Sishuwa Sishuwa
@ssishuwa • 42,433 subscribers
Zambian Historian and Political Commentator | Historian of Southern Africa | Senior Lecturer @StellenboschUni | Author of Party Politics and Populism in Zambia
Videos
![This striking video clip shows opposition candidate Brian Mundubile entering Northwestern Province, the centre of operations for First Quantum Minerals, the Canadian mining giant which, according to Global Witness, is “bankrolling President Hichilema” and has “diverted [$771m] away from the copper-rich nation’s indebted economy and its people.” Read the full report here: The province is also a ruling party stronghold. Mining corporations can easily buy Zambia’s ruling elite, but ultimately it is poor and ordinary voters who will decide the 13 August election. I maintain that Hichilema will lose and there is little he can do now to change his fate apart from reckless industrial-scale vote rigging. Goodbye, Mr Hakainde Hichilema. Your presidency was good for tribalists, the corrupt, and foreign commercial interests, but it has been a five-year nightmare for many Zambians.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2082158127454265841/amplify_video_thumb/2082151979611033601/img/HDAw7vpaeqatBlvW.jpg)
This striking video clip shows opposition candidate Brian Mundubile entering Northwestern Province, the centre of operations for First Quantum Minerals, the Canadian mining giant which, according to Global Witness, is “bankrolling President Hichilema” and has “diverted [$771m] away from the copper-rich nation’s indebted economy and its people.” Read the full report here: The province is also a ruling party stronghold. Mining corporations can easily buy Zambia’s ruling elite, but ultimately it is poor and ordinary voters who will decide the 13 August election. I maintain that Hichilema will lose and there is little he can do now to change his fate apart from reckless industrial-scale vote rigging. Goodbye, Mr Hakainde Hichilema. Your presidency was good for tribalists, the corrupt, and foreign commercial interests, but it has been a five-year nightmare for many Zambians.
Sishuwa Sishuwa33,794 views • 8 days ago
!["You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078449842368483816/amplify_video_thumb/2078427007344427008/img/tCO3n_fY3sOVQlej.jpg)
"You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.
Sishuwa Sishuwa30,736 views • 18 days ago
In this interview with KBN TV, I explain why opposition candidate Brian Mundubile is set to win Zambia's election on 13 August, unless incumbent President Hichilema rigs it using his loyalists in the Electoral Commission of Zambia, the security services, and the judiciary.
Sishuwa Sishuwa19,586 views • 12 days ago
If Hakainde Hichilema left office today, his greatest legacy (what a leader is most positively remembered for, for generations, once out of public office) will be that he was the first Tonga to be elected President of Zambia. On major policy issues, Hichilema has been a great disappointment. After five years in power, Hichilema has FAILED to restore and safeguard Zambia's democracy, to get the best out of the country's mineral wealth, to protect human rights and respect the constitution and the rule of law, to fight corruption beyond rhetoric, to promote genuine national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, to build a professional civil service, and to address the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most ordinary people. Zambia is a dream in ruins. Can we rescue it?
Sishuwa Sishuwa20,962 views • 13 days ago
Zambia’s president will lose the 2026 election, unless he rigs it on an industrial scale. In this in-depth interview, I explain why Hichilema is staring defeat only five years after his election. (Except idiots, please comment after listening, to promote content-based discussion)
Sishuwa Sishuwa15,693 views • 1 month ago
Churches, protests, and bribes: Hichilema’s triple power play to secure Edgar Lungu’s body By Sishuwa Sishuwa So committed to telling lies is President Hakainde Hichilema that he seemingly either cannot help himself or experiences a “high” when deceiving others. I know that politicians are generally perceived to be liars, but such is Hichilema’s uncontrollable urge to lie, often compulsively and without any apparent reason or benefit, that one can be forgiven for thinking that delivering lies was one of his major campaign promises in the last general election. In countries with robust oversight institutions, the President would have already been subjected to a thorough evaluation by professional experts to determine if he has pseudologia fantastica, also known as mythomania – a condition in which individuals frequently tell lies, often for no clear reason. The latest in the long running series of the President’s constant deviation from the truth occurred on 17 July 2025 when he told journalists that his administration is “quietly” holding negotiations with the family of late former president Edgar Lungu aimed at resolving the impasse between the two parties regarding Lungu’s burial. This is the second time in the preceding two weeks alone that Hichilema has made this claim. The first was on 9 July when he met US Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales at State House. On both occasions, the President has been untruthful. I have spoken with the Lungu family, and they have confirmed that there have been no discussions whatsoever between the two parties since Hichilema's administration initiated the court case that stopped Lungu's burial nearly a month ago, on 24 June 2025. Why then does the President keep telling lies on this matter? What prevents him from telling the truth even on straightforward issues where his lies can more easily be uncovered? In search of answers, I reached out to different sources in government and at State House for insights. The sources, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity and provided irrefutable evidence in support of their insights, revealed that the President, fearful that the Pretoria High Court might rule against the Zambian government because the South African law is on the side of a deceased’s family, has devised a strategy consisting of three elements aimed at preventing this outcome and securing the elusive access to his predecessor’s body. The first element of this plan is to persuade the influential Catholic Church to release a statement urging the Lungu family to agree to a mediated settlement that would allow the former president to be buried in Zambia. While some religious and civic groups have already been pressured to make similar appeals, the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) has not yet done so. Hichilema believes that a statement from the ZCCB would carry more weight. To achieve this goal, the President sent a four-member, high-ranking government delegation to meet with the ZCCB in Lusaka on 18 July 2025. The presidential delegation, consisting of Minister of Defence Ambrose Lufuma, Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security Jack Mwiimbu, Minister of Community Development and Social Services Doreen Mwamba, and Special Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs Christopher Mundia – all practising Catholics – met with three representatives of the ZCCB, namely Ignatius Chama (Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Kasama and President of ZCCB), George Lungu (Bishop of Catholic Diocese of Chipata), and Valentine Kalumba (Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Livingstone). During the meeting, Hichilema's representatives expressed concern that the Catholic Church had not issued a statement on the impasse between his administration and the Lungu family. Embracing the pathological lying disposition of their boss, the delegation also mentioned that negotiations between the State and the Lungu family were progressing, and the government hoped the Catholic Church would participate in the discussions. One or two members of Hichilema’s delegation in the meeting reportedly said: “since Archbishop Alick Banda appears to be close to the Lungu family, how can we get him to intervene in this matter and help us?” To be clear, Banda is the Archbishop in charge of Lusaka Archdiocese whom the ruling party has previously called a “thief”, the “Lucifer of Zambia”, and a man with no credibility. In addition, the Catholic Church has itself been the subject of regular attacks and harassment from both State actors and ruling party officials. In response, the Bishops explained that they have stayed away from the matter because they do not have sufficient knowledge of the underlying facts and only comment on issues they fully understand. The Bishops also expressed hope that the issue would be resolved conclusively since it is now before a competent authority – the South African High Court. Given the despicable attacks that Hichilema’s administration has repeatedly unleashed on both Archbishop Banda and the Catholic Church in general, and in the absence of any public apology or atonement for this State harassment, it was unlikely that the Bishops would be deceived. However, one cannot blame Hichilema for trying his luck. The timing of this State-orchestrated meeting with representatives of the ZCCB was not coincidental. For much of this week, the Catholic Bishops have been meeting in Lusaka to, among other things, look at various issues affecting the membership of the church and the nation. Such meetings usually culminate in the release of a pastoral letter that is read out in parishes across the country. The sources disclosed that Hichilema’s fear is that a rebuke from the ZCCB on how his administration has handled Lungu’s funeral would be politically damaging, especially when one considers the other two elements of the strategy that the President has devised to secure access to his predecessor’s body. In dispatching his officials to meet the Catholic Bishops, Hichilema is not only lobbying the influential religious organisation to publicly support his cause based on the false impression that negotiations with the Lungu family have reached an advanced stage; he is also seeking to pre-empt the ZCCB’s possible criticism of his failure to provide leadership on a matter that has seen him use taxpayers’ money to sue a grieving family and halt a funeral that was underway. The second element of Hichilema’s strategy is to carefully orchestrate State-financed public protests in Lusaka, on the Copperbelt, in Eastern Province (Lungu's home area) and in other parts of Zambia to create the false impression of widespread public outrage against the decision by the Lungu family to lay the former president to rest in South Africa. The sources revealed that Hichilema has already set this plan in motion and is closely working with Robert Chabinga, a renegade member of parliament belonging to the main opposition Patriotic Front (PF) party. Chabinga, who is guarded by State police, is the MP that Hichilema’s administration – using the office of the Registrar of Societies which falls under Mwiimbu’s ministry – has installed as the government-recognised leader of the PF in the absence of an election. He has also been installed as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, Hichilema’s former personal lawyer, though he was elected by no one. According to insiders, Hichilema had initially wanted Chabinga to join the court case in South Africa as Leader of the Opposition. After the President received advice against the move, he and his allies then hatched the plan to organise “mass public protests” across the country by placard-carrying ruling party supporters masquerading as PF members and Zambian nationalists demanding the return of Lungu’s remains so that he could be buried at home. The objective of these demonstrations would be to manufacture evidence of popular anger against the Lungu family's position, fabricate visible proof of “public interest” in Lungu’s funeral, and create the pretext that the government hopes it can use to persuade the South African judge to rule in its favour. These acts of “nationalism” would not be as they would seem, however. What would appear to be spontaneous demonstrations of widespread outrage would be carefully orchestrated by Hichilema as part of his power play to wrestle Lungu from exile in death and bolster his beleaguered presidency. For Chabinga, who remains at the helm of Zambia’s main opposition party because of the complicit role of the judiciary, delivering on this presidential aspiration would cement his State-backed illegal leadership of the PF and reduce the political costs that might befall Hichilema in next year’s election should Lungu be buried abroad. The third and final element of Hichilema’s strategy is to attempt to bribe the South African judge who is handling the legal case between the Zambian government and the Lungu family. Hichilema and his allies have resigned themselves to the possibility of losing the case. In private conversations, they admit that the law in South Africa favours the Lungu family and that if the Pretoria Court is allowed to decide the case based on the facts and law, the Zambian government is likely to lose. To avoid this almost certain outcome, Hichilema and his supporters have considered the option of bribing the judge presiding over the case. There is no evidence yet that an approach has been made, but Chabinga, who was recently in South Africa on a State-facilitated trip, has privately expressed confidence that the judge might be amenable to bribery. "The judge needs to eat", Chabinga was heard saying. If the planned mass demonstrations are successful, Hichilema's proxy added, "the judge will make a ruling based on the public outcry in Zambia...to support the Attorney General". The renegade PF MP further conceded that there is "a possibility that the judge can rule in favour of the Lungu family because the laws of South Africa give too much power to a deceased's family than to the government". He however reiterated his belief that if the judge is "pressured", aided with cooked up public protests, and made to "consider the fact that Lungu was a former president", the judicial official can rule in favour of the Zambian government. Chabinga and his backers know that attempting to bribe, in any way, a judge of a foreign country would be a major scandal that could adversely affect diplomatic relations between Zambia and South Africa. However, they seem determined to try their luck at implementing what Chabinga, in private conversations, calls a "special operation". Earlier, Chabinga had complained to his associates that he had been woken up by Hichilema at an ungodly hour to undertake, at short notice, the trip to Johannesburg but felt the need to sacrifice for the man he calls "ba boss". After briefing him about Hichilema's agenda for the "special operation", State actors had originally hoped to book Chabinga a seat on the first flight out of Lusaka, but he ended up traveling on a 10am Airlink flight. This followed a discovery that there were many prominent PF members on the earlier flight also traveling to South Africa. Ironically, even on the 10am flight, Hichilema's representative met several PF prominent figures such as Chanda Katotobwe, Nakiwe Simpungwe, and Christopher Shakafuswa who all greeted him and to whom he lied that he was traveling to Cape Town. It is important to clarify that the confidence of Hichilema's team that the affected judge might be open to bribery does not come from any personal knowledge of the justice handling the legal case. Rather, and as one of the sources stated, it stems from the knowledge that they have done similar things with some Zambian judges, particularly on matters involving the resolution of PF leadership wrangles, and got away with it. In private, Chabinga, for instance, acknowledges that a questionable judgement by the Pretoria High Court in favour of the Zambian government is likely to be reversed on appeal by a superior court. Nevertheless, the President's proxy is optimistic that the Lungu family will become fatigued by the time the verdict is delivered and ultimately consent to the return of the former president's body to Zambia rather than pursuing an appeal in the event of a dubious loss. The unfolding saga surrounding the burial of former president Lungu reveals more than a mere dispute over a final resting place. It exposes the depths to which political ambition can drive deception, manipulation, and ethical compromise. President Hichilema’s persistent falsehoods about negotiations, the planned orchestration of State-sponsored protests, and the alarming prospect of judicial bribery involving a foreign judge paint a troubling picture of governance undermined by desperation and duplicity. This strategy not only disrespects a grieving family but also erodes public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice and truth. What began as a matter of state dignity and national closure has morphed into a volatile mix of political manoeuvring, public mobilisation, and devious ecclesiastical diplomacy. President Hichilema’s reported three-pronged strategy — courting the Catholic Church, rallying public protests, and attempting to sway a foreign court — suggests that the battle over Lungu’s body is about far more than burial rights. It is a symbolic struggle for control over Zambia’s political memory and moral authority. Whether these efforts succeed or backfire, they highlight a deeper crisis: the lingering divisions of Zambia’s political landscape and the extent to which historical rivals still cast long shadows over the present. In life and now in death, Lungu continues to provoke conflict, and President Hichilema appears determined to ensure that even in the afterlife, the final word belongs not to the Lungu family but to Hichilema himself. In a country that is yearning for transparency and integrity, such actions as the ones initiated by Hichilema highlight the urgent need for accountability at the highest levels of leadership. The true cost of this political theatre extends beyond the burial dispute; it threatens the moral fabric of Zambia itself. As citizens, observers, and custodians of democracy, we must demand honesty, respect for due process, and, above all, compassion in honouring – both in life and in death – those who have served the nation. No amount of spin or scheming can bury the truth forever. The nation watches and waits.
Sishuwa Sishuwa69,112 views • 1 year ago
The standoff between the family of Edgar Lungu and the Zambian state over the repatriation of his remains could have been easily resolved. In this interview with SABC, I explain how and offer my impartial but certainly not neutral analysis of Hichilema's address last evening.
Sishuwa Sishuwa69,613 views • 1 year ago
The Zambian Govt has banned this hit song that rallies voters against politicians who sell mines to their friends, engage in corruption, divide the country on ethnic lines, enact unjust laws, and cause hunger. Unable to locate its creator, the Govt arrested the song instead.
Sishuwa Sishuwa14,535 views • 2 months ago
![Hello Mr Hichilema! You must be pleased to have another prominent critic of your poor leadership gone. You are very fortunate sir: death keeps taking away your most prominent critics - Edith Nawakwi, Edgar Lungu and now the retired Archbishop of Lusaka Telesphore Mpundu. I pray that you will not be demanding to officiate the funeral now, drawing on your recent experience of giving sermons in Catholic Churches and of insisting to attend funerals of individuals whom you had little regard for while they lived. Even the picture you used to accompany your post tells a story. Because your recent relationship with him had turned sour, as it has with many of those who supported you in opposition but now regret it owing to your dreadful performance in office, you had to go back all the way to 2021 to find a suitable picture that was taken after the mass that the retired Archbishop conducted for you at State House soon after your election. What followed next is well known: Archbishop Mpundu, as he did to your predecessors whenever they strayed from the course of good governance, regularly criticised your leadership actions. In response, you and your supporters, as you have repeatedly done to the Catholic Bishops and to other well-meaning critics, denounced the man of God. Today, now that he has died, you want to pretend that you are sorrowful? Please cut us some slack, Mr Hichilema. You should have a sense of shame, sir. You can lie to yourself and to your zealot supporters but you will never deceive those of us who are familiar with your breathtaking hypocrisy. The truth that must be stated is that Archbishop Mpundu, who contributed to your election, died very disappointed at what you became in office, at the tragedy of your presidency. In one of his final public interviews (I have attached it to this post for ease of reference), Archbishop Mpundu correctly branded you as “a master of corruption”, “a dictator who does not listen to anyone”, and a failure who “should not be allowed to go [i.e. remain in office for] more than one term.” I can also now tell you that the Archbishop was extremely sad that you are now trying to send civil rights activist Brebner Changala, another person who helped you ascend to public office, to prison on a transparently silly charge of sedition using Magistrate Davies Chibwili. This issue really disturbed him. Mpundu died with his extremely high regard for Changala, whom he affectionately called Saint Brebner. As you know, Changala is the man who visited you in prison in July 2017 when you were unjustly arrested on a bogus charge of treason and whom you requested to ask the Catholic leadership to help secure your release from prison. Thanks to his efforts, you were released. Today, this is the same Changala you are determined to send to prison for criticising your leadership over the abduction of then Petauke constituency member of parliament Emmanuel Banda when the people whom the victim named as his abductors, who include two of your aides, are roaming scot-free. Do you see why the Archbishop was disappointed in what you have become? What kind of a person are you, Mr Hichilema? You are very poor at managing relations. If you cannot own up to your failings, please continue with your hypocrisy and leave us to mourn the Archbishop. By us, I mean the people to whom the Archbishop was a hero before 2021 and after 2021 when you and your supporters took turns to denounce him for the crime of pointing out the pitfalls of your leadership. Should you insist on attending the funeral, I pray that the Catholics do not allow you to speak so that we may be saved from listening to more of your repulsive diet of hypocrisy. Every country has, at one time or another, a religious leader who acts as the conscience of the nation and with the strength of conviction that is respected even by their fiercest critics. For Zambia, and since the deaths of Cardinal Medardo Joseph Mazombwe (2013), Bishop Paul Francis Duffy (2011), and Bishop Dennis Harold De Jong (2003), that honour belonged to Emeritus Archbishop of Lusaka Telesphore George Mpundu. A dignified and consistent advocate for justice, the 78-year-old was among a very small number of the Zambian clergy who are incapable of finding peace in an environment in which human suffering is manufactured by the politicians in power. Throughout his public life, Mpundu consistently raised both his voice and the quality of his argument to speak out against human rights violations, corruption in government, attacks on democracy, intentional polarisation, and the indifference of the country’s political leadership to the plight of many. It is as if he was spurred by the knowledge that to be silent in the face of these human-made sins is to actively participate in sustaining the status quo. In addition to bearing sympathy for the elites in power who found his ability to speak out on issues of public interest unbearable, the man of God refused to be bullied into silence by successive governing parties’ familiar tactic of accusing anyone who criticises the government, however well intentioned, of being an opposition supporter. A highly courageous and principled individual, Archbishop Mpundu served as an inspiring example of the kind of clergy Zambia or Africa needs – those with a deep sense of responsibility and a conscience that is restless in the face of injustice, bad governance, human rights violations and the degrading poverty that surrounds them. Archbishop Mpundu fought a good fight.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2055649500677517634/amplify_video_thumb/2055635195496148992/img/mR7_5inJxzOyt5cf.jpg)
Hello Mr Hichilema! You must be pleased to have another prominent critic of your poor leadership gone. You are very fortunate sir: death keeps taking away your most prominent critics - Edith Nawakwi, Edgar Lungu and now the retired Archbishop of Lusaka Telesphore Mpundu. I pray that you will not be demanding to officiate the funeral now, drawing on your recent experience of giving sermons in Catholic Churches and of insisting to attend funerals of individuals whom you had little regard for while they lived. Even the picture you used to accompany your post tells a story. Because your recent relationship with him had turned sour, as it has with many of those who supported you in opposition but now regret it owing to your dreadful performance in office, you had to go back all the way to 2021 to find a suitable picture that was taken after the mass that the retired Archbishop conducted for you at State House soon after your election. What followed next is well known: Archbishop Mpundu, as he did to your predecessors whenever they strayed from the course of good governance, regularly criticised your leadership actions. In response, you and your supporters, as you have repeatedly done to the Catholic Bishops and to other well-meaning critics, denounced the man of God. Today, now that he has died, you want to pretend that you are sorrowful? Please cut us some slack, Mr Hichilema. You should have a sense of shame, sir. You can lie to yourself and to your zealot supporters but you will never deceive those of us who are familiar with your breathtaking hypocrisy. The truth that must be stated is that Archbishop Mpundu, who contributed to your election, died very disappointed at what you became in office, at the tragedy of your presidency. In one of his final public interviews (I have attached it to this post for ease of reference), Archbishop Mpundu correctly branded you as “a master of corruption”, “a dictator who does not listen to anyone”, and a failure who “should not be allowed to go [i.e. remain in office for] more than one term.” I can also now tell you that the Archbishop was extremely sad that you are now trying to send civil rights activist Brebner Changala, another person who helped you ascend to public office, to prison on a transparently silly charge of sedition using Magistrate Davies Chibwili. This issue really disturbed him. Mpundu died with his extremely high regard for Changala, whom he affectionately called Saint Brebner. As you know, Changala is the man who visited you in prison in July 2017 when you were unjustly arrested on a bogus charge of treason and whom you requested to ask the Catholic leadership to help secure your release from prison. Thanks to his efforts, you were released. Today, this is the same Changala you are determined to send to prison for criticising your leadership over the abduction of then Petauke constituency member of parliament Emmanuel Banda when the people whom the victim named as his abductors, who include two of your aides, are roaming scot-free. Do you see why the Archbishop was disappointed in what you have become? What kind of a person are you, Mr Hichilema? You are very poor at managing relations. If you cannot own up to your failings, please continue with your hypocrisy and leave us to mourn the Archbishop. By us, I mean the people to whom the Archbishop was a hero before 2021 and after 2021 when you and your supporters took turns to denounce him for the crime of pointing out the pitfalls of your leadership. Should you insist on attending the funeral, I pray that the Catholics do not allow you to speak so that we may be saved from listening to more of your repulsive diet of hypocrisy. Every country has, at one time or another, a religious leader who acts as the conscience of the nation and with the strength of conviction that is respected even by their fiercest critics. For Zambia, and since the deaths of Cardinal Medardo Joseph Mazombwe (2013), Bishop Paul Francis Duffy (2011), and Bishop Dennis Harold De Jong (2003), that honour belonged to Emeritus Archbishop of Lusaka Telesphore George Mpundu. A dignified and consistent advocate for justice, the 78-year-old was among a very small number of the Zambian clergy who are incapable of finding peace in an environment in which human suffering is manufactured by the politicians in power. Throughout his public life, Mpundu consistently raised both his voice and the quality of his argument to speak out against human rights violations, corruption in government, attacks on democracy, intentional polarisation, and the indifference of the country’s political leadership to the plight of many. It is as if he was spurred by the knowledge that to be silent in the face of these human-made sins is to actively participate in sustaining the status quo. In addition to bearing sympathy for the elites in power who found his ability to speak out on issues of public interest unbearable, the man of God refused to be bullied into silence by successive governing parties’ familiar tactic of accusing anyone who criticises the government, however well intentioned, of being an opposition supporter. A highly courageous and principled individual, Archbishop Mpundu served as an inspiring example of the kind of clergy Zambia or Africa needs – those with a deep sense of responsibility and a conscience that is restless in the face of injustice, bad governance, human rights violations and the degrading poverty that surrounds them. Archbishop Mpundu fought a good fight.
Sishuwa Sishuwa13,516 views • 2 months ago
Ba Hakainde Hichilema, Mwabuka buti badala? What exactly was the point of this address? You mean you could not speak on the death of your predecessor for a whole week only to come up with a pre-recorded and robotic-like speech in which you said nothing new? Next time, if you have nothing sensible to say, please consider keeping quiet. It is bad manners to be wasting people’s time this way.
Sishuwa Sishuwa46,620 views • 1 year ago
Hello Hakainde Hichilema. As per your call, assuming you were not politicking, I am passing my details. I worked for the University of Zambia, a government institution, and retired in 2023. The university owes me over one million Kwacha in unpaid pension, and the reason given is that the Government has not paid UNZA what it is owed. Thank you for taking this initiative. I assume the matter will now be swiftly resolved.
Sishuwa Sishuwa44,564 views • 1 year ago
This Ndola-based Catholic priest who used his homily to preach about “dictator Herod”, the Biblical king of Judea “who did not want anybody else to rule”, was subsequently ordered to publicly retract or clarify his sermon by those in authority who recognised themselves as Herod!
Sishuwa Sishuwa57,805 views • 1 year ago
For reasons stated in this video, the family of former president Edgar Lungu who died on 5 June in South Africa has decided against taking his body to Zambia today, as earlier scheduled. “It's our hope that someday, his remains will be repatriated back home and buried”, it said.
Sishuwa Sishuwa36,605 views • 1 year ago
Is it time to subject President Hichilema to a psychiatric evaluation? By Sishuwa Sishuwa Responding to the growing complaints of debilitating hunger from starving ordinary Zambians during his recent press conference (see video clip attached), President Hichilema justified the hunger as an act of God, claiming that ‘hunger is Biblical’. Given that he seemed genuinely serious when saying this, Hichilema’s response suggests one of two possibilities. The first is that Hichilema may have lost his marbles – the implication of which is the need to take mental health seriously, including when it manifests its symptoms in public leaders whom we often think are immune from such illnesses. We may be dealing with a president who needs help, not ridicule. A careful examination of some of his recent public statements reveals a worrying series of irrational and uncoordinated statements. Even at the same presser, Hichilema accused himself of “working hard” at a time when the country is sinking with major crises. This includes crippling power outages lasting as long as 20 consecutive hours a day. He also inflicted praise on himself for being the first president of Zambia to meet King Charles III, the British traditional leader who ascended to the throne a year after Hichilema’s election. Hichilema, who appears to consider this meeting as an achievement, is overlooking the point that if Zambia’s previous presidents did not meet Charles or his predecessor, it may be because Charles was not yet King, or that they did not suffer from elements of inferiority complex that appear to emerge from his excitement about meeting the British monarchy – an excitement that he, perhaps without much awareness, openly exhibits whenever he meets white people. The only conclusive way we can rule out the possibility that Hichilema has lost his marbles is to subject him to a psychiatric evaluation that will establish if he is mentally sound and simply remarkably out of touch. The second possibility is that Hichilema, in claiming that hunger is Biblical, may have been trying to conceal his administration’s policy failures by formulating a false narrative on the subject – that a natural disaster has caused hunger, electricity and water shortages, not the ruling party in general and its hard-working president in particular – and using the media to induce the public to accept it. We live in a world where, increasingly, what counts most is no longer recognising the “concrete reality” but building “narratives” around the actual reality. For inept liberal leaders and their supporters, winning this war of “narratives” requires hoodwinking ordinary people by manufacturing false public consciousness around the challenges that confront them. By claiming that hunger is Biblical and a result of supernatural forces, Hichilema is (ab)using faith to shield himself from blame and completely divert people’s attention from the concrete reality that hunger is a human-made challenge, and that its occurrence, specifically in this case, is a consequence of the persistent failure of the government to plan better, ensure food security, and provide affordable food. The obvious fact of the matter is that the present government has been hugely negligent in relation to food security. In pursuit, recklessly, of the policy of liberalisation of maize trade, the Hichilema administration sold over one million tonnes of maize and mealie meal – all from the sufficient stock that was left behind by the previous administration – to other African countries when both commodities were already out of reach for Zambia’s starving population. He has also presided over a chaotic distribution of farming inputs that has badly affected agricultural production in recent years. Hichilema knows all this and his claim that the current hunger is an act of God is a result of either wilful and unforgivable dishonesty or a futile attempt to escape responsibility for his government’s policy failures – and whichever it is, neither is acceptable since it does not resolve the hunger problem. I must concede that the warped and depressing thinking that human challenges like hunger are acts of God or nature is not restricted to Hichilema alone; it is a belief that is prevalent among Zambians today. I do not know if it is the dominant and degraded Christian theology and practice (which is largely pacifist) or a history of personalised rule, or perhaps both, that seem to have disrupted ideas of cause and effect among many Zambians. People do not attribute outcomes to their likely causes, but often to supernatural phenomena. They do not recognise their own agency and the agency of those around them. In removing human agency from the actual causes of hunger, Hichilema is exploiting the current national psyche and character structure of the ‘typical Zambian’: unquestioning, passive, cowardly, zombie-like, easy to manipulate, naive, superstitious, and worshipful of authority. I am curious to know if Hichilema thinks that countries elsewhere in the southern Africa region that also experienced drought but remain food secure are much more in God’s favour than Zambia. There are times when I feel that Zambia must kill God, if we are to make progress. When God dies, we will take His place – our success or failure resting squarely on our shoulders. For the reality is that as long as our lives and how they turn out remain God’s will, we abdicate responsibility for changing our plight to that God. It also means our leadership, in our minds at least, is God’s choosing. So if that God gives us a Hichilema, we cannot question His wisdom, notwithstanding Hichilema’s obvious poverty of anything remotely resembling the virtue to be associated with a benevolent deity.
Sishuwa Sishuwa44,010 views • 2 years ago
