IMF sets conditions for Zambia’s final ECF review
Zambia is approaching the final review of its Extended Credit Facility programme with the International Monetary Fund, a process that will determine whether the country qualifies for the next and final disbursement under the arrangement.

The IMF has indicated that the review will focus on Zambia’s adherence to agreed fiscal targets, debt sustainability measures, and progress on structural reforms implemented during the life of the programme. The assessment forms part of the 38-month facility that was approved to support economic stabilisation and recovery efforts.

Central to the review will be government performance in maintaining fiscal discipline, controlling public expenditure, and strengthening domestic revenue mobilisation. These measures were agreed as part of efforts to stabilise public finances following years of debt distress and limited access to external financing.

Debt management remains a key component of the programme, with the IMF expected to assess progress in restructuring obligations and maintaining sustainable borrowing levels. Zambia’s engagement with creditors and commitment to transparent debt reporting are among the benchmarks under consideration.

The final review will also examine broader macroeconomic indicators, including inflation trends, exchange rate performance, and foreign exchange reserve levels. These indicators are used to measure the effectiveness of policy interventions and the resilience of the economy under prevailing conditions.

Structural reforms remain a core pillar of the programme. These include governance improvements, strengthened public financial management systems, enhanced oversight of state-owned enterprises, and reforms aimed at reducing fiscal risks. The IMF has consistently linked these reforms to long-term economic stability and growth.

Social spending protections embedded in the programme will also be reviewed. The framework requires the preservation of budgetary allocations to priority sectors such as health, education, and social protection, ensuring that fiscal adjustment does not undermine support for vulnerable groups.

Zambian authorities have maintained that progress has been made in stabilising the economy under the programme, citing improved fiscal controls and reforms in key institutions. The government has positioned the IMF programme as a foundation for restoring confidence among international partners and investors.

The outcome of the final review is expected to influence Zambia’s access to concessional financing and shape perceptions of policy credibility beyond the programme period. IMF programme assessments are closely monitored by development partners and financial markets, often serving as a signal of reform commitment.

While no specific date has been announced for the conclusion of the review, discussions between Zambian authorities and IMF officials are ongoing. Completion of the review will depend on verification of data, policy implementation, and fulfilment of agreed benchmarks.

As the ECF programme approaches its conclusion, attention is increasingly shifting toward the sustainability of reforms once IMF support ends. Policymakers face the challenge of maintaining discipline and reform momentum while addressing economic pressures and development needs.

The final review represents a critical juncture for Zambia’s economic programme, marking the transition from IMF-supported stabilisation toward a post-programme policy environment anchored on domestic reform ownership.

Kalaba says Bill 7 is now law and warns UPND will “lose the people”

Citizens First president Harry Kalaba has delivered a wide ranging critique of the UPND administration, accusing it of deepening national divisions, presiding over what he called unprecedented load shedding, weakening small and medium enterprises, and using the anti corruption agenda for political ends.

Kalaba made the remarks on KBN TV’s State of the Nation programme hosted by Kennedy Mambwe, as the discussion reviewed the country’s direction ahead of the 2026 elections.

During the interview, Kalaba said Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 had been assented to on Thursday, December 18, 2025, and described it as a measure crafted to advantage the governing party rather than address public priorities. He said the bill’s passage, despite opposition from sections of civil society, churches and legal stakeholders, reflected what he characterised as a process that did not meet expectations of broad based consultation.

Kalaba told the programme that, in his view, constitutional change should be built around public participation and outcomes that serve citizens rather than political players. He said that while the bill was now law, he believed it would carry political costs for those who championed it, stating that the UPND may have secured parliamentary numbers but would face public judgment.

As the interview returned to the electoral implications of the new law, Kalaba pointed to the introduction of mixed member proportional representation and suggested it could ultimately work against the current administration, depending on how future votes translate into seat allocation. He also referred to provisions affecting mayors and council chairpersons, saying the removal of term limits at local authority level could set a precedent that may later be used to advance wider arguments on term limits in national politics. In an exchange with the host, he said he believed the President’s political thinking was to rely on increased parliamentary numbers after elections to pursue further changes, though he acknowledged the President had not publicly stated such intentions.

Kalaba also criticised Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti over public celebrations that followed the bill’s passage, and said he supported calls for the Speaker to reconsider her position. He said the Speaker’s role required visible impartiality because Parliament includes divergent political parties and is expected to operate under rules of fairness and decorum.

On claims of shrinking democratic space, Kalaba said his party had faced repeated restrictions when attempting to hold meetings and cited a Chipata incident in which a planned rally was stopped, with police reportedly stating that the campaign period had not begun. He further alleged that Citizens First had made multiple notifications for public meetings, but had only held a limited number. He also discussed an incident in Mufulira where he said police arrived during a church gathering after what he described as “fresh instructions” to halt the meeting, before an officer reviewed documentation and declined to proceed.

The interview also turned to the Chawama parliamentary by election. Kalaba said Citizens First had decided to participate, arguing that boycotting the contest would leave residents without a challenge to the governing party. He announced that the party’s candidate is retired Captain Davison Mulenga, whom he described as a Chawama resident with previous public service experience including councillor, deputy mayor, district commissioner and permanent secretary.

On social and economic issues, Kalaba claimed the cost of doing business had risen and used the reliance on generators as an example raised during the broadcast. He also criticised the way the Constituency Development Fund is discussed in public debate, saying it should not substitute core government service delivery functions, and he said his party would seek to “realign” CDF if elected.

On the health sector, Kalaba criticised Health Minister Elijah Muchima’s public response to volunteer doctors, after the host raised concerns that some doctors had threatened to withdraw voluntary services. Kalaba said the issue required engagement and assurances, and he stated that Citizens First would seek to reduce administrative barriers in recruitment, including for teachers and other public service roles.

Kalaba also questioned official explanations for improvements in load shedding, disputing claims linked to water levels and suggesting, without providing specific details, that other decisions and arrangements were driving the situation. He said his party would prioritise measures to stabilise power supply and referred to plans that include expanding generation and considering nuclear power development over time.

The discussion ended with Kalaba saying Citizens First remains open to collaboration with other opposition figures, while confirming it will contest the 2026 elections as a standalone party.

ACC Acknowledges Mwamba Complaint as Bill 7 Becomes Law
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has formally acknowledged receipt of a complaint by former Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba alleging bribery, inducements, and intimidation of Members of Parliament in the lead-up to the passage of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7, even as the Bill has since been assented to by President Hakainde Hichilema and is now law.

The acknowledgment, stamped by the Office of the Director General on December 17, 2025, confirms that the complaint has been formally received and placed on record, marking the first documented institutional response to the corruption allegations linked to the Bill 7 vote.

President Hichilema assented to Bill 7 after its passage by Parliament during a Special Session held on December 15, 2025, completing the legislative process despite ongoing legal, political, and procedural disputes surrounding the Bill. The assent means that the constitutional amendment now has the force of law, irrespective of unresolved allegations relating to the manner in which parliamentary support was secured.

In his complaint dated December 16, 2025 and addressed to ACC Director General Daphne Pauline Soko Chabu, Mwamba alleges that agents or representatives linked to the President offered cash payments, gifts, and threats of arrest to MPs to influence the outcome of the Bill 7 vote.

The complaint claims that a group of Patriotic Front and Independent MPs were transported and flown to an executive lodge in the Lower Zambezi area, where they were allegedly kept until voting day. Mwamba alleges that the MPs each received US$150,000, paid in two instalments before and after the vote.

The letter further alleges that the operation was coordinated by State House Special Assistant for Politics Levy Ngoma, with additional claims that Government Deputy Chief Whip Likando Mufalali made similar payments to ruling-party backbenchers. It also alleges that some MPs were contacted by officers from the Zambia Police Criminal Investigations Department and threatened with arrest if they failed to support the Bill.

All claims remain allegations, and no findings have been made by the ACC.

The passage and assent of Bill 7 occurred against a backdrop of sustained controversy. Earlier in 2025, the Constitutional Court had declared the Bill unconstitutional and void, citing the absence of a legal framework and insufficient public consultation.

Despite that ruling, the Bill was revived through parliamentary procedures, culminating in its approval during the December Special Session and subsequent presidential assent. The enactment of the law has not extinguished the corruption allegations, which relate to the conduct surrounding the vote rather than the formal legality of assent itself.

In parallel with the legal developments, political consequences have begun to unfold. Opposition political structures have moved to expel some of the MPs alleged to have received inducements, citing disciplinary breaches linked to their conduct during the Bill 7 vote.

The expulsions, announced after the Bill had already been passed and assented to, have introduced an additional layer of complexity, raising questions about accountability, timing, and the practical consequences of disciplinary action after legislative outcomes have already been finalised.

No court has ruled on the legality or effect of the expulsions, and no by-elections have been triggered at this stage.

While the ACC’s acknowledgment confirms receipt of the complaint, it does not indicate whether investigations have commenced or whether any preliminary assessment has been made. Under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012, the Commission is mandated to investigate allegations involving public officials, including Members of Parliament and executive actors.

The complaint places the Commission in the position of examining allegations that touch the highest levels of the executive, even as the law whose passage is in question has already taken effect.

For now, the acknowledgment serves as a procedural record rather than a substantive determination. Whether the allegations lead to investigations, prosecutions, or remain archived as part of the official record remains an open question.

PF Expels MPs Over Bill 7 Vote as Leadership Dispute Complicates Enforcement

The Patriotic Front (PF) has announced the expulsion of all its Members of Parliament who voted in favour of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7, citing defiance of party instructions and what it describes as a betrayal of the Zambian people.

The decision was announced on Thursday by PF Acting President Given Lubinda during a media briefing in Lusaka, shortly after President Hakainde Hichilema assented to the bill.

Lubinda stated that the party had issued a three-line whip directing all PF MPs to vote against Bill 7 and to ensure that a “No” vote was formally recorded during proceedings in the National Assembly. He said the directive was clear, lawful, and communicated repeatedly to members of parliament.

According to Lubinda, PF leadership held at least eight engagement meetings with its MPs ahead of the vote. He added that the party’s national chairperson, Jean Kapata, publicly reiterated the directive during a press briefing on the eve of the vote, which was broadcast live and reported in the print media.

“No member of parliament can claim not to have heard the directive,” Lubinda said.

Constitutional Court ruling cited

Lubinda anchored the expulsions on the Constitutional Court ruling in Celestine Mukandila and Monia Zulu v Attorney General (Case No. 2025-CCZ-009), which found that the government’s initiation of the constitutional amendment process was inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

He said the court ruled that beginning the amendment process without wide public consultation violated several constitutional provisions, including Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 and 92.

Lubinda stated that the court guided that any constitutional amendment process must be people-driven, led by an independent body of experts, and grounded in broad and meaningful consultations with citizens.
Despite that guidance, he said Parliament proceeded with Bill 7, which was later passed and assented to.

Division list dispute

Lubinda also criticised the National Assembly for failing to release the official division list showing how MPs voted on Bill 7, four days after the vote.

He said parliamentary practice requires the division list to be published within 24 hours, arguing that the delay undermines accountability and transparency.

“Members of parliament are accountable to the electorate, and the electorate has a right to know how their representatives voted,” Lubinda said.

He called on Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti to immediately release the division list, stating that parliamentary proceedings are public and that voting records cannot be lawfully concealed.

Lubinda added that the PF already knows which of its MPs were present in the chamber and how they voted, regardless of the delayed publication of the official record.

Immediate expulsions announced

Lubinda announced that all PF MPs who voted in favour of Bill 7 had been expelled from the party with immediate effect.

“This decision is final and irreversible,” he said.

He added that all PF structures across the country had been directed to take formal notice of the changed status of the affected MPs.

Lubinda said MPs who absented themselves from the vote were not automatically considered to have endorsed the bill, stating that the party hoped those decisions were made in good faith and in line with the will of the electorate.

Enforcement tied to recognised leadership

However, the practical enforcement of the expulsions remains uncertain due to unresolved questions surrounding the recognised leadership of the Patriotic Front.

Under parliamentary practice, the Speaker of the National Assembly acts on formal communication from the legally recognised leadership of a political party when considering matters such as loss of party membership and the status of MPs.

In the PF’s case, the leadership dispute centres on the party presidency, with Chabinga currently holding himself out as party president without having been elected through a national convention, the traditional mechanism for leadership selection under PF structures.

As a result, any communication to the Speaker regarding expulsions may be contested unless it is issued by leadership that is formally recognised in law.

This situation places the expulsions within a broader legal and institutional dispute, rather than a straightforward parliamentary process.

Political position maintained

Lubinda said the PF was prepared to proceed politically regardless of the consequences, stating that the party would rather operate without MPs it considers to have acted against the people’s will.

He instructed party structures to begin identifying potential candidates to stand on the PF ticket in the 2026 general elections.

He also called on opposition political parties to remain united in defending constitutionalism and the rule of law.

While the Patriotic Front has asserted its political position by expelling MPs who supported Bill 7, the effectiveness of that decision ultimately turns on the unresolved question of party ownership and lawful leadership. With the PF presidency itself under dispute and the courts yet to conclusively determine who holds legitimate authority over the party, the expulsions remain politically significant but legally contested. Until the judiciary settles the question of who rightfully controls the Patriotic Front, actions taken in the party’s name are likely to continue facing institutional and legal uncertainty.