Africa-Press – Zambia. Dr Nevers Mumba has accused me of misrepresenting his words, of distorting his intentions, and of weaponising identity in the service of political gain.
Far be it from me to do so. I write not to indulge in personal quarrels, but to clarify the record, to defend the right of the people to question power, and to remind Dr Mumba of the very principles he once championed, principles he now appears to have abandoned in favour of political expediency.
When Dr Mumba assumed the presidency of the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), he declared with conviction: “Hope is generated by a promise, but the execution of that promise is anchored on the morality and integrity of the one who made the promise.”
He warned that “the August 12th 2021 election will be a pointless exercise if we, as a people, don’t first identify the NATIONAL PROBLEM we currently face.” He called for a new national vision, one that would restore trust in leadership and elevate the moral tone of our politics.
Yet today, in the twilight of 2025, Dr Mumba has not only endorsed President Hakainde Hichilema for the 2026 elections, but has also declared, in his own words, “I’ve positioned myself to ensure HH’s victory in 2026, running mate or not” (Prime TV, Matters Arising, 5 April 2025). He has stood at the UPND Secretariat and urged civil society and the Church to “rally behind the President’s call for constitutional amendments” (Zambian Observer, 1 April 2025). He has publicly stated that he “will not contest the 2026 general elections” and instead will “endorse President Hakainde Hichilema to retain his position” (Daily Revelation, 2 April 2025).
These are not the declarations of a neutral statesman. They are the pronouncements of a partisan ally and that is his prerogative. But what he cannot do, what he must not do, is pretend that his words are untainted by allegiance. When he speaks of constitutional reform, he does so not as an impartial observer, but as a man who has tethered his political future to the success of the very administration he now defends.
Let us look at Dr Mumba’s claims that I have twisted his statement on Bill 7. He insists that his intention was merely to highlight the “deep and long-standing mistrust between political players” and yet in the same breath, he castigates the public for “reckless emotionalism,” “witch-hunting,” and “lowering the quality of civic debate.” These are not the words of a man seeking dialogue, they are the words of a man seeking to delegitimise dissent. They are the words of a man who, having once stood with the people, now stands above them.
He accuses me of reframing our disagreement as a gender issue. But I did not invent the language of condescension, I merely recognised it. When a woman raises her voice in defence of constitutional integrity and is met with accusations of hysteria, it is not unreasonable to question the gendered assumptions at play. I did not claim that disagreement with a woman is misogyny, I claimed that the tone and tenor of his rebuke echoed a long history of dismissing women’s political agency as emotional excess. That is not a distortion, it is a diagnosis.
Dr Mumba further suggests that I oppose reforms that would increase women’s representation. This is a falsehood; I support genuine inclusion but I will not be complicit in the use of gender as a political shield for procedural malpractice. The people have asked why the Electoral Commission’s revised delimitation report remains hidden. They have asked why the number of elected Members of Parliament has ballooned from 156 to 226 without consultation, justification, or transparency. These are not the questions of a mob. They are the questions of a Republic that remembers what democracy is supposed to look like.
Dr Mumba once said, “We must not only do what is right, but we must be seen to be doing it right.” I absolutely agree with him on this score. I ask him now, in all honesty and before his God: is it right to endorse a constitutional amendment process that has unfolded in the shadows? Is it right to rebuke the people for asking questions that those in power refuse to answer? Is it right to invoke Scripture to chastise the governed while standing shoulder to shoulder with those who govern but do not accord to the right due process?
I do not fear debate. I also welcome it but as we debate, I urge that our debate be honest, be free of pretence and let it be worthy of the people we claim to serve
Zambia does not belong to the UPND, it does not belong to Dr Mumba’s party or to New Heritage Party. It does not belong to those who sit in State House or to those who orbit its power. It belongs to the people and the people are not unruly, they are not emotional nor are they are not ignorant. They are awake, they are watching and they will not be silenced.
CHISHALA KATEKA
President – New Heritage Party
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
