Hichilema’s Son, ZNS, and the Dangerous Game of Training Under a False Name

By Kapya Kaoma

Zambia is once again walking itself into controversy. What should have been a simple story of patriotism—the president’s son, Habwela Hichilema, completing training at the Zambia National Service (ZNS)—has instead turned into a scandal. Serving one’s nation is admirable, especially for the children of leaders. But State House’s bungled communication, coupled with the revelation that the president’s son trained under a false identity, has transformed a moment of national pride into a national security alarm.

First came the strange assurance that he had not received preferential treatment during the training. Then, shockingly, came the real bombshell—he trained under a pseudonym. Ops indeed.

The first defense was unnecessary. Who was demanding proof that the president’s son was not favored? If he qualified and passed on merit, that would speak for itself. By rushing to deny favoritism, State House created suspicion where there had been none. But the far graver problem is the second revelation–the very use of a false identity.

This claim undermines the first. To protect its image, the government now claims he trained incognito. If true, how, in a military institution, does one train under a fake name? This is a critical issue of law, democracy, and national security. Military training relies on verified identities, trust, and clear records. If the president’s son trained under a false name, what documents were submitted? Were certificates forged? Was an NRC altered? Were records fabricated? If so, that is not a mistake—it is fraud. Legally, the person who trained and the person who graduated would not be the same. If deception was at play, how do we even know he trained at all? For all we know, he could have trained elsewhere and simply worn the ZNS uniform on Zambian soil. Such secrecy only deepens doubts about the First Family’s dealings, which are already shielded from scrutiny.

The danger multiplies from there. If the president’s son can train under false credentials, what message does this send to military officials—that laws can be broken to meet one person’s needs? And who else is doing the same? Are ministers’ children, party cadres, or political loyalists quietly embedding themselves into our armed forces under assumed names? If so, Zambia may be cultivating a shadow military—one answerable not to the nation, but to a party or even a family.

History warns us what comes next. Across Africa, leaders have used their children’s military careers to entrench dynastic rule. Joseph Kabila inherited power in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Museveni in Uganda and Kagame in Rwanda have carefully positioned their sons in military command. In each case, the family’s grip tightened while democracy withered. Is Zambia inching toward the same script?

Contrast this secrecy with established democracies elsewhere. In the United States, presidential children have no need to hide their names if they serve. In Britain, princes have enlisted in full public view. Their transparency strengthens trust, proving that service is real—not a cover for political manipulation. Why, then, does Zambia resort to concealment?

The danger is not just today’s deception but tomorrow’s consequences. A military infiltrated by hidden identities is vulnerable to corruption, capture, and abuse. Soldiers whose names and pasts are obscured can be mobilized for partisan ends—or worse, for clandestine operations shielded from accountability. This is the architecture of authoritarianism, not democracy.

The lesson is simple. Democracy does not exist in the shadows. If the president’s son wanted to serve openly, the nation would have applauded him. But cloaking his identity poisons that service, casting suspicion not only on him but on the credibility of the armed forces themselves.

Zambia’s strength has always been the trust between its people, its institutions, and its leaders. That trust is now in jeopardy. If our military is politicized, if deception infiltrates its ranks, democracy will not collapse from foreign invasion—it will rot from within.

The president owes the nation a full, honest explanation. Anything less is a national security failure.