By Editor Zambia
In every democracy, criticism is healthy. But there is a point at which criticism ceases to be patriotic scrutiny and becomes a predictable script, a rehearsed, orchestrated symphony of negativity from the same actors motivated by the same interests.
In Zambia today, the most relentless critics of President Hakainde Hichilema have fallen into this category. 
Their attacks are no longer about ideas, governance, or accountability; they have hardened into ideological crusades, political calculations, and personal grievances disguised as national concern.
At the centre of this ensemble is Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa, whose hostility toward President Hichilema has grown so consistent that even the least politically attentive Zambian can predict his next punchline.
A man who once branded himself as a “balanced critic” now appears locked into a single mission: painting the President as a danger to democracy, regardless of evidence.
Sishuwa often claims that he criticises all leaders equally, including former President Edgar Lungu. Yet the unmistakable pattern of his commentary tells a different story. His fire never cools when HH is involved.
What makes Sishuwa’s commentary controversial is not that he disagrees with HH. Zambia is a free country. The issue is that he routinely frames his arguments in ways that appear to delegitimise a democratically elected president while romanticising the idea of public revolt.
This crosses the line between analysis and agitation. The consistency of his attack lines, the predictability of his framing, and the absence of nuance raise legitimate questions about whether his political posture is truly scholarly or whether he is fronting a specific political agenda masked as intellectual activism.
The truth is Sishuwa is merely a front of his uncle Fred Namakando M’membe who sponsored him to study at Oxford University. Sishuwa is now paying back for the favour he received from M’membe.
Sishuwa also expected to receive a diplomatic appointment from President Hichilema.
Then enters Fred M’membe himself, leader of the Socialist Party, whose political ideology fluctuates depending on which speech he is delivering or which audience he is addressing.
M’membe has built his political brand on denouncing capitalism while practising the very mechanics of capital accumulation he condemns.
For decades M’membe dominated Zambia’s media landscape through an enterprise that operated fully within capitalist structures, yet now wishes to convert that history into revolutionary credibility.
M’membe’s criticism of President Hichilema has been as fierce as it is predictable.
He has positioned himself as the moral referee of Zambian politics, despite the fact that his own political journey has been punctuated by ideological inconsistencies and polarising rhetoric.
The irony is hard to miss: a man who once benefited from the freedoms of an open economy now mocks the same system while attacking a President working to stabilize it.
Again, Mmembe is a wrong man to deafen Zambians with his pontification of morality since he is a well-known champion of LGBT.
Next in line is Emmanuel Mwamba, former diplomat and now full-time PF social media megaphone whose political relevance is often tied to the controversies he stirs.
Mwamba has made a name for himself by opposing almost every policy President Hichilema introduces, not on the basis of substantive critique but through a pattern of dramatic insinuations, sensational claims, and speculative commentary.
Mwamba’s media platforms thrive on alarmism, creating the impression of national crisis even where progress is visible. Mwamba’s political style is simple: take a government initiative, assume the worst, label it a conspiracy, and claim he alone has discovered the “truth.”
For a man who once enjoyed the privileges of diplomatic office, his descent into perpetual oppositionism has been both theatrical and transparent.
Yet people who know Mwamba remember how close he was to the second republican president Frederick Chiluba, who died mysteriously at home. One would have wished postmortem was conducted.
Reportedly, Mwamba was with the former president in the morning on that fateful day.
A newer voice in the anti-Hichilema chores is Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma, whose critiques have taken the unfortunate route of reducing national leadership to personal jabs, facial expressions, and psychological speculation.
This is politics at its shallowest — not a contest of ideas, but of insults. By ignoring policy and obsessing over personality, her commentary has added noise, not value, to national debate.
Even Sakwiba Sikota, now leading WOZA, has joined the roundtable of government critics.
Sikota has long struggled to build a viable political base and has repeatedly shifted alliances in search of relevance.
His commentary often feels like an attempt to re-enter the political spotlight through controversy rather than through a coherent national agenda.
Then comes the youthful Makebi Zulu, whose political outings have increasingly resembled attempts to capitalize on emotion rather than offer sober leadership.
Makebi’s speeches often vibrate with theatrical energy but remain thin on substance.
Zambia needs youthful leaders grounded in policy and national vision, not political performance art.
Finally, we encounter Brian Mundubile, whose political message appears anchored not in national integration but in appealing to tribal sentiment and nostalgia for a past political dominance that Zambians have clearly rejected at the ballot box. His persistent attempts to resurrect the PF as a Bemba-centric force undermine the growth of issue-based politics.
Facts vs Noise: The HH Record
While critics sharpen their knives, the record of President Hichilema remains concrete:
• Debt restructuring achieved after years of stagnation
• Free education restored 30,000+ teachers and 11,000+ health workers employed.
• Rule of law restored after a decade of impunity
• CDF decentralisation empowering communities.
• Growing mining investment and economic stability.
These are realities — not theories.
Politics Needs Solutions, Not Character Assassination
Zambia is finally in an era where freedom of expression is protected.
The irony is that this freedom is now abused by critics who prefer personal attacks, alarmism, or ideological theatrics over reasoned debate.
Criticism is welcome, but it must be responsible. It must be factual. It must aim to improve the nation, not inflame it.
The incessant critics of President Hichilema have turned political discourse into a spectacle.
But Zambia deserves more. It deserves critics who bring ideas, not insults; arguments, not conspiracies; substance, not theatrics.
If they wish to contribute to the national conversation, they must rise above their grievances and engage the public on policy, governance, and solutions.
Otherwise, their “criticism” will continue to reveal more about their ambitions than about President Hichilema’s leadership.
