President Hakainde Hichilema has removed Minister of Health Elijah Muchima and Minister of Small and Medium Enterprise Development Elias Mubanga from their positions with immediate effect.

The announcement came through an official State House press release issued in Lusaka on February 18, 2026. The communication stated that the decision was made in accordance with Article 116 (3) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, which allows the President to appoint and dismiss ministers.

No explanation or background was provided in the statement regarding the reasons for the removals. The notice only confirmed that both ministers had been relieved of their duties and that successors would be announced later.

State House conveyed appreciation to the two former ministers for their service to the government and wished them well in their future endeavours. The communication remained brief and procedural, focusing strictly on the constitutional action taken.

With the Health Ministry now without political leadership, administrative functions are expected to continue under senior civil service officials until a new minister is appointed. The same applies to the Small and Medium Enterprise Development Ministry, which oversees programmes supporting small businesses and entrepreneurship.

Cabinet changes fall under presidential authority and can be made at any time during a government’s tenure. The latest announcement confirms an immediate adjustment to the cabinet structure, leaving two key portfolios vacant for now.

Further details are expected once State House announces replacements.

State House Chief Communications Specialist Clayson Hamasaka has defended Zambia’s justice system, stating that individuals currently serving prison sentences were convicted through lawful court processes rather than political targeting. His remarks come amid continued debate within the country’s political space over claims that some detainees are victims of political persecution.

Hamasaka emphasised that Zambia’s democratic framework is built on the independence of institutions responsible for investigations, prosecutions and judicial rulings. He said the government does not interfere with court decisions, arguing that legal outcomes are determined by evidence presented before the judiciary. The statement reflects a broader effort by the administration to counter narratives suggesting that detentions are politically motivated.

The issue of alleged political prisoners has become a recurring theme in opposition messaging. Some political figures claim that arrests linked to high-profile cases reflect selective enforcement of laws. Government allies, however, maintain that legal processes must be respected and that court rulings should not be reframed through partisan lenses. The exchange highlights how debates around justice often mirror wider political rivalry.

Public reaction has been divided. Supporters of the administration say the emphasis on rule of law demonstrates institutional strength, arguing that accountability must be pursued regardless of political affiliation. Critics, meanwhile, call for greater transparency in how investigations are conducted, insisting that public confidence depends on consistent application of legal standards.

The conversation has also drawn attention to the broader role of communication in governance. Statements from State House are intended to reassure citizens that legal institutions operate independently, particularly at a time when political discourse remains highly charged. By framing the issue around constitutional principles, officials aim to reinforce trust in established procedures.

Political analysts note that debates around detention and justice are common during election cycles, when rival groups seek to shape narratives about governance. Allegations and counter-allegations often reflect competing interpretations of legal outcomes rather than disputes over specific court judgments. In this context, Hamasaka’s remarks can be seen as part of a wider effort to stabilise public perception of institutional credibility.

Meanwhile, civil society organisations continue to advocate for balanced dialogue. Some groups emphasise the importance of protecting human rights while respecting judicial independence, urging leaders across the political spectrum to avoid language that could undermine confidence in the courts. Calls for responsible political communication highlight the delicate balance between freedom of expression and respect for legal processes.

The debate underscores how governance, law enforcement and political messaging intersect in Zambia’s evolving democratic landscape. While disagreements over interpretation persist, both government supporters and critics acknowledge that public trust in the justice system remains central to political stability.

Hamasaka’s statement therefore represents more than a single response to criticism; it reflects an ongoing contest over how legal outcomes are framed within national discourse. As political competition intensifies, discussions around justice and accountability are likely to remain prominent, shaping the narrative of governance in the lead-up to future elections.

Electoral Commission of Zambia chairperson Mwangala Zaloumis has defended the ongoing delimitation exercise, assuring stakeholders that the process will be conducted fairly and in accordance with established legal frameworks. Her remarks come amid growing political attention surrounding electoral boundary adjustments, which have become a focal point of debate across Zambia’s political landscape.

Zaloumis emphasised that delimitation is a technical and consultative process designed to improve representation by reflecting demographic changes. She said the commission remains committed to transparency and inclusivity, noting that consultations with stakeholders form a central part of the exercise. The assurance follows concerns raised by various political actors who fear that boundary adjustments could influence electoral outcomes.

The delimitation exercise has generated discussion within both government and opposition circles, highlighting how electoral reforms often become politically sensitive. Supporters of the commission argue that periodic boundary reviews are necessary to maintain fairness as populations grow and shift. Critics, however, say public confidence depends on visible neutrality and consistent communication throughout the process.

Political leaders across the spectrum have expressed differing views on the exercise. Some opposition voices have called for stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure that constituency boundaries are adjusted without bias. Others have urged the commission to expand public engagement efforts, arguing that citizens need clearer explanations of how decisions are made and how changes may affect representation.

Zaloumis reiterated that the commission operates independently and that all decisions are guided by the Constitution and electoral laws. She said the process involves data analysis, consultations and adherence to legal standards, rather than political considerations. Her statement reflects an attempt to maintain institutional credibility during a period when electoral issues attract intense scrutiny.

The delimitation debate also intersects with broader discussions about governance and electoral integrity. Boundary reviews can shape campaign strategies, resource allocation and voter mobilisation, making them a critical component of election preparation. Political actors therefore closely monitor the process, often interpreting changes through the lens of competition rather than technical necessity.

Meanwhile, civil society organisations have encouraged continued dialogue between the commission and political stakeholders. They stress that open communication helps reduce misunderstandings and builds confidence in electoral institutions. Calls for transparency have been accompanied by appeals for responsible political messaging, urging leaders to avoid statements that could erode public trust.

Public reaction to the delimitation exercise has been mixed. Some citizens view the process as a positive step toward ensuring equitable representation, particularly in areas experiencing rapid population growth. Others remain cautious, citing historical debates over electoral boundaries as reasons for heightened vigilance.

Zaloumis’s remarks highlight the delicate balance electoral authorities must maintain. On one hand, they must implement technical reforms required by law. On the other, they must navigate political sensitivities and reassure stakeholders that the process remains impartial. As consultations continue, the commission faces the task of sustaining confidence while advancing reforms that will shape Zambia’s electoral framework in the years ahead.

The evolving discussion around delimitation underscores the importance of institutional communication and stakeholder engagement in maintaining trust during periods of political transition. With elections on the horizon, how the process unfolds will likely remain a central topic in national political discourse.