal home to maintain an intelligence advantage over future governments? If so, this would be an unprecedented abuse of power.
The possibility that Community House could become a future nuisance to other presidents cannot be ignored. HH has set a precedent that could embolden future leaders to do the same, ultimately rendering State House obsolete and leading to unnecessary expenditures on multiple presidential residences. If this is allowed to continue, Zambia will be footing bills for multiple high-security presidential homes -something the country cannot afford.
Given the seriousness of this matter, Hon Lubinda’s remarks must not be dismissed as mere political rhetoric. They raise fundamental questions about governance, accountability and the rule of law. The next administration must conduct a full audit of the expenses incurred at Community House and, if necessary, prosecute HH for abuse of office. A sitting president cannot be allowed to turn a private residence into an unofficial State House, spend taxpayers’ money on it and then walk away without consequences.
This is not just about HH – it’s about protecting the integrity of Zambia’s presidency and ensuring that such recklessness is never repeated. If the law was broken, HH must face the consequences in future. If public funds were abused, every ngwee must be recovered. And if Community House is indeed a security risk, steps must be taken to neutralise its threat to future governments.
Lubinda’s words were not just politically expedient; they were a necessary wake-up call. Zambia cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer.
Chali Ngalande is a political commentator.
