The Editor Zambia
The condemnation of President Hakainde Hichilema’s ministry realignment by human rights activist Laura Miti and Socialist Party leader Fred M’membe raises legitimate questions about public expenditure, but it falls short of adequately examining the economic and administrative objectives behind the restructuring.
At a time when Zambia is seeking to accelerate economic growth, expand production and create employment, judging government efficiency solely by the number of ministries risks missing the bigger picture. 
The critical question is not simply whether Zambia should have 10, 20 or 30 ministries, but whether the structure enables the government to deliver its development objectives more effectively.
M’membe argues that Zambia can be governed with no more than ten ministries, while Miti questions the wisdom of creating additional portfolios when rural programmes are reportedly under financial pressure.
Their concerns deserve consideration, but neither argument conclusively establishes that a smaller Cabinet would automatically produce better governance or greater development.
Modern governments are expected to manage increasingly specialised sectors. Electricity generation and transmission, petroleum supply, industrial development, international trade, skills training, tourism, culture, and the creative industries have distinct challenges that require focused policy attention.
Placing several of these responsibilities under one ministry can create administrative congestion, competing priorities, and diluted accountability.
The separation of Electricity and Petroleum, for example, reflects the different demands of power generation, transmission, fuel supply, and energy security.
Zambia’s ambition to increase electricity generation requires sustained attention to investment, infrastructure, and alternative sources of power.
Similarly, a dedicated ministry of Industry could concentrate on manufacturing, value addition, and the expansion of domestic production, while trade and exports focuses on market access and export competitiveness.
These are not insignificant responsibilities in an economy seeking to create jobs and reduce dependence on exporting unprocessed commodities.
The restructuring must also be understood within the context of the Grow Zambia Agenda. The government has articulated ambitious production targets in mining, agriculture, tourism, and energy.
Achieving them requires institutions with clear mandates, measurable objectives, and ministers who can be held accountable for results.
A ministry is not an end in itself. Its value lies in what it delivers. If the new structure accelerates investment, removes administrative bottlenecks, and improves coordination, the additional portfolios could justify their existence.
If it merely creates offices without measurable improvements, critics will have grounds to demand changes.
Miti’s concerns about the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), the Food Reserve Agency (FRA), and support for rural communities are equally important.
However, these programmes should not be presented as necessarily incompatible with institutional restructuring. Zambia must simultaneously protect vulnerable households, support farmers, and invest in productive sectors that can expand the national revenue base.
There is also a distinction between creating ministries and automatically increasing public expenditure by the same proportion.
Some responsibilities have been redistributed from existing ministries, while others have been separated into more specialised portfolios.
The actual fiscal impact must, therefore, be established through transparent budget figures rather than assumptions based on the number of ministerial titles.
Ultimately, the November 6 presentation of the 2027 national budget will provide an important opportunity to scrutinise the financial implications of the realignment.
