When I saw University of Zambia students lining up to shower praise on President Hakainde Hichilema’s Bill 7, I felt a cold flashback to the UNIP era. It was as if Kaunda’s ghost had marched right back onto UNZA campus. Do these students even know that it took a bruising democratic fight to free universities from state control?
Do they understand that their predecessors literally risked expulsion, prison, and beatings to keep politicians out of lecture rooms? I doubt it—because today’s student leaders seem all too eager to crawl back into political captivity. Back in the Kaunda days, student leaders were chosen specifically for being party cadres—those who chanted the loudest, “One leader!
Forever and ever!” on command. Under Hichilema, the slogans have simply been updated: “Commander! Commander!” It is shameful—the script is the same; only the name has changed.
Read Full Article on Lusaka Times
[paywall]
Given how little historical context many students have, who can even be surprised? What is shocking, though, is how quickly university leadership has surrendered its independence. Institutions once known for intellectual courage now behave like the president’s kantemba.
It’s embarrassing and dangerous. But then again, it’s hard to expect much political clarity from people who don’t even seem to know that the reforms they’re cheering today were first introduced by the PF as Bill 10—the same bill Hichilema condemned as a constitutional disaster and a betrayal of the Zambian people. It is shameful to see the young woman praising Hichilema for Bill 7 because of its potential to include youth in Parliament, yet failing to mention youthful MPs like Tasila Lungu, Jean Chisenga, and others.
She didn’t even acknowledge that the once-rejected Bill 10 also sought youth and women’s representation. Why didn’t she ask Hichilema why he rejected those same provisions as flawed, or why he believed PF was trying to rig the system by using that very bill when he was in opposition? Let’s be honest: hypocrisy has no political party.
PF wanted Bill 10 for one reason—to tilt the game. Now Hichilema wants Bill 7 for the same reason. Strip away the sugarcoating and the agenda is identical: consolidate power, weaken checks and balances, and stretch presidential influence to its limits.
Bill 10 wasn’t entirely rotten. It had progressive components—proportional representation, human-rights protections, more constituencies, and reserved seats for youth, women, and people with disabilities. But at its core, it was a weapon designed to keep PF in power indefinitely.
It expanded the president’s control over the purse and state institutions. It was a time bomb disguised as a gift. The only reason PF didn’t get away with it was because civil society, the Church, and the Oasis Forum stood firm.
The Roman Catholic bishops—at great political cost—said no. Hichilema praised them lavishly for rejecting Bill 10. Here are his exact words: “I want to thank the Roman Catholic Church, through its bishops, for its leadership in rejecting Bill 10.” If he celebrated their courage then, why is he attacking them now?
Because he is president. Hichilema’s real fear with Bill 10 was that PF would use it to manipulate elections and cling to power for seven more years. He argued passionately that if a president wanted youth or women in Parliament, he could simply nominate them—no constitutional overhaul needed.
He even lectured the nation on how to do it properly: “If I were them, I would withdraw this bill. Take it back to the public under a process chaired by Church mother bodies.” Well, here we are. The question writes itself: If Bill 10 was unacceptable under PF, how does Bill 7 suddenly become holy under Hichilema?
[/paywall]
