UPND faces a crucial test: Why can’t they respect their own Constitution?
By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma
THE United Party for National Development (UPND) is at a moment of reckoning. According to the party’s own constitution, the tenure of President Hakainde Hichilema and the entire National Management Committee (NMC) expired on February 13, 2026.
Yet, the party leadership continues to operate as if nothing has happened. This is not just an oversight—it is a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the democratic principles the party claims to uphold.
The political reality, according to the UPND Constitution, is crystal clear:
Articles 56 & 60: Require the National Management Committee to be elected by the General Assembly every five years, ensuring accountability and proper representation for all party members.
Article 75: Explicitly states that the Party President “shall be elected by the General Assembly every five years,” reaffirming the party’s commitment to regular leadership renewal.
Article 79: While this article allows a sitting Republican President to stand for re-election indefinitely, it does not give the party a license to ignore holding a General Assembly election. Eligibility to run is not an exemption from the constitutional requirement to elect leadership.
This is not merely an internal party matter; it is a national concern. Under the Republican Constitution, Article 60(2) (f), political parties are legally obligated to respect the rights of their members and uphold democracy through free, fair, and regular internal elections. By failing to convene a General Assembly, the UPND is in direct violation of both its own constitution and Zambia’s supreme law.
The party’s justification—that it will not be “pressurised” into holding a convention—is weak, legally indefensible, and dangerously arrogant. Claiming that the current leadership remains “legitimate until successors are chosen” is a fallacy. This defiance exposes the party to potential sanctions from the Registrar of Societies and sends a toxic message to Zambians: that laws, rules, and democratic processes are optional.
The burning question is unavoidable: why can’t the UPND respect its own constitution? Why has a party that presents itself as a champion of democracy chosen to sidestep its own rules? If the party cannot uphold internal democracy, how can Zambians trust it to protect democracy at the national level?
For the sake of the party’s credibility and the integrity of Zambian democracy, the leadership must act immediately. The time for excuses, legal gymnastics, and delaying tactics is over. The UPND must convene a General Assembly, elect new office bearers, and restore constitutional order. Anything less is a betrayal of the party’s own principles, a threat to internal democracy, and a danger to the nation’s confidence in political institutions.
This is a defining moment. The UPND can either choose to respect its constitution, demonstrate accountability, and restore its credibility—or it can continue to operate in lawlessness, arrogance, and institutional decay. Zambians are watching. The world is watching. And history will not forgive a party that refuses to uphold the principles it preaches.
The ultimate question remains: will the UPND rise to the challenge, or will it crumble under the weight of its own constitutional hypocrisy?
