AS the country gears up for the 2026 general election, the ongoing debate over constituency delimitation raises serious concerns about the credibility and fairness of the electoral process.
While the exercise is constitutionally necessary to ensure equal representation, it must be undertaken transparently and based on accurate, uncontested data.
At the heart of the controversy lies the 2022 Census, which, due to disputes from senior government officials, now casts a long shadow over any proposed changes to constituency boundaries.
It should be noted that Green Party President Peter Sinkamba has rightly called for an independent international audit of the voter’s register before any delimitation is undertaken.
Mr Sinkamba’s concerns stem from the publicly aired criticisms by Civil Service Commission Chairperson Dr. Choolwe Beyani, who dismissed the 2022 Census as “illegal, unprocedural, and null and void.”
As pointed out by various stakeholders, such a bold statement from a high-ranking official cannot be taken lightly.
It reflects a deep fissure within government institutions on the legitimacy of the data that is supposed to guide a process as politically sensitive as delimitation.
The demographic disparities between constituencies further complicate matters. Some rural constituencies are vast in land area but have sparse populations, while urban ones are compact yet densely populated.
This unevenness makes delimitation both necessary and fraught with risk. The question is: will this be a fair redistribution aimed at enhancing democratic representation, or a veiled attempt at gerrymandering to benefit the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND)?
The public’s scepticism is understandable. In recent months, reports of fake National Registration Cards (NRCs), irregularities in biometric voter registration, and lack of transparency in electoral preparations have fuelled doubts.
Any move toward redrawing boundaries under these conditions risks being interpreted as a power retention strategy rather than a democratic imperative.
It is therefore imperative that the delimitation process is paused until after the 2026 general election. Rushing into a redistricting exercise using flawed census data as stakeholders have argued would not only undermine the legitimacy of the new boundaries but also deepen mistrust in the electoral commission and the government.
We feel that instead, Government should prioritise restoring credibility in its institutions. A good starting point would be an independent, internationally supervised audit of the voter’s register as suggested by Mr Sinkamba.
Only when this register is accepted as legitimate by all stakeholders can any boundary redrawing be done with national confidence.
Moreover, there must be national consensus on the criteria for delimitation. Should population alone be the guide, or should geographic size also play a role?
These are complex but critical questions that need broad consultation involving political parties, civil society, and electoral experts. Without such dialogue, any outcome will be viewed with suspicion.
Ultimately, delimitation should not be about securing political advantage. It must be about ensuring that every Zambian vote carries equal weight and that all citizens are fairly represented.
Credibility, not convenience, should guide this process. Anything less risks compromising not just the 2026 election, but the country’s democratic integrity for years to come.
