CCMG Assesses Zambia's Boundary delimitation
By Daily News Reporter
As Zambia undertakes one of the most constitutionally significant exercises in its electoral cycle, the Christian Churches Monitoring Group (CCMG) has stepped into the national spotlight with a comprehensive observation of boundary delimitation sittings conducted by the Electoral Commission of Zambia across the country.
To ensure nationwide coverage, CCMG deployed 116 trained observers—one in each of Zambia’s 116 districts—to monitor the district-level boundary delimitation sittings facilitated by the Electoral Commission of Zambia. The exercise forms a critical step toward the possible creation of seventy (70) new constituencies, a move with far-reaching implications for representation, equality of the vote, and public confidence in the electoral process ahead of the August 13 general election.
Boundary delimitation is more than a technical redrawing of lines on a map. It is a constitutional process that directly affects political representation, access to power, and the principle of equal suffrage—the idea that every citizen’s vote should carry roughly the same weight.
While Zambia’s Constitution provides broad guidance, including the need to consider history, diversity, and cohesiveness of constituencies, both constitutional principles and international best practice require that constituencies achieve approximate equality in population size.
CCMG’s analysis reveals stark disparities that undermine this principle. For example, Kanyama Constituency, with 178,424 registered voters, and Lufubu Constituency, with just 11,440 registered voters, each elect a single Member of Parliament—despite their vastly different populations. Such imbalances, CCMG argues, weaken the foundational democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”
Based on reports from its 116 observers, CCMG concluded that the district boundary delimitation sittings were generally conducted in line with established procedures. All sittings were held as scheduled, presided over by ECZ officials, and attended by council or other government representatives.
Stakeholders were given opportunities to make submissions, discussions were largely peaceful, and relevant demographic and geographic data were presented to guide deliberations.
Publicity about the sittings was reported in 91% of districts, and 97% of sittings were held in public venues. Media presence was recorded in nearly all districts, helping to enhance visibility and accountability.
However, beneath this procedural orderliness lay several areas of concern that CCMG says must be addressed to safeguard the integrity of the process.
In a statement issued to Daily News Peter Mwanangombe CCMG Program Director stated that one of the most significant challenges identified was the limited time allocated for consultations. Each district was given just one day for its delimitation sitting—a timeframe many stakeholders felt was insufficient given the political sensitivity and technical complexity of the exercise.
In districts with complex geographic layouts or strong traditional structures, participants reported struggling to adequately scrutinize maps, population data, and proposed boundary changes within the available time.
Transparency concerns also surfaced. Key reference documents—most notably the 2019 Boundary Delimitation Report and the Electoral Reform Technical Committee (ERTC) Report—were shared in only 12% and 16% of sittings respectively.
He further noted that limited informed participation and revived public skepticism, particularly given that the 2019 report was never officially released, fueling controversy and eroding trust in past delimitation outcomes.
While traditional leaders attended 96% of sittings and Members of Parliament were present in 82%, participation across other stakeholder groups was uneven. Civil society organizations and faith-based organizations were represented in only 55% of sittings, while attendance by political parties other than the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) was noticeably lower.
Mr Mwanangombe added that accessibility for persons with disabilities also emerged as a concern. CCMG reported that 9% of venues were not accessible, and 12% were too small to accommodate all stakeholders—shortcomings that undermine the constitutional principle of inclusivity.
"Although most sittings were peaceful, CCMG documented two critical incidents that underscored the political sensitivity of boundary delimitation," said Mwanangombe.
In Kasempa District, a sitting ended prematurely after stakeholders failed to resolve disagreements over proposed boundaries. In Chongwe District, violence erupted when rival groups of UPND cadres clashed, resulting in stone-throwing and one injury. No arrests were reported.
Peter Mwanangombe has further strongly condemned all forms of violence, emphasizing that boundary delimitation is a technical and consultative process that must be conducted in a peaceful and orderly environment.
As the process moves from district to provincial sittings—where submissions will be reviewed and consolidated into a final delimitation report—CCMG has urged all stakeholders to strengthen transparency, inclusivity, and technical rigor.
CCMG called on the ECZ to proactively publish and distribute foundational documents, clearly explain how stakeholder submissions will be weighed, incorporate Voting Age Population (VAP) data where feasible, and improve accessibility standards at consultation venues. Political parties were urged to promote peaceful, evidence-based participation, while civil society and faith-based organizations were encouraged to intensify civic education and coordinated engagement.
CCMG’s observation paints a picture of a process that is procedurally sound but fragile—one that risks losing public confidence if gaps in transparency, inclusivity, and communication are not addressed.
With boundary delimitation directly shaping electoral fairness and representation, the stakes could not be higher. As Zambia edges closer to the 2026 general election, how these lines are ultimately drawn—and how openly that process is conducted—will serve as a defining test of the country’s democratic commitment.
