By EditorZambia
Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma’s recent piece that has gone wildly viral purporting to dissect President Hakainde Hichilema’s childhood and “psychology” is a textbook example of how political commentary can be derailed by tribal bias, personal fixation, and sweeping generalisations masquerading as analysis.
The article is not only riddled with false assumptions, but also anchored in a long-standing pattern of stereotyping Tonga identity—especially the malicious urban lore that mocks cattle-keeping as primitive or incompatible with leadership. 
This is not political critique. It is thinly veiled hate speech, rooted in the tired tribal narratives that have divided Zambia for decades.
This is the same dialogue that led to Zambia not attaining independence in 1962 till Kenneth Kaunda’s United National Independence Party (UNIP) and Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula’s Africa National Congress (ANC) made an alliance.This is the same narrative that led to the breakaway of the North-Eastern alliance ZANC, than later morphed into UNIP.
This is the same narrative that led to the infamous Choma Declaration of 1973 that criticised ANC and saw nothing wrong with UNIP, a party that was hijacked by Bembas with a strong base in Eastern Province.
- A Political Critique Built on Tribal Prejudice, Not Facts
Ngoma writes from a position steeped in the North-Eastern political tradition known for belittling Tonga culture—particularly the tradition of cattle-rearing.
The article reduces an entire ethnic group’s livelihood to a punchline. This is not “analysis”; it is recycling of prejudices that have been weaponised in urban chit-chat to depict Tongas as incapable of governing because they “only know cows.”
When Ngoma claims that “cattle culture” is incompatible with democracy, she is not attacking President Hichilema alone. She is attacking the livelihoods, identity, and dignity of an entire region of Zambia.
What she calls “cattle culture” is, in fact, an economic backbone for Southern, Western, and parts of Central Zambia.
The cattle economy has sent children to school, built homes, sustained communities, and generated national wealth. To sneer at it is to sneer at countless cattle-keeping tribes in Zambian.
⁶Leadership is shaped by values—discipline, responsibility, patience—not by the animals one grows up around. The suggestion that a cattle-rearing childhood leads to authoritarian leadership is both unscientific and tribalistic.
- The Flawed Psychology and Fabricated Fatherhood Speculation
Ngoma takes an even darker turn by diving into the President’s family, insinuating paternal absence, questioning his parentage, and presenting her own fiction as “psychological insight.”
This behaviour is not journalism, analysis, or political critique. It is gossip, targeted character assassination, and a blatant invasion of privacy.
A fundamental principle of ethical commentary is that you can not pathologise a person based on speculation.Ngoma asks: “Why doesn’t he talk about his father?” “Was he born within marriage?” “Is Hichilema even his father’s name?”
These are not analytical questions—they are loaded insinuations meant to cast doubt on the President’s identity and dignity. They mirror the tactics used historically to delegitimise leaders by attacking their origins.
This is baked in the hegemonic North/ East tribal oven that criminalises other tribes with their activities.
North – East tribalism is so deep that even other tribes withing the Bemba-grouping like Luapulans are sometimes called batubulu-People who defeacate on the lake because of fishing that is a common livelihood culture in the province.
This tribalism extended to the fifth president who despite belonging to the Bemba-grouping targeted Bembas proper’ when he attained power because he knew their tribalism first hand.
Why should a national leader be compelled to parade personal family history to satisfy the curiosity of political commentators?
Where in democratic practice is such disclosure required?
Children raised by single parents, extended families, or guardians are not psychologically damaged, nor are they unfit for leadership.
Zambia has had presidents whose fathers were absent (Frederick Chiluba) or unknown publicly (Rupia Banda, Edgar Lungu), and society never demanded their ancestry be subjected to psychological autopsy.
This fixation is rooted not in the President’s stories but in the writer’s own biases and desire to delegitimise him at a personal level.
- Misrepresenting “Cattle Culture” to Suit a Political Agenda
Ngoma claims that because cattle do not talk, President Hichilema treats Zambians like silent subjects.
This argument collapses instantly under basic scrutiny.
Growing up in a cattle-rearing environment teaches:
- Responsibility, because losing even one animal is a serious economic loss.
- Patience, because tending livestock requires long hours and calmness.
- Discipline, because the work is demanding.
- Strategic planning, because herd management involves long-term thinking.
These qualities have shaped leaders, entrepreneurs, and professionals worldwide.
Cattle-rearing does not turn a person into a dictator.
If anything, it builds resilience and humility.
Ngoma takes a cultural practice and weaponizes it into an insult—exactly the kind of mockery that has made Tongas the butt of tribal jokes in some urban areas.
This perpetuates harmful stereotypes, not intellectual criticism.
- Turning Childhood Narratives Into Personal Attacks
President Hichilema shared his childhood story as many leaders do—Obama, Kaunda, Mandela, Banda, and others frequently spoke about formative experiences.
These stories help citizens understand the leader’s values and motivations.
Ngoma transforms this harmless personal narration into an indictment, asserting that recounting hardship is evidence of “obsessive need for praise.”
It is astonishing to label every childhood anecdote a sign of psychological trauma.
By that logic: Every leader who speaks about poverty is insecure.
Every leader who recounts childhood discipline is domineering.
Every leader who overcame hardship is emotionally wounded.
This is pseudo-psychology—dangerous, dishonest, and reductionist.
- False Claims of Authoritarianism
Ngoma lists sweeping accusations—silencing civil society, intimidating journalists, shutting down dissent—without evidence, without specifics, and without acknowledging: Zambia is ranked among Africa’s most open democracies today.
- Journalists operate freely, often criticising the government without consequence.
- Peaceful protests occur.
- Opposition parties hold rallies and press briefings.
If Zambia were the authoritarian kraal Ngoma describes, she would not publish such a hostile article without consequence.
Her argument collapses under its own exaggeration.
- Exploiting Lungu’s Funeral to Push a Narrative
Ngoma’s attempt to weaponise a national moment of mourning to score political points is deeply unfair.
Funeral protocols involving former heads of state follow legal and procedural guidelines, not “cattle culture.”
The government has repeatedly emphasised respect and coordination with the family.
To twist this into a metaphor for how the President handles cattle is not only inappropriate—it is dehumanising.
- Article Built on Hate, Not Reason
Ngoma ends by claiming that Zambia is “paying for one man’s childhood scars.”
This is the culmination of an article built entirely on:
- Tribal
- prejudice
- Personal speculation
- Psychological guesswork
- Cultural mockery
- Political opportunism
This is not a balanced commentary.This is not an analysis.
This is a political attack rooted in cultural contempt.
Zambians deserve honest debate, not tribal stereotyping disguised as psychology.
Criticism of a president is normal in a democracy. But criticism rooted in ethnic mockery, personal attacks, or speculative trauma-diagnosing crosses ethical lines.
President Hakainde Hichilema—like any national leader—should be judged on policy, decisions, governance, and results. Not on his clan, his childhood, his parents, or the livestock of his people.
Ngoma’s article is not just unbalanced. It is a modern expression of old tribal hostilities dressed up as intellectual commentary.
Zambia deserves much better than that.
