By EditorZambia
The so-called Centre for Policy Dialogue has crossed a dangerous line by openly calling for the election of a presidential flag bearer at its March 6 to 7 conference in Lusaka.
The grouping has abandoned any pretence of being a neutral civic platform and exposed itself as a rogue organisation with no lawful mandate to incite citizens toward forming an alternative government outside the established democratic framework. 
In a letter dated February 18, 2026, and addressed to Ms. Sylvia Nawa, the Centre for Policy Dialogue invites nominations for what it describes as a national conference on National Renewal and Transformative Leadership. The document goes further to state that one of the outcomes of the gathering will be the election of a flag bearer who shall be the presidential candidate for the August 13, 2026 general elections on a unified coalition platform. Nomination fees of K30,000 for men and K25, 000 for women are to be deposited into a named private bank account.
This is not civic engagement but political engineering dressed up as national renewal.
Zambia is a constitutional democracy. The pathway to State House is clearly outlined in the Constitution and in subsidiary electoral laws. Political parties are registered entities that adopt their own internal democratic procedures to elect leaders and candidates with the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) supervising nominations in accordance with the law. Nowhere in this architecture is there room for a self-appointed pressure group to convene a conference and purport to midwife a presidential candidate for the Republic.
Such actions border on the reckless, and at worst, they amount to an attempt to undermine the constitutional order by creating a parallel political process outside recognised party structures. That is why many citizens are asking whether this is not only irresponsible but treasonous in spirit because no private grouping has the authority to position itself as a kingmaker for the nation.
It is even more troubling that the Centre for Policy Dialogue is acting in collaboration with the so-called Council of Elders for Ethical Leadership and Development. By any honest measure, a council of elders should be society’s moral compass. Yet the current crop of self-styled elders has repeatedly been accused of partisanship and political adventurism. When organisations that claim neutrality begin dabbling in succession politics, they forfeit the moral high ground.
The hypocrisy is glaring since the invitation letter paints a picture of a nation in deepening social pressure, economic strain, and governance challenges. It claims there is no clear and cohesive political alternative capable of channelling public frustrations into credible leadership. That narrative deliberately ignores the reality on the ground under the leadership of President Hakainde Hichilema and the governing United Party for National Development (UPND).
Since 2021, the UPND administration has stabilised a battered economy, restored international credibility, and re-anchored governance on the rule of law. Debt restructuring efforts have unlocked breathing space. Free education has expanded access for vulnerable children. Constituency Development Fund (CDF) allocations have been increased to empower local communities. Law enforcement institutions have been allowed to operate without political interference.These are not slogans. They are measurable policy outcomes.
If the Centre for Policy Dialogue believes it has better ideas, the democratic route is clear. Form a political party. Register it. Mobilise members. Campaign openly. Submit to the verdict of the electorate on August 13. That is how democracy works. What is unacceptable is the attempt to create a quasi-political platform that collects nomination fees, promises to elect a flag bearer and seeks to manufacture legitimacy through a closed conference of handpicked delegates.The call for authorities to closely scrutinise, and if necessary halt, the March 6 to 7 meeting is therefore not a call for repression but a call for order. This is for the simple reason that freedom of assembly does not extend to activities that threaten constitutional stability or promote lawlessness. Zambia has worked too hard to consolidate its democracy to allow shadowy formations to experiment with parallel political structures.
Equally concerning are the individuals at the helm of this initiative. Dr Mbita Chitala and Dr. Neo Simutanyi are often described as intellectuals. Yet intellectualism divorced from practical governance can become a dangerous abstraction since Zambia does not need textbook theories about national renewal crafted in conference halls. It needs grounded leadership that understands the complexity of running a modern State, balancing budgets, negotiating international agreements and delivering services to millions.
Governance is not an academic seminar but a daily exercise in responsibility.
The Centre for Policy Dialogue must answer fundamental questions. Who funds it? Who authorised it to solicit nomination fees? Under what legal framework does it purport to elect a presidential candidate? And why is it positioning itself as an alternative political vehicle instead of allowing registered political parties to conduct their own processes?
Zambians deserve transparency, not theatrics.
As the country approaches the August 13 general elections, political contestation should be robust but orderly. Political parties must compete on ideas, track records, and vision. The ruling UPND is already campaigning through development projects and policy achievements. Opposition political parties are free to do the same. That is the beauty of multiparty democracy.
What Zambia cannot afford is the normalisation of rogue platforms that claim to speak for the nation while operating without a clear mandate. The Centre for Policy Dialogue and its allies should rethink their course. If they persist in this path of political provocation, they risk being remembered not as champions of renewal but as architects of unnecessary tension in a country that values peace, order, and constitutionalism above all.
