Public jobs must not become campaign gifts
By
Professor Cephas Lumina
President Hakainde Hichilema’s promises of employment to nurses and teachers attending United Party for National Development (UPND) rallies may appear compassionate. But when public jobs are offered alongside appeals for votes, they challenge the country’s Constitution and Electoral Code of Conduct, raise significant concerns regarding electoral bribery, political discrimination, and merit-based recruitment, and expose the Electoral Commission of Zambia’s apparent reluctance to enforce the law.
The problem is not job creation
THERE IS nothing improper about a government creating jobs. The country urgently needs more nurses in health facilities which are understaffed, more teachers for classrooms that are overcrowded, and a fair route into employment for thousands of qualified young people.
Nor is it wrong for an incumbent President to base his campaign on his government’s record. President Hakainde Hichilema has the right to remind voters that his administration has recruited tens of thousands of teachers and health workers and to promise that a duly re-elected UPND government will continue expanding public services.
The constitutional problem arises elsewhere: is it permissible for a presidential candidate, as he asks citizens to vote for him and his party, to identify particular individuals at his rallies and promise them state employment?
Such actions extend beyond a national policy promise and begin to resemble the allocation of a valuable public benefit to individuals selected because they attended a political event.
From campaign crowd to government payroll
On 16 July 2026, News Diggers reported that Hichilema had instructed his Political Adviser, Levy Ngoma, to collect the names and contact information of volunteer nurses who had attended Hichilema’s rally in Isoka (Shadreck Jere, “Lucky volunteer nurses get jobs after attending HH rally”). The reported exchange is troubling because it apparently placed an appeal for political support alongside an employment assurance. Hichilema reportedly told supporters that their job was to vote for UPND on 13 August, while assuring the identified nurses that they would be employed.
A similar scenario was reported by Kalemba on 29 July. At a campaign rally in Mpunde, the President instructed UPND aspiring parliamentary candidate Stanley Kakubo to record the names of unemployed nurses and teachers present. He was quoted as saying: “These volunteer nurses and teachers here, I, Hakainde Hichilema, will give them jobs.” The same report records his appeal for voters to give UPND another mandate in the general election.
These incidents appear to form a pattern rather than an isolated slip of the tongue. Reports from other campaign events have similarly described volunteer workers being identified for recruitment while the President simultaneously urged citizens to support UPND candidates.
The crucial question is therefore not whether nurses and teachers deserve jobs. They clearly do. It is whether attendance at a rally organized by the ruling party may become a means of securing preferential treatment when applying for a post in the public service.
President of the Republic or presidential candidate?
Hichilema’s supporters may argue that he remains Republican President until the end of his constitutional term. As President, he must continue performing official duties, announcing policies and responding to citizens’ concerns. An election campaign cannot bring government to a halt.
That is correct, but it does not cover all the points.
At these events, Hichilema is not speaking only as a neutral Head of State carrying out existing policy. He is asking people to vote for UPND, promoting UPND parliamentary candidates and referring directly to the upcoming election. In that context, he is also acting as a presidential election candidate.
The Electoral Process Act defines a campaign message broadly as an activity or statement aimed at promoting political ideas, policies or strategies for the purpose of obtaining votes for a candidate or party. It also requires public officers and public entities to give equal treatment to candidates.
The 2026 amendment to the Electoral Process Act states that the campaign period starts after nominations have closed and ends on the day before the election, as specified in the timetable set by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ). Calling a gathering a “working visit” cannot, by itself, remove an openly electoral speech from the reach of election law.
The legal character of an event must depend on its substance, not its official label.
When does a promise become an inducement?
Democratic elections necessarily involve promises. Candidates promise things like roads, schools, lower taxes, better hospitals and employment programmes. Voters then decide which policies they believe.
It is just ordinary political rhetoric to promise to recruit more nurses and teachers through a nationally advertised and properly funded programme. Giving specific instructions to write down the names of particular attendees of a political event is different in that it creates the impression that a person’s presence at the candidate’s event has brought that person closer to a government job.
That distinction is central to the question about electoral bribery.
Section 81 of the Electoral Process Act makes it illegal to give, offer, promise, arrange or enter into an agreement for the benefit of a person with a view to influencing them to vote or securing the election or re-election of a candidate. A government job is not an envelope of cash, but it is unquestionably a valuable benefit.
Whether these statements amount to bribery under the law would have to be determined on the evidence and proof of the required corrupt intent. It would be irresponsible to declare the President guilty without an investigation or hearing.
But the reported connection between employment, attendance at rallies, campaigning and voting is strong enough to require serious investigation. The law would become meaningless if it applied only to outright cash payments while disregarding promises of valuable public employment.
The Electoral Code is even more direct
The Electoral Code of Conduct prohibits offering an inducement, reward or bribe in consideration of a person voting, joining a political party or attending a political event. It also prohibits the abuse of a position of power, privilege or influence for political purposes, including through an offer of reward.
These provisions appear designed for precisely the kind of power imbalance now before the country. An unemployed nurse or teacher hearing the President instruct an official or UPND candidate to record names may reasonably believe that employment depends on remaining in the good graces of the ruling party.
The Code provides penalties for contravention, including a fine of up to 200,000 penalty units, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
Again, the existence of a possible offence is not the same as proof of guilt. The distinction should protect due process, not excuse institutional inaction.
Public employment must be based on merit
The controversy goes beyond electoral bribery. It strikes at the constitutional architecture of the public service.
Article 173 of the Constitution requires the observance of professional ethics, the provision of impartial and equitable public services, accountability for administrative actions, and merit as the basis for appointments and promotions. It also demands people should have sufficient and equal opportunities when it comes to appointments to public service positions. These principles must be applied throughout the government and to all state institutions.
Article 185 provides that although the President has the power to “appoint and confirm” public officers, those functions are to be exercised by the relevant Service Commission.
A list drawn up by a presidential adviser or by a UPND parliamentary candidate at a campaign rally cannot replace an advertisement, the verification of qualifications, a transparent shortlisting and a decision by the constitutionally authorised institution.
Even where every person listed is qualified and deserving, the procedure remains questionable. Merit is not simply about whether the eventual recruit possesses a certificate. It is also about whether all qualified citizens had a fair opportunity to compete.
What happens to the nurse who remained on duty instead of attending the rally? What of the teacher who supports the opposition? What of a citizen who believes professional public servants should keep their distance from partisan events? They should not be placed at a disadvantage because they were absent from the President’s political crowd.
Equality includes political non-discrimination
Article 8 identifies equality, non-discrimination, good governance, morality, ethics and integrity among the country’s national values. Article 9 requires those values to guide interpretation of the Constitution, enactment and interpretation of laws, and development and implementation of state policy. Article 23 further prohibits discriminatory treatment by a person performing the functions of a public office or public authority, including discrimination associated with political opinions.
The Electoral Code also prohibits discrimination “in any other manner” in connection with an election or political activity.
The danger is not limited to proven discrimination. Public confidence is damaged when citizens reasonably suspect that expressing political enthusiasm improves their chances of getting a job.
Public jobs belong equally to the people of Zambia. They cannot be presented as rewards available through access to the ruling party.
What Hichilema’s supporters are saying
A balanced assessment must acknowledge the argument in Hichilema’s favour.
The President’s supporters say he is responding compassionately to qualified professionals who have volunteered for many years without having been given permanent employment. They point to the government’s large-scale recruitment of teachers and health workers as proof that these statements are not empty campaign promises.
They may also argue that collecting names does not itself amount to appointment. The individuals would still have to produce qualifications, meet professional requirements and enter an existing recruitment programme.
Those points matter. It may well be that the President had only intended to ensure that volunteers who had been overlooked were considered as part of a lawful process. But good intentions cannot cure a flawed procedure. If the recruitment is truly national, competitive and based on merit, attending a UPND rally should be irrelevant. The names should be submitted through the appropriate ministry or commission, not through a campaign adviser or party candidate.
And where the promise is made when Hichilema is soliciting votes, the Electoral Code applies to him as a candidate, regardless of his continuing status as Republican President.
Are “working visits” disguised rallies?
The use of state resources raises another difficult issue. The Code generally prohibits the use of government or parastatal transport and facilities for campaign purposes. It contains an exception for the President and Vice-President when using such resources “in connection with their respective offices.”
The exception is understandable. The President requires official transport, security and communications wherever he travels. It would be unrealistic to expect the presidency to be physically dismantled whenever the sitting president speaks at a campaign event. But the exception cannot mean that every UPND campaign rally may be declared a “working visit” and financed as official state business.
The relevant questions should include who organised the meeting, who invited the crowd, whether UPND candidates were promoted, whether votes were solicited, which public officials attended in their official capacities and whether party and government expenses were separated.
Where an event’s main purpose is to secure electoral support, the public is entitled to know which costs were paid by UPND, and which were charged to the Treasury.
ECZ’s silence is becoming indefensible
Article 45 of the Constitution requires elections to be free and fair, free from intimidation and corruption, and administered independently, accountably and transparently. The Constitution gives the ECZ authority to conduct elections, regulate candidates and settle prescribed electoral disputes. Commissions may initiate investigations, receive complaints and refer matters to appropriate state institutions.
The Electoral Commission of Zambia Act mandates the Commission to conduct and oversee elections in a fair and impartial manner and to promote conditions conducive to free and fair elections. The Electoral Process Act makes it clear that the ECZ administers and enforces that Act independently.
Most importantly, section 110 states that the Commission is responsible for enforcing the Code and has the authority to disqualify a candidate or political party that breaches it. The Code gives the ECZ the power to reprimand candidates, to summon alleged offenders, to impose administrative measures and to refer possible violations to the police or the Anti-Corruption Commission.
The ECZ does not have to prejudge the President. It should obtain recordings of the rallies, identify who collected the names, establish whether those people have since been employed and examine the recruitment criteria used.
Continued silence risks appearing not as impartiality, but as fear of confronting an incumbent President.
Public jobs are a constitutional trust
Hichilema could resolve much of the controversy by withdrawing every rally-based recruitment instruction and directing the responsible Service Commissions to publish uniform national criteria for volunteer nurses and unemployed teachers.
The process should be open to everyone, regardless of party affiliation, political opinion or attendance at a campaign meeting. The UPND should separately account for its campaign expenses, while the ECZ should issue a public and reasoned determination applicable to every candidate.
Nurses and teachers deserve employment because the country needs their skills and because they have obtained these skills through a lawful process. They should not be given jobs simply because they happened to be standing in the right political crowd.
A President seeking re-election is entitled to ask the people for another mandate. He is not entitled to make access to the state appear conditional upon giving it.
