Dear Zambians,

What if I told you that you have something in your country that could make you and your children come out of poverty? Is this something that you would fight for? Well, copper, zinc, cobalt, gold, diamonds and all the finest emeralds you have haven’t brought any meaningful wealth to you. Even the world’s largest waterfalls plus the other hundreds of waterfalls haven’t
done it. Worse still, your diverse wildlife has equally failed to earn any significant revenue to benefit you.

The product that you have is a natural plant—something native to your region. The world has told you that it is something that should be illegalized in your nation and yet they’re making it legal in their nations. Needless to say, that it has earned them billions of dollars. So, why don’t you advocate to legalize cannabis?

According to the NewScientist, Mayo Clinic and Havard Health, Cannabis has many benefits such as pain relief, reducing inflammation, managing anxiety and depression, controlling nausea and vomiting, stimulating appetite, sleep aid, PTSD treatment and numerous others. So,then why are you not legalizing it if the benefits are so obvious and the world around you is
doing so and reaping huge benefits?

I know some people will give the same old stale argument of Zambia being a Christian nation blah blah blah. If this is your best argument, how about you outlaw many other unchristian things in Zambia? It is time to do what’s right for yourselves. Legalizing cannabis has so many benefits and would lift millions of Zambians out of poverty. Here are a few countries that have
fully legalized it: Uruguay (2013), Canada (2018), Malta (2021), Luxembourg (2023), and Germany (2024) which legalized possession and home growing. There are many countries where medicinal use is legal such as Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Israel and many others.

Thailand (Where I am currently writing this article from) officially removed cannabis from narcotics list, although it is regulating it strictly as of 2025. I have talked to a few Thai entrepreneurs and they can attest cannabis earns the country hundreds of millions of dollars directly and indirectly.

In Africa only South Africa allow it for private use only. It is still restricted for commercial sales.And this is where the opportunity lies for Zambia. Zambia could legalize commercial use and recreational use. In fact, the country could restrict licenses to Zambians only. This would enable every Zambian with a piece of land to be able to grow their own plants for export. According to Grand View Research and Statista, the current global market size for cannabis stands at 65 billion dollars. This number is expected to soar to 100 billion dollars by 2030? Why not be the country that earns the 35 billion dollars in the next five years?

Starting up a business in Zambia (once legalized), would not be complicated if you compare the costs that other growers in other countries incur. In other countries, because of extreme cold weather, the plants have to be grown in greenhouses. This means that there are high overhead and operational costs such as electricity, water, maintenance, treatment, salaries and so on. On the other hand, growing this plant would be cheaper in Zambia. Besides, Zambian growers can grow it all year round. If it is grown organically, it has the potential of being the most sought-after cannabis in the world. In fact, buyers would readily supply growers with everything they need—provided they sell the product directly to the buyer.

My appeal to the lawmakers in Zambia is take a look at this missed opportunity. Zambia has more to gain from the legalization than they have to lose. Zambians would also want the opportunity to have a good educational system, a functional healthcare system, and a reasonable access to other social services. I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if you could all afford a big vehicle like your MPs, or eat at fancy restaurants once in a while? It would also be nice to be flown abroad for treatment when you are sick. This should be a privilege reserved for every Zambian irrespective of their social or economic status. I would argue that if you legalized cannabis, you could make this possible. Copper and all our minerals haven’t done it. It’s time to think outside the box and make Zambia Green.

By Wesley Ngwenya

Our Constitution Is Not a Quick Fix: Resist These Rushed Amendments

By Ann-Marie Sichizya

Zambians, wake up! The government is quietly pushing a bundle of so-called “non-contentious” constitutional amendments presented as cheap, technical fixes, but make no mistake: these changes strike at the heart of our democracy. As the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) warned, past reforms done in secret were “driven by the ruling party’s motive to entrench itself in power”. What “non-contentious” really means is that you have had no say. Citizens have been asked only to rubber-stamp a draft, not to shape it. And critical observers point out that even harmless-sounding tweaks can rewrite the rules of power. For example, removing the cap on nominated MPs could hand one party the tools to fill Parliament with loyalists , a move that civil society warns would “undermine our democracy”. Likewise, a hasty overhaul of our electoral system (even if touted as improving gender balance) will introduce confusing new ballot structures without voter education, likely increasing spoiled votes and disenfranchising ordinary Zambians. These are not minor details – they define how our votes count. When JCTR says a constitutional amendment process must be “people-driven”, this is exactly what it means.

Danger in Disguise: “Non-Contentious” Changes Are Not Harmless

Don’t be fooled by the label “non-contentious.” Who decided these clauses were innocuous, and on what basis? Civil society groups have rightly demanded transparency: “The thirteen areas the government has termed as non-contentious are not the result of a transparent consultation. Who decided that the proposals are not contentious?” This isn’t a healthy democracy  it’s smoke and mirrors. Under the guise of being “efficient,” the administration openly admits it will avoid expensive procedures like referenda or broad consultations. But saving money cannot come at the expense of justice. Every change in the constitution alters our nation’s future. We cannot allow vital decisions about power and rights to be made behind closed doors.

Consider some of these so-called fixes. Adding dozens more MPs to Parliament or scrapping term limits for nominated seats may sound technical, but they dramatically tilt the electoral balance. Experts caution that simply increasing Parliament’s size without improving accountability will create more bureaucracy, not better representation. Likewise, any plan to tinker with how we vote (for example, mixing proportional representation with first-past-the-post) must be properly studied. Introducing a complex new voting system now, when even many educated Zambians misread the current ballot, is a recipe for chaos. We could see a flood of spoiled ballots, which effectively silences the people it’s supposed to empower. In short, these “non-controversial” amendments include items that should be hotly debated: they shape how your vote translates into power. It is cynical to call them non-contentious while sidelining the very citizens they affect.

A Process Without the People: No Consultation Means No Democracy

The bigger outrage is how this process is being run, or rather, not run. Instead of a broad national dialogue, the government has laid out a fait accompli. As one civil society briefing bitterly noted, the proposed roadmap was “presented as something to be accepted by citizens,” and our roles were “relegated to discussing and agreeing on the Bill after it is drafted.” In other words, Zambians have been robbed of their agency. No wonder JCTR and other reform advocates are alarmed: a legitimate constitutional review demands stakeholder consensus, chiefs, churches, civil society, opposition, and grassroots all involved from the start. Right now, we have the opposite: a top-down scheme that excludes essential voices. This exclusion “undermines the democratic legitimacy” of the process.

Even the government’s handpicked committee work is not what it seems. Some civil society members took part in an Electoral Commission review committee in good faith, believing its recommendations would feed into a broader reform. Now the government feigns endorsement from that process, as if casual participation equals approval of this piecemeal approach. It’s a bait-and-switch: we spoke in good faith, but our input is being used to rubber-stamp a plan we never agreed to. JCTR long ago cautioned that reform bodies operating under strict presidential terms of reference merely do the president’s bidding. Today we see that play out in real time.

In short, there is no substitute for you: the father, the mother, the young voter. Every Zambian should be involved in shaping our “people-driven” constitution – yet we are being sidelined. That is precisely why critics say any changes to the constitution deserve the fullest scrutiny and debate. Democracy cannot be fast-tracked. It cannot be handed out in piecemeal scraps by those in power.

Focus on Real Lives, Not Political Theater

And what is the government doing while it rushes this process? According to the Archdiocese of Lusaka, it is offering an astonishing diversion from our real problems. The Presbyteral Council has reminded the state that true reform means improving people’s lives, not staging procedural battles in Parliament while citizens struggle with food prices, power cuts, or broken clinics. There’s no point in tinkering with the ballot while ignoring what the vote is supposed to deliver: dignity, development, and fairness.

Let’s be clear: constitutional reform is not a technical chore. It is not a side hustle for legal committees. It is a deeply political act that determines who holds power, how long, and in whose name. Any change must be slow, careful, honest, and above all, owned by the people. That is what a people-driven constitution demands.

Note: this opinion article contains JCTR concerns

Why Colonialism Was Actually Good for Africa – Part 3

By Michael Chishala, 2nd May 2025

There were several important benefits of colonialism that are not immediately apparent. The “Scramble for Africa”, driven by selfish economic motives by the European colonial powers had many unintended positive consequences. Rival African tribes that fought bloody wars for many decades were now forced to stop fighting. The Bisa vs Bemba, Zulu vs Ndwandwe, Ngoni vs Chewa and Ndebele vs Shona are a few examples.

Colonialism stopped all these long-running conflicts because slavery, which had become the main driver of endless tribal wars, was eliminated by the colonialists. Colonial rule did not tolerate tribal warfare, as it would take away labour that was needed for mining, infrastructure building and farming. The peace and certainty that came out of this was invaluable for trade and commerce, transportation, human population growth and perhaps most importantly, increasing agricultural output because men were no longer needed to fight wars with other tribes. It now made sense for people to invest in commerce and long term agriculture and adopt modern farming methods since they were no longer under the threat of attack. This led to much faster economic growth, higher incomes and increased life expectancy for Africans.

Another massive benefit was the introduction of modern medicine alongside basic education in hygiene, including boiling drinking water. Before that, Africans died like flies from malaria, cholera, smallpox, tuberculosis, yellow fever, etc. Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by a Scottish Physician and French Chemists synthesised Quinine from the Cinchona tree of South America in 1820. These two were a game changer for both Europeans and Africans by making malaria and other diseases more easily treatable. Ironically, Europeans failed to colonise Africa in earlier attempts precisely because of malaria.

Average life expectancy in Africa in 1900 was around 30 years but in Europe, it had already risen to 40 years. Africans adopted modern medicines. Colonial mass vaccination programmes for under 5 children increased African life expectancy. By independence in the 1960s, many African countries were already at around 50 years. This rise from 30 to 50 years was a nearly 70% increase within a generation! Millions of African kids survived childhood and millions more lived longer better lives.

Then there was education, originally introduced by Missionary Societies to get Africans to read the Bible and learn Western customs and values. The motivations were mixed; the desire to civilise the “savage” Africans, introduce Christian morality, hopes of ending slave practices as European values were adopted, a ploy to create soft power for Europeans, preparation for colonialism, etc. Mission schools provided education for black kids for decades before colonialism, alongside ad hoc educational arrangements for the early white settlers. Then the European colonialists introduced public education. In Northern Rhodesia, the British built well funded public schools for the children of the white settlers and most of the education budget was spent there as educating the natives was not a big priority, not to mention segregation. However, they gave grants to mission schools and they eventually built public schools for blacks with Munali, Livingstone and Chikuni Secondary Schools being among the earliest efforts.

By the 1950s, Northern Rhodesia had more than 1,000 Primary Schools with over 100,000 black kids in them. The numbers for Secondary education were dismal, with just about 10 schools for the entire black population. Higher education was worse with zero institutions. Nevertheless, the education introduced by the missionaries and colonialists was a game changer for Africans to bring them into the modern global economy and increase opportunities for upward financial mobility over generations.

Zambia’s first president Kenneth David Kaunda and much of his first cabinet were educated at Munali Boys Secondary School at colonial government expense. They could never have taken over Zambia in 1964 without that colonial education. Even Zambian independence itself would not have succeeded had there not been a pool of an informed, educated, literate, leadership that could engage with the colonialists at their level and organise resistance to oppressive rule.

The first black members of the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council – Henry Kasokolo, Nelson Nalumango, Dauti Yamba and Pascale Sokota – could never have taken up their positions in 1948 without being able to read, write, and speak English, courtesy of British education. The first two Speakers of the Zambian Parliament, Wesley Nyirenda and Robinson Nabulyato went through Munali Boys, as did the first Secretary to the Zambian Cabinet, Valentine Musakanya.

Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Malawi’s first president was educated in Edinburgh, Scotland with his monthly stipend paid by the British Nyasaland government. Seretse Khama, Botswana’s first president was educated at Oxford University using funds from what was then the colonial Bechuanaland Protectorate administration.

To be continued…

Michael Chishala is a Zambian analyst with interests in Philosophy, Law, Economics and History.
Email: [email protected]