Why Is Zambia Talking About a Third Term Again?

Barely three weeks into President Hakainde Hichilema’s second term, Zambia is already talking about something that, under the Constitution as it stands today, should not arise in the next presidential election: a third term.

The conversation gained momentum after UPND Proportional Representation Member of Parliament Florence Chileshe Chama publicly argued that President Hichilema should remain in office beyond 2031. Her remarks have since attracted responses from political commentators and civil society figures, some of whom have warned against any attempt to remove presidential term limits.

There is, however, an important distinction between political talk and constitutional change. There is currently no publicly announced Government Bill or formal UPND proposal to remove the presidential two-term limit. Zambia’s Constitution remains explicit: Article 106 provides that a person who has twice held office as President is not eligible for election as President.

That means, under the Constitution as it currently stands, Hichilema’s second term is his last.

So why, only weeks after an election, is Zambia talking about a third term?

Part of the answer lies in the country’s political history. This is not the first time supporters of a sitting president have argued that a popular or successful leader should be allowed more time.

Zambia has been here before

The most consequential third-term debate came under President Frederick Chiluba.

Chiluba had won Zambia’s historic 1991 election, ending Kenneth Kaunda’s 27-year rule, and was re-elected in 1996. As the end of his second term approached, supporters within the governing MMD began campaigning for constitutional changes that could allow him to remain in office.

What followed became one of the defining political battles of the Third Republic.

The proposal divided the MMD itself. Senior members opposed to a third term broke with Chiluba, civil society organisations and churches mobilised against the idea, and public resistance grew. The campaign ultimately failed and Chiluba did not contest the 2001 election.

Levy Mwanawasa succeeded him.

The episode left a powerful political memory - presidential term limits were not merely technical provisions buried in the Constitution. They had become part of the country’s democratic expectations.

That history helps explain why even informal suggestions of a third term can generate such an immediate reaction in Zambia.

Then came the Edgar Lungu question

The issue returned in a different form during Edgar Lungu’s presidency.

Lungu first became President following Michael Sata’s death and won the January 2015 presidential election to complete the remainder of Sata’s term. He was then elected again at the 2016 general election.

That unusual sequence produced a constitutional question: did the period between 2015 and 2016 count as a full presidential term?

The dispute eventually reached the Constitutional Court. It was not simply a political argument over whether Lungu deserved another term; it became a legal argument over how Zambia’s constitutional provisions on presidential tenure should be interpreted.

The controversy demonstrated something else about the third-term question: even where the principle of a two-term limit appears straightforward, disputes can emerge over what legally constitutes a “term.”

Today’s situation is considerably less ambiguous.

Hichilema was first elected President in 2021 and won another general election in August 2026. He therefore entered his second ordinary five-year presidential term in September.

Under the Constitution as it currently stands, there is no third presidential election available to him in 2031.

Changing that would require changing the constitutional framework itself.

So where has the current debate come from?

The immediate trigger has been comments from within the governing party rather than a formal Government proposal.

UPND PR MP Florence Chileshe Chama has argued publicly for Hichilema to remain beyond 2031. Other voices sympathetic to the ruling party have also begun discussing whether the President should be given additional time.

Those arguments generally revolve around continuity: that a government pursuing long-term economic and development programmes may require more time to complete them.

Opponents make a fundamentally different argument. For them, term limits exist precisely because constitutional rules should not depend on whether the current office holder is considered effective, popular or deserving of additional time.

That disagreement is larger than Hichilema.

Every government eventually believes some of its work remains unfinished. Every president can potentially have supporters who believe the country would benefit from continuity. A constitutional term limit exists to establish the point at which that argument no longer determines who may contest.

The timing makes the discussion unusual

There is another reason the conversation has attracted attention: Hichilema has only just begun his second term.

He was re-elected in August and sworn in on 1 September 2026. His current mandate therefore runs until the next electoral cycle in 2031.

There are almost five years of governing still ahead.

No formal proposal to change the presidential term limit has been announced, and comments by individual MPs or party supporters do not themselves change the Constitution.

That distinction matters.

Zambia can have a political debate about whether presidential term limits should exist, just as citizens can strongly oppose such a change. But neither position alters the law until Zambia’s constitutional amendment procedures are followed.

For now, the Constitution says two terms.

Why term limits matter beyond one president

The temptation in any third-term debate is to make the discussion entirely about the person occupying State House.

History suggests the more important question is institutional.

A constitutional rule is written not only for the president people currently support or oppose, but also for presidents who have not yet entered politics.

Removing a restriction because supporters believe one leader deserves additional time means removing the same restriction for whoever occupies the office in the future.

That is why Zambia’s experience under Chiluba remains relevant more than two decades later. The argument then was also taking place around an incumbent government, its achievements, its supporters and its plans for the future.

The political personalities have changed. The constitutional question has not.

Should Zambia continue limiting presidents to two terms regardless of who occupies State House, or should voters be allowed to repeatedly return a president they believe is performing well?

That is a legitimate constitutional debate for Zambians to have.

But it should also be clear what today’s debate is — and what it is not.

Hichilema has not acquired a third term. Parliament has not removed the presidential term limit. Government has not publicly introduced legislation doing so.

What Zambia currently has is a political conversation.

History shows that such conversations can remain just that.

It also shows why Zambians tend to pay attention when they begin.