Do not be fooled: The delimitation talk is more than what it seems
By Dr Lawrence Mwelwa
A GOVERNMENT that is desperate to consolidate power is like a fisherman who casts a net too wide—he may catch what he seeks, but he will also trap things he never intended. A government that has turned every institution of governance into a weapon for its survival cannot be trusted with a constitutional amendment. Do not say you were not warned.
Delimitation is both a blessing and a curse. It is good because it can bring governance closer to the people. It is bad because, in the wrong hands, it becomes a tool of manipulation. While some celebrate the idea of new constituencies, thinking of development and representation, others see a bigger picture—a future where the very foundation of our democracy is altered under the disguise of fairness. Let those with ears hear, and those with eyes see, for not all that glitters is gold.
To understand the dangers before us, we must first look back. The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has always been responsible for delimiting wards and polling stations and successfully implemented this process in 2020. However, when it came to constituencies, the law required a constitutional amendment, specifically Article 68, Clause 2 (a). The PF government, in its quest to increase constituencies, included this in Bill 10, but the bill was rejected, leaving Zambia with the 156 constituencies we have today.
Now, in 2025, the UPND government has brought the same proposal forward. On the surface, it looks as progressive as it was under the PF. But here is the key question: Is the UPND seeking to amend only Article 68 to increase constituencies, or is it planning to smuggle in other dangerous amendments—changes to the Presidential term limit, the running mate clause, and the 50+1 threshold for winning elections?
A snake does not bite without warning, but a cunning leader does not always show his true intentions. “Ukwali insoke takwafwile bantu”—where there is a warning, people do not die, for they are alert. We must be just as vigilant. A government that is eager to bend institutions to its will will not stop at a single amendment. It will seek to fortify its rule, ensuring that power remains in its grip long after it has lost the people’s trust.
Those who rush to celebrate new constituencies must pause and ask: Is this about representation, or is it about ensuring political survival at the cost of democracy? This is why we insist on a one-item agenda—no hidden clauses, no sneaky amendments, no changes beyond delimitation. If the government refuses this demand, it will be clear that its motives are not pure.
The hunter may set a trap, but the wise man sees it before he steps in. We must demand transparency. We must demand accountability. If this government truly serves the people, let it bring a clean, single-item amendment. If it does not, then let history record that we spoke, we warned, and we stood watchful at the gates of democracy.
The future of Zambia is not a gamble. We must not trade democracy for temporary gains. If we fail to act now, do not say you were not warned. A bird that perches too long on one branch forgets how to fly. Let us not forget our duty to protect the land and the laws that hold it together.
