A Conversation with Hicks Sikazwe
IN TODAY’S conversation I will give readers space to react to issues raised in the column last week. Some called agreeing largely with the proposal to relocate Zambia’s capital to another place to solve the current environmental disaster that gets discharged every rainy season.
Others painted a picture that most of our towns and cities in the country have fallen to neglect and wondered what has become of the local authorities. The situation was so similar to the city of power that urgent measures were needed to reverse the trend.
With the current Constituency Development Fund (CDF) allocations, more argued, the situation should have improved in many places. But the status quo remains.
One caller said, “Sir, from some of your writing I have noticed that you either grew up on the Copperbelt or you have spent quite some time there. You must have seen how the mine management were insisting on collecting garbage, cleaning streets and kept drainages flowing. It is no longer the case now.”
Another agreed that authorities needed to check the ravaging countrywide construction of projects where in some cases building of houses and other structures have been done in a haphazard manner, while unplanned settlements have been allowed to continue jutting all over and everywhere. However, other than relocating Lusaka elsewhere, other options can be considered, others maintained, as long as the factors that led to the current decay in our cities and towns are addressed as argued by the letter reproduced below:
Dear Mr Hicks Sikazwe,
My leader, your thought-provoking article on the plight of Lusaka, particularly during the rainy season, is a compelling call to action. It is both an indictment of systemic neglect and a plea for transformative change. As always, I have read it from beginning to end.
Few voices can capture the essence of a city’s struggles better than a seasoned scribe like yourself. The imagery you evoke – the relentless flooding, the crumbling infrastructure and the looming specter of cholera – paints a sobering picture of a city on the brink. The memory of your mother’s ordeal in Kanyama serves as a microcosm of the broader crisis that has plagued Lusaka for decades. It is a tale of resilience in the face of institutional inertia, a stark reminder that the capital’s woes are not just environmental but deeply structural, economic and political.
Your argument for relocating the capital city is not only provocative but rational. The idea of shifting key administrative functions to a newly planned location aligns with global precedents. Cities like Brasília, Abuja and Dodoma were all conceived in response to similar urban crises – overcrowding, unsustainable expansion and infrastructural decay. The relocation of a capital is often a socio-political and economic reset, offering a fresh canvas for modern planning.
However, relocation alone is not a panacea. The deeper question is: does Zambia have the institutional discipline, financial muscle and political resolve to execute such an ambitious project? Legal considerations would necessitate comprehensive constitutional and legislative amendments. A new capital city requires long-term vision, rigorous environmental impact assessments and ironclad financial commitments. It must not be reduced to a political gimmick or a project hijacked by vested interests.
Meanwhile, the immediate reality of Lusaka cannot be ignored. Engineering logic dictates that no city should endure seasonal destruction without a strategic response. The current drainage system is an archaic relic, grossly inadequate for the city’s expanding population and changing climate patterns. What Lusaka needs is a paradigm shift in urban planning – one that integrates flood mitigation infrastructure into its very foundation.
From an engineering standpoint, an optimal solution would involve constructing a comprehensive underground drainage network, one that channels excess water efficiently towards the Kafue River through a network of covered pipelines. A tiered system, where smaller tributary drains seamlessly feed into larger conduits, would eliminate the perennial formation of craters and hazardous pools. This would not only preserve road infrastructure but also prevent waterborne diseases.
This is where your argument finds synergy with realpolitik and economic pragmatism. The Chinese, having successfully undertaken mega urban projects across Africa, possess the technical expertise and logistical capacity to execute such an undertaking. The challenge lies in securing investment without mortgaging national sovereignty – a delicate balance that must be navigated with diplomatic and economic acumen. Any partnership should be structured under legally binding frameworks that safeguard Zambia’s interests while ensuring accountability in execution.
Politically, Lusaka’s crisis is not just about engineering deficiencies but governance failure. If our leaders had the political will to enact stringent urban policies, enforce proper waste disposal, regulate street vending, and commit to large-scale infrastructure projects, the situation would not have deteriorated to this extent. The tragedy is that we are trapped in a cycle of reactive governance – where action is only taken when disaster strikes, rather than through proactive and preventive strategies.
Your mother’s struggle in Kanyama is emblematic of a city where the poor bear the brunt of government negligence. It is a cruel irony that while billions are allocated for infrastructure annually, the people most affected by urban decay remain voiceless. Addressing Lusaka’s crisis requires an interdisciplinary approach – one that merges engineering innovation, political accountability, legal reform and economic sustainability.
Thus, the choice before us is not simply whether to relocate the capital or rehabilitate Lusaka. It is a deeper question of governance: can Zambia break free from the inertia of short-term fixes and embrace long-term, evidence-based urban planning? If our leaders fail to rise to the occasion, Lusaka will continue to drown – both literally and figuratively – under the weight of its neglected past.
Your article is more than a commentary; it is a blueprint for urgent discourse. The time for superficial interventions is over. Either we commit to a radical overhaul of Lusaka’s urban landscape, or we resign ourselves to a perpetual cycle of crisis.”
Vincent Sitwala Musole, Ndola.
James Shumba also from Ndola gave a terse reaction:
“I concur with Mr Sikazwe’s point it’s been long since we got to understand why we fail to deal with things that affect us as Zambians when it comes to implementation. Wake up Zambia. Let us not wait for outsiders to think on our behalf we have people that can do the job let us not politicise everything. God will bless us.”
Thanks to both and all those that called. Let us keep the conversation running.
Hicks Sikazwe is the author of Zambia’s Fall back Presidents, Wasted Years, and Voters in Shadows. He is former Deputy Editor in Chief, Times of Zambia, now Media and communications consultant based in Ndola. Comments: 0955/0966929611 or hpsikazwe@gmail.com
