“There will NEVER be a third term” — UPND member warns as Hichilema term debate grows

The constitutional provision therefore currently limits a president to two terms.

The issue has nevertheless moved into public debate following comments from several figures associated with or supportive of the ruling side.

Florence Chama’s remarks

Newly nominated UPND Member of Parliament Florence Chileshe Chama recently called for a change to the presidential term-limit framework while arguing that women want development rather than democracy.

Chama said this in a video that circulated on social media and linked development to support for Hichilema remaining in office beyond 2031.

News Diggers reported that Chama’s position was a personal view and noted that, under the existing Constitution, Hichilema’s current term is his second and he is not eligible for a third term.

The comments immediately became part of a wider debate over whether Zambia should retain the current presidential term limit.

Tayali calls for term limits to go

Political commentator Chilufya Tayali has gone further, openly calling for the presidential term limit to be scrapped.

Tayali argued that a ten-year ceiling creates instability because presidents spend their first term organising government and their second implementing their programme, only to be required to leave afterwards.

He has argued that longer continuity at the presidential level would support stability and development, while saying his position is not motivated by a personal intention to contest the 2031 election.

UPND says it has no position — yet

The growing debate has also prompted clarification from within the UPND.

Deputy Secretary General Gertrude Imenda has said the issue of removing the presidential term limit has not been discussed by the party to arrive at a position.

According to News Diggers, Imenda described Chama’s position as her personal wish, while stopping short of saying the party had formally rejected the proposal.

That distinction is important.

So far, the public statements supporting an extension or removal of the presidential term limit have come from individual politicians, party figures and commentators. They do not, by themselves, amount to an official UPND policy position or a formal constitutional amendment proposal.

What did the 2025 constitutional amendment change?

The issue is also worth examining against the most recent constitutional amendment.

Parliament’s official description of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 listed a number of changes, including the mixed-member proportional representation system, increased parliamentary representation and removal of the two-term limit for mayors and council chairpersons.

It did not list removal of the presidential two-term limit among its objectives.

The presidential provision remains Article 106(3).

Zambia has been here before

The third-term debate is not new to Zambia.

In 2001, President Frederick Chiluba’s supporters mounted a campaign to amend the Constitution so that he could seek a third term after completing his two terms in office.

The campaign generated opposition within Chiluba’s own MMD, Parliament, civil society and churches.

More than one-third of MPs signed a declaration opposing the proposed third term, helping prevent the two-thirds parliamentary majority required for a constitutional amendment. Civil society organisations also mobilised against the proposal.

Chiluba eventually abandoned his third-term bid in May 2001.

In announcing the decision, he said he would leave office at the end of his term and cited the national interest.

The episode has remained an important reference point whenever presidential term limits are debated in Zambia.

What are Zambians saying?

The debate is also playing out heavily on social media.

Some commenters responding to Akashambatwa’s statement argued that Zambia should remember what happened during the Chiluba third-term controversy.

Others questioned whether the Constitution should be regarded as permanently fixed, arguing that Zambians could legitimately amend it through the constitutional process.

One commenter said the issue was not necessarily about Hichilema wanting another term, but about citizens wanting him to continue because of development considerations. Another argued that UPND should begin identifying a successor rather than relying on one individual.

There were also comments supporting Akashambatwa’s position, with some saying Hichilema should respect the existing limit and prepare for succession.

The range of reactions illustrates the central question now emerging: is this simply a debate among individual supporters and commentators, or will it eventually develop into a formal campaign to change the Constitution?

The President’s position

The current public debate should also be separated from any claim that Hichilema himself has announced a third-term bid.

The available reporting does not establish that the President has announced an intention to seek a third term.

Akashambatwa specifically invoked Hichilema’s stated position that he would serve only the period permitted by the Constitution.

At the same time, statements by individual UPND figures have ensured that the issue is now firmly in the public conversation.

The bigger question

For now, Zambia’s constitutional position has not changed: the presidential term limit remains two terms.

The debate is therefore about what could happen in the future — whether the current constitutional arrangement remains untouched, or whether political actors eventually seek to amend it.

That would require a formal constitutional process rather than simply statements on television or social media.

And history provides a reminder that presidential term-limit debates in Zambia can become much bigger than the individual statements that initially trigger them.

Zambian Eye will continue to track the positions of the President, UPND, opposition parties, civil society and other stakeholders as the debate develops.