Whose heritage? The constitutional, moral, and democratic contradictions of Zambia’s Christian nation declaration
By
Prof. Cephas Lumina
Beyond Zambia’s newly merged religious holiday lies an unresolved debate over executive power, constitutional equality, and the political uses of faith. At issue is not Christianity’s place in society, but the state’s authority to define national identity in religious terms—and the implications for democratic inclusion, religious freedom, and moral accountability.
THE Cabinet’s recent decision to revoke Statutory Instrument No. 78 of 2015 and merge the 18 October National Day of Prayer, Fasting, Repentance and Reconciliation with the commemoration of the country’s Christian nation declaration into a new public holiday on 29 December, the National Day of Prayer and Christian Heritage, has reopened a debate beyond rearranging dates on the national calendar. At its core is a fundamental question: whose heritage is being celebrated and at what cost to the constitutional promise of an inclusive, multi-religious democratic republic? The issue is not whether Christianity has shaped Zambia’s history and national life or whether citizens should freely profess and celebrate their faith. Rather, the question is whether the state can legitimately elevate one religious tradition to define national identity without undermining constitutional equality, freedom of conscience, and democratic inclusion. Beneath this administrative change lie deeper contradictions about the constitutional foundations, moral credibility, and democratic legitimacy of the country’s Christian nation declaration.
The trajectory of top-down spiritual mandates
To understand the current polarisation, one must examine the genesis of these state-sponsored spiritual mandates. A striking commonality links the late former President Frederick Chiluba’s initial 1991 declaration, the late former President Edgar Lungu’s 2015 gazetting of the 18 October national prayer day, and the current administration’s structural shifting of the holiday to 29 December. Each milestone resulted from unilateral, top-down executive action rather than rigorous, broad-based, multi-faith public consultation.
On 29 December 1991, fresh from an electoral victory, Chiluba stood at State House and declared the nation Christian without a parliamentary debate, a national referendum, or an inclusive dialogue with non-Christian minorities, traditional leaders, or even the established hierarchy of the mainstream Christian clergy. Decades later, Lungu instituted the 18 October holiday by executive decree after a sharp economic downturn and heightened political tensions, mirroring the pattern of using state machinery to institutionalise religious practices.
The latest merger follows the same executive-led trajectory. While the state cites consultations with selected church bodies, prominent organisations like the Council of Churches in Zambia have noted that the church at large was not given adequate time to consult its broader membership, leaving the secular public and non-Christian citizens entirely outside the deliberative process.
Constitutional contradictions: The preamble versus binding rights
This persistent lack of inclusive dialogue exposes a structural tension within the supreme law of the land. The Preamble to the Constitution of Zambia explicitly declares the Republic a Christian nation. In constitutional jurisprudence, a preamble serves as an introductory statement of intent, a historical record, and an ideological guide for interpretation of legislation. However, it generally lacks substantive, independent legal force compared with the binding articles in the document’s main body. The Preamble attempts a delicate balancing act, declaring the Republic a Christian Nation “while upholding a person’s right to freedom of conscience, belief or religion.” Yet, when read alongside the Constitution’s substantive provisions, this rhetorical compromise faces serious logical and constitutional challenges.
Article 4(3) of the Constitution’s substantive text explicitly mandates that the Republic is a “unitary, indivisible, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-party democratic State.” The inclusion of the word “multi-religious” in a binding constitutional article directly contradicts the singular preference implied by a “Christian Nation” preamble. Furthermore, Article 19 guarantees freedom of conscience, thought, and religion, explicitly protecting every individual’s right to manifest, practice, and change their religion or belief, in public and private, without state hindrance. By elevating one specific faith to the status of national identity, the state implicitly creates a hierarchy of citizenship, wherein non-Christian individuals—including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Baha’is, adherents of traditional African religions, and the non-religious—are subtly positioned as outsiders to the official national character, even if their technical rights are protected on paper.
International commitments and global expectations
This domestic constitutional friction extends to the country’s international commitments. Zambia is a state party to major international and regional human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These instruments require states party thereto to guarantee freedom of religion and non-discrimination based on belief.
When a government consistently integrates specific religious dogmas into its legislation, statutory instruments, and national budgets, the line between state and church blurs. While the state argues that it preserves individual rights, international human rights jurisprudence suggests that a state-endorsed religion risks institutionalising systemic biases, affecting everything from public school curricula to the allocation of state resources for public holidays and religious infrastructure.
The rise of the miracle merchants or “pastropreneurs”: Commodifying desperation
Perhaps the most damaging, unintended consequence of state-codified religion is how it has inadvertently paved the way for the proliferation of unscrupulous ministries and rogue prophets. This problem stubbornly persists to this day. By declaring Christianity the official national character, the state created a powerful shield of baseline legitimacy for anyone claiming to speak on behalf of God Almighty. Over the past three and a half decades, these foreign and domestic spiritual entrepreneurs, or “pastropreneurs,” have capitalised on this reality, embedding themselves in the country’s cultural and social landscape.
Widespread structural poverty, hyperinflation, lack of formal employment, and overstretched public healthcare systems have left millions of Zambians chronically vulnerable. In this environment of desperation, rogue prophets peddling commodified miracles, financial breakthroughs, and supernatural healings find fertile ground. Congregants are routinely manipulated into “sowing financial seeds” or purchasing overpriced anointed oils and handkerchiefs to escape economic misery (Chiluba Kabinga, “Religious Exploitation in the Church,” Zambia Law Development Commission News; Prudence Phiri, “Zambia Begins Crackdown on Self-Proclaimed Prophets,” Global Press Journal, 21 June 2017).
Even more dangerously, this exploitation regularly crosses into physical and psychological abuse, with some ministries instructing patients suffering from chronic illnesses like HIV to discard their life-saving antiretroviral therapy in favour of faith healing. Attempts by government bodies like the former Ministry of National Guidance and Religious Affairs or the Registrar of Societies to implement minimum theological credentials or deport abusive foreign clerics have historically faced fierce public backlash. Critics frequently accuse the state of overreaching, highlighting the core paradox: when a state builds its national framework around miracles and prayer days, it severely weakens its own legal and logical standing to police where authentic faith ends and the fraudulent profiteering of pastropreneurs begins.
The prophetic critique: Church opposition to state faith
Interestingly, the most articulate resistance to this state-sponsored religion has historically emerged from within the Christian church itself. During the 1991 declaration and the subsequent 1996 constitutional review process, major mainstream church mother bodies—most notably the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Council of Churches in Zambia—expressed deep scepticism and overt opposition.
Their theological and institutional objections were clear: a political declaration of a Christian nation risks cheapening the gospel, secularising sacred concepts, and turning faith into a tool for political manipulation and regime legitimisation. Church leaders argued that true Christian witness does not require the coercive stamp of state legislation. They recognised that binding the institutional church to the whims of political actors would compromise the clergy’s prophetic voice, leaving them unable to hold power accountable without being accused of partisan subversion.
A compromised compass: Corruption and social polarisation
This brings the national discourse to the question of utility: what moral purpose has the declaration served over the past thirty-five years? If a national declaration acts as a moral compass, one would expect it to guide state policy and societal conduct toward equity, honesty, and justice. The historical reality, however, presents a sobering paradox. The decades following the 1991 declaration have largely been marked by systemic corruption, multi-million-kwacha financial scandals exposed annually by the Auditor-General, and a widening chasm of economic inequality. Despite the formal acknowledgement of the supremacy of God Almighty in the Constitution, millions of Zambians remain trapped in structural poverty, facing inadequate healthcare, compromised education systems, and severe food insecurity.
In recent political cycles, the nation has also witnessed deep political polarisation, tribal divisions, and a heavy-handed use of state power against dissenting voices. The realisation that political elites can invoke Christian rhetoric, participate in state-funded national prayer days, and praise “Christian heritage” while simultaneously engaging in public plunder and democratic backsliding reveals a profound moral disconnect. The declaration has not eradicated vice; instead, it has occasionally provided a pious veneer beneath which unethical governance can operate unchallenged.
Regional models of secular neutrality
A regional perspective further highlights the uniqueness, and perhaps the isolation, of Zambia’s approach. Within the Southern African Development Community, neighbouring countries have navigated highly diverse populations without resorting to a state-mandated religious identity. South Africa, despite having an overwhelmingly Christian majority, adopted a rigorously secular, neutral constitutional framework in 1996 to heal structural divisions and ensure absolute equality for all faiths.
Botswana’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion without designating a state faith, allowing its stable democracy to flourish on civic values. Similarly, Namibia and Zimbabwe protect religious freedom through constitutional neutrality, treating faith as a private matter for individuals and voluntary associations rather than an apparatus of the state. These nations show that social cohesion, morality, and national unity are achievable without codifying a single religious heritage into state machinery.
Toward a pluralistic national conversation
The contentious merging of the holidays under Statutory Instrument No. 73 of 2026 should not be viewed simply as a bureaucratic adjustment of the national calendar. It must catalyse an open, honest, courageous national conversation that the country has long deferred. The nation must ask whether formally declaring itself a Christian nation, and linking it to state-sponsored holidays, is truly necessary for the spiritual or moral well-being of its people. True national integrity cannot be legislated through executive decrees, nor can a society’s moral fabric be mended by a state-enforced holiday on 18 October or 29 December 29.
An honest reassessment requires acknowledging that Zambia is a pluralistic, multi-religious society whose true strength lies in its commitment to constitutionalism, human dignity, social justice, and non-discrimination. If the country is to possess a meaningful moral compass, it will not be found in the performative declarations of its politicians or the state-funded elevation of one religious heritage above others. It will be found in the rigorous defence of substantive human rights, the eradication of public corruption, and the creation of an inclusive society where every citizen, regardless of creed, stands as an equal partner in the Republic. Only then can we speak of a national heritage that truly belongs to all its citizens.
