Lubinda rejects seven-year presidential term proposal, warns of public backlash

Zambia’s PF acting president Given Lubinda rejects a proposed seven-year presidential term, warning it threatens accountability and risks public backlash (image source)

Patriotic Front acting president Given Lubinda has rejected proposals to extend Zambia’s presidential term from five to seven years, arguing the idea is being advanced by “surrogates” aligned with President Hakainde Hichilema and will not be accepted by the public. Lubinda’s remarks follow a submission by former vice president Enoch Kavindele to the Constitutional Technical Committee, which the opposition figure contends is part of a coordinated attempt to test public reaction to altering term limits.

Lubinda drew a clear line under the constitutional status quo, stressing that Zambia’s Constitution establishes a five-year presidency and cautioning that any move to adjust the framework would face strong resistance. His comments come at a politically sensitive time, with the country preparing for the 2026 elections and heightened debate around governance reforms.

Governance experts have also raised red flags, warning that a longer presidential term—even if framed as non-renewable—could weaken democratic accountability if not grounded in transparency and broad public consultation. Critics of the proposal argue that extending the mandate risks diminishing mid-term voter evaluations and altering the balance of power between the executive and citizens, while proponents say a longer term could provide continuity for complex reforms.

The debate touches on more than constitutional text: it implicates institutional trust, electoral competitiveness and policy continuity. Observers say any changes would need inclusive national dialogue, clear justification tied to governance outcomes, and iron-clad safeguards to prevent partisan manipulation. Without such measures, term extensions can be perceived as attempts to concentrate power rather than improve governance, a perception Lubinda has sought to reinforce in his critique.

For now, the proposal has sparked a vigorous national conversation. Civil society groups and legal scholars are calling for transparent processes and public engagement before any constitutional amendments are seriously entertained. With the electoral calendar advancing, the political costs of perceived self-serving reforms are likely to rise, making consensus both more necessary and harder to achieve.