20/09/2026
President Ronnie Jere writes...
ZAMBIA MUST NOT RETURN TO THE POLITICS OF THE THIRD TERM
Statement on calls to remove or weaken presidential term limits
There is a disturbing political conversation emerging in Zambia around the future of presidential term limits.
Statements attributed to various political actors and commentators—including Chilufya Tayali, Dr. Lubinda Habazoka and others—have raised questions about whether Zambia should retain presidential term limits, with some arguments reportedly favouring a system in which a President could seek re-election as many times as the electorate chooses.
We must take this debate seriously.
This is not simply a question about one individual or one political party. It is a question about the constitutional safeguards that protect Zambia from the excessive concentration of political power.
The Constitution currently provides that the term of office of the President is five years and that a person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President.
Those provisions did not emerge from a vacuum. They reflect Zambia's historical experience and the broader democratic principle that political power must have constitutional limits.
WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE
Zambia does not need to speculate about what can happen when a sitting President begins seeking constitutional changes that would allow him to remain in office beyond the established limits.
We saw this in 2001 when supporters of then-President Frederick Chiluba sought constitutional changes that would have allowed him to pursue a third presidential term.
The proposal encountered resistance from within the ruling MMD, opposition parties and civil society. More than one-third of Members of Parliament signed a declaration opposing the third term, while citizens and civil society organisations mobilised against the proposal. The campaign ultimately collapsed and President Chiluba abandoned his third-term bid.
That episode should remain permanently engraved in Zambia's democratic memory.
The lesson was not that Zambians should trust every President to voluntarily leave power. The lesson was that constitutional safeguards, political institutions and citizens must be strong enough to prevent personal political ambitions from overriding constitutional principles.
DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY
We are also hearing arguments that Zambia does not need democracy as much as it needs development.
This is a false choice.
Zambians deserve both development and democracy.
Roads, hospitals, schools, electricity, jobs and economic growth are important. But development without constitutionalism, accountability, political freedoms and respect for citizens' rights creates a dangerous imbalance of power.
Democracy is not an obstacle to development.
Democracy is one of the mechanisms through which citizens retain the ability to question those who govern them, replace them peacefully and demand accountability.
THE PRESENT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT CANNOT BE IGNORED
This debate is taking place against a backdrop of growing concern about civic space in Zambia.
Human Rights Watch reported that Zambia's 2025 human-rights environment became increasingly hostile toward perceived dissent, criticism and political opposition. It also raised concerns about the Cyber Security Act and Cyber Crimes Act and their implications for freedom of expression, association and media freedom.
Amnesty International's August 2026 assessment similarly documented concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly ahead of the 2026 elections.
Freedom House's 2026 assessment currently classifies Zambia as "Partly Free", giving the country 53 out of 100 and specifically noting obstacles facing opposition parties and the government's use of restrictive laws to narrow political space.
These assessments are not proof that every allegation made against the government is true. But they demonstrate that concerns about Zambia's democratic and civic environment are not merely the inventions of political opponents.
That is precisely why this is the wrong moment to contemplate weakening constitutional safeguards against excessive presidential tenure.
WE MUST NOT PERSONALISE THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution belongs to the people of Zambia.
It must not be amended simply because an incumbent President, ruling party or political movement believes that a particular individual should remain eligible for office indefinitely.
If someone believes presidential term limits should be abolished, let that person make the argument openly and let Zambians debate it honestly.
But the debate must also confront the consequences.
What happens when a President controls the machinery of government for decades?
What happens when political institutions become increasingly dependent on the executive?
What happens to the opposition when the same political organisation controls state power election after election?
What happens to citizens who challenge the government when they believe that their rights have been violated?
These are not theoretical questions.
They are precisely the problems that constitutional term limits are intended to help guard against.
WE WILL NOT SUPPORT THE ABOLITION OF PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS
Our position is therefore clear:
We do not support the removal of the constitutional limit on presidential tenure.
We do not support constitutional engineering designed to create an avenue for a sitting President to remain in power indefinitely.
We do not believe Zambia should replace constitutional limitations with the argument that "the people can simply vote him out."
Elections are essential, but constitutional democracy is more than elections.
A constitutional democracy requires institutions, checks and balances, enforceable rights, political competition and limits on the concentration of power.
The argument that a President should be allowed to contest indefinitely because voters can always reject him sounds democratic on the surface, but it ignores the importance of the institutional environment in which those elections take place.
LET THE CHILUBA EXPERIENCE REMIND US
When President Chiluba's supporters attempted to open the door to a third term, Zambians pushed back.
Civil society pushed back.
Opposition parties pushed back.
Members of the ruling party pushed back.
And ultimately President Chiluba abandoned the project.
That was an important moment in Zambia's democratic history.
We should not wait until constitutional safeguards have been dismantled before recognising their value.
A CALL TO ZAMBIANS
We therefore call upon:
- Opposition political parties to take this issue seriously and make their positions known;
- Civil society organisations to monitor and educate the public about any proposals affecting presidential tenure;
- Churches, traditional leaders, academics and legal practitioners to participate in the national conversation;
- The media to scrutinise and accurately report proposals affecting the Constitution; and
- All Zambians to defend the principle that the Constitution belongs to the people, not to an individual President or political party.
We must also distinguish between legitimate constitutional reform and constitutional changes designed primarily to benefit those currently holding power.
Zambia can and should amend its Constitution where genuine institutional weaknesses need to be addressed. But constitutional reform must be people-driven, transparent and based on the long-term interests of the Republic.
The Constitutional Court has previously emphasised the importance of a people-driven process and wider consultation in constitutional amendment processes.
OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE
Zambia has already rejected the politics of the third term once. We must not allow history to repeat itself.
We cannot allow frustration with the performance of one government—or admiration for one political leader—to become an argument for permanently weakening constitutional safeguards.
Presidents come and go.
Political parties come and go.
But the Constitution must remain bigger than any individual.
We will defend presidential term limits.
We will defend constitutionalism.
We will defend multiparty democracy.
We will defend the right of Zambians to change their government peacefully through credible elections.
And we call upon every well-meaning Zambian, regardless of political affiliation, to remain vigilant whenever proposals arise that could concentrate presidential power or weaken the constitutional restraints on those who hold it.
Zambia belongs to its citizens—not to any President, political party or political movement.
