The Editor Zambia
The Tonse Alliance rallies are becoming circuses by day where politicians are coming out as being unprepared to govern the country.
The National Reconstruction Party United Platform (NRPUP)
leaders, especially Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu, are exposing their ignorance almost at every fora where they are promising untenable promises and exposing their ignorance on economics. 
The latest rantings by one of the NRPUP leaders is one classic example clearly showing that the alliance is incubating something rotten.
The latest comments by the Alliance’s Finance Committee chairperson, Mutotwe Kafwaya have once again thrust Zambia’s economic policy debate into the national spotlight, raising fresh questions about how political leaders approach complex fiscal issues during election campaigns.
Speaking on the country’s debt situation, Kafwaya argued that Zambia should not have embarked on the debt restructuring programme negotiated by the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) administration.
What ignorance!
Instead, he suggested that funds earmarked for major infrastructure projects, including the Lusaka–Ndola Dual Carriageway, could have been redirected towards servicing the country’s debt.
Mutotwe also proposed that Zambia could have used part of its mineral wealth, including gold, to settle outstanding obligations with creditors.
The remarks have attracted significant attention because debt restructuring has been one of the defining economic policies of the UPND administration.
After Zambia became Africa’s first sovereign default during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the country entered lengthy negotiations with official and commercial creditors to restructure billions of dollars in external debt.
The programme has created fiscal breathing space by extending repayment periods and easing immediate debt-servicing pressures, allowing the government to restore macro-economic stability while continuing to finance essential public services.
Economic analysts point out that debt restructuring is not simply about finding money to pay creditors. Rather, it is a legal and financial process designed to restore debt sustainability when a country is unable to meet its obligations under existing repayment terms.
Simply redirecting money from one infrastructure project to creditors would not necessarily resolve the broader challenge if overall debt obligations remained unaffordable.
Similarly, proposals to use mineral resources to settle sovereign debt raise practical questions. Government mineral revenues are already integrated into national budgets through taxation, royalties, and other fiscal mechanisms.
Using strategic mineral assets directly to retire debt would require complex valuation, commercial negotiations, and legal agreements that go far beyond a straightforward policy announcement.
These issues illustrate why economic management requires careful planning, technical expertise, and a thorough understanding of international financial markets.
Election campaigns naturally encourage politicians to present bold alternatives, but voters also expect those alternatives to be supported by realistic implementation plans and sound economic reasoning.
Kafwaya’s comments are not the first opposition proposals to generate public debate. In recent months, several campaign statements from different political actors have been scrutinised by economists and policy experts who have questioned whether some promises adequately account for Zambia’s fiscal realities, debt obligations and limited public resources.
Healthy democratic competition depends on robust policy debate.
Opposition parties play an essential role by challenging government decisions and presenting alternative visions for managing the economy.
However, those alternatives inevitably attract close examination, particularly when they concern issues as significant as sovereign debt, infrastructure financing, and public expenditure.
As the election campaign gathers momentum, economic policy is expected to remain one of the central issues facing voters. Citizens will be weighing competing proposals on debt management, job creation, infrastructure development, mining policy, and public finances.
Ultimately, the debate sparked by Kafwaya’s remarks highlights the importance of evidence-based policy-making.
Zambia’s economic challenges are complex and require solutions that are fiscally credible, legally sound, and capable of sustaining long-term growth.
Campaign rhetoric may capture headlines, but governing the economy demands policies that can withstand scrutiny from investors, financial institutions, businesses, and the Zambian people alike.
As political parties continue to outline their economic programmes, voters will increasingly judge not only the ambition of campaign promises being made by amateur economists like Kafwaya but also whether they are practical, affordable and capable of delivering sustainable prosperity.
