By Editor Zambia
In their latest attempt to inject drama into an otherwise orderly constitutional review process, opposition leaders Harry Kalaba, Fred M’membe and few other surrogates have issued a letter accusing President Hakainde Hichilema of “divisive language” and “eroding national unity.”
To reinforce their alarmist framing, they copied the same letter to an unnecessarily long list of international bodies, among them the United Nations, African Union, and SADC—painting Zambia as a country on the brink of collapse. 
It is a theatrical gesture, calculated, not patriotic; dramatic, not sincere; and ultimately a loud confirmation of one reality the opposition already fears: they are not prepared for 2026 elections.
The document tries to present itself as a principled defence of democracy, but upon close reading, the letter is a political shield—thin, brittle, and designed to protect the opposition from a different truth: they have failed to convince citizens that they are a viable alternative.
Instead of strengthening their message, they are outsourcing their political frustrations to diplomats who know very well that Zambia remains peaceful, orderly, and stable.
The real problem is not Bill 7. The real problem is an opposition that has failed to organise itself, failed to articulate policy, and failed to connect with the people beyond slogans and press briefings.
Their letter blames the President for “division,” yet it is their conduct that is increasingly shaking confidence in national unity.
Every time there is a policy disagreement, instead of engaging constructively, the opposition rushes to declare a national crisis, call for marches, or attempt to internationalise domestic debates.
No nation is strengthened by leaders who weaponise alarms to compensate for political unpreparedness.
Below, this article responds point-by-point to the opposition’s claims.
1. On the Accusation of Tribal Messaging
The letter claims the President is “weaponising regional sentiment” simply because he pointed out what every Zambian has seen: the debate around Bill 7 has been polluted with ethnic undertones—many of them coming from the opposition’s own ranks and allied pressure groups.
Calling out tribal rhetoric is not tribalism; it is leadership. Refusing to acknowledge it is irresponsibility.
The opposition demands a President who pretends not to notice what is happening in plain sight. They want silence in the face of polarising narratives because silence benefits them politically.
Yet silence is also how nations drift into dangerous territory.
A President has a duty to warn, to call out trends that could undermine unity—whether uncomfortable or not.
2. On Unity and Division
The letter sermonises that “a true leader must unite.”
This sounds noble, except for one problem: the opposition has refused every invitation to participate constructively. They criticise the constitutional review process—yet also refuse to bring concrete written proposals.
They lament “lack of consensus”—yet decline to join platforms designed for consensus-building.
They accuse the government of “bulldozing”—yet they are the first to walk away from dialogue so they can hold press conferences framing themselves as victims.
Unity is not achieved by those who reject every opportunity to help build it.
3. On Oasis Forum and Claims of Hypocrisy
Harry Kalaba and Fred M’membe argue that the President’s criticism of the Oasis Forum is hypocritical because he once agreed with them during the Bill 10 debate.
This argument collapses under basic scrutiny. Supporting an organisation on one issue does not require supporting it unconditionally forever. Governance is not marriage. Institutions must be assessed based on their current actions, not sentimental loyalty to the past.
The Oasis Forum’s posture toward Bill 7 has been rigid, dismissive of parliamentary authority, and at times openly political. It is entirely legitimate for the President or anyone to challenge that stance.
What is not legitimate is to clothe that criticism in moral outrage so dramatic that it must be copied to the UN.
4. On the Church
The letter claims the government is “attacking the Church.”
This is misleading. Disagreement with certain church mother bodies is not an attack on the Christian faith.
Churches are moral voices, yes, but they are not infallible, nor are they exempt from scrutiny when they enter partisan debates.
By repeatedly framing disagreement as “persecution,” the opposition is instrumentalising the Church—ironically the very thing they accuse the government of doing.
A healthy democracy requires that every actor, religious or secular, be open to challenge.
5. On National Division and Historical Quotes
The opposition invokes Dr. Kenneth Kaunda’s name, hoping to attach moral weight to their argument. But selective quoting can not replace evidence. Zambia today is not divided; it is politically competitive, socially peaceful, and institutionally functional.
The “boiling nation” they describe exists only in their speeches, not in the lived reality of citizens going about their business each day.
It is politically convenient for the opposition to declare a crisis—because declaring crisis is easier than presenting policy alternatives.
6. On Internationalising Domestic Politics
Copying the letter to international bodies shows a defeatist instinct. Instead of building trust with voters, the opposition seeks validation from foreign institutions that have no vote in 2026.
It is a strategy born out of fear, not confidence. No credible leadership sells its own country as unstable for political mileage.
7. On Bill 7 Itself
The letter barely engages the substance of Bill 7, preferring emotional generalities. Yet constitutional amendment is a routine democratic process.
Zambia has reviewed its constitution multiple times without descending into chaos.
Bill 7 is not being rushed; it is being subjected to procedures guided by law.
Opposition political parties’ resistance is not about principle; it is about timing. They fear that if the country enters the 2026 cycle with clarity, structure, and credible rules, their own political weaknesses will be exposed.
The Opposition Must Confront Its Own Reality
The opposition’s letter aims to portray Zambia as collapsing. But in truth: it is the opposition that is collapsing into panic; it is the opposition that is failing to prepare for elections; it is the opposition that is envious of the President’s broad popularity; and it is the opposition that is undermining unity by declaring every disagreement a national crisis.
Democracy demands maturity: debate, critique, proposals, and responsibility.
What we see instead is theatrical alarm meant to cover political emptiness.
If there is any lesson to draw from this episode, it is that letters sent in panic are not leadership.
What Zambia needs and deserves are leaders who argue with ideas, not fear.
