30 Ministries? Hichilema’s Restructuring Plan Sparks Debate Over Government Costs Hichilema’s 30 Proposed Ministries Spark Debate Over Government Costs30 Ministries? Hichilema’s Restructuring Plan Sparks Debate Over Government Costs
Breaking News Zambia
NewsA document circulating on social media proposing 30 government ministries has triggered debate in Zambia, with critics questioning whether President Hakainde Hichilema’s plan to improve government efficiency could instead expand the cost of running the state. The document, titled “Appendix 1 – Proposed Ministries”, lists 30 portfolios, including separate ministries for Electricity and Petroleum, Infrastructure A document circulating on social media proposing 30 government ministries has triggered debate in Zambia, with critics questioning whether President Hakainde Hichilema’s plan to improve government efficiency could instead expand the cost of running the state. The document, titled “Appendix 1 – Proposed Ministries”, lists 30 portfolios, including separate ministries for Electricity and Petroleum, Infrastructure A circulating list proposes 30 ministries in Zambia, prompting questions over Hichilema’s lean Cabinet pledge, government costs and the proposed Ministry of Electricity.
A document circulating on social media proposing 30 government ministries has triggered debate in Zambia, with critics questioning whether President Hakainde Hichilema’s plan to improve government efficiency could instead expand the cost of running the state.
The document, titled “Appendix 1 – Proposed Ministries”, lists 30 portfolios, including separate ministries for Electricity and Petroleum, Infrastructure and Urban Development, Housing, and Lands. It also proposes separate ministries for Trade and Exports, Industry, and Small and Medium Enterprise Development.
The list has drawn attention because State House announced on Monday, October 26, that the President had asked Parliament to approve the establishment, merger and dissolution of government ministries as part of a realignment intended to improve efficiency and public service delivery.
However, the State House statement did not publish the detailed list of proposed ministries. The circulating document should therefore be treated as a proposal whose official status and final contents require confirmation, rather than an approved government structure.
Nevertheless, its contents have raised a question that the government will need to answer: if the objective is to streamline government and reduce waste, why does the proposed structure appear to retain or create so many separate portfolios?
Opposition questions the cost
Opposition leader Kasonde Mwenda criticised the proposal, describing it as sad that the government was increasing the size of Cabinet while relying on borrowing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
His criticism adds a fiscal dimension to the debate. Zambia has been pursuing debt restructuring and economic recovery, making the cost of public administration an issue of interest to taxpayers.
The central question is not simply whether Zambia can afford 30 ministries. It is whether each proposed ministry has a sufficiently distinct responsibility to justify the additional political and administrative structure, and whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.
The circulating document does not provide projected expenditure, staffing requirements or expected savings. Until the government publishes the financial implications and explains the proposed changes, it is not possible to determine whether the plan would increase or reduce overall public spending.
From a lean Cabinet promise to 30 proposed ministries?
The debate also recalls Hichilema’s promise, while in opposition, to run a lean Cabinet as a way of saving public resources. Contemporary reporting in 2021 documented his pledge to reduce the size of Cabinet and combine ministries to make government more cost-effective. <Cite refs={[“turn907942search0″,”turn907942search2”]}/>
The current proposal has therefore prompted questions about whether the administration is remaining consistent with that commitment.
A larger number of ministries does not automatically mean a larger total bill: the government could merge some functions, transfer staff or reorganise existing departments. Equally, simply creating separate portfolios without removing duplication could add costs through ministerial offices, support staff, transport, administration and other operating requirements.
The test will be whether the proposed structure demonstrates clear savings and better performance, rather than simply rearranging responsibilities.
Why create a separate Ministry of Electricity?
One of the most discussed proposals is the creation of a Ministry of Electricity, separate from the Ministry of Petroleum.
Electricity supply has become a major national concern in recent years, with power shortages affecting households, farmers, small businesses and industry. A dedicated electricity ministry could give power generation, transmission, distribution and energy security greater political attention.
But the proposal also raises questions about how responsibilities would be divided between the new ministry, ZESCO, the energy regulator and other institutions. Petroleum policy, electricity generation and broader energy planning are closely connected, particularly when the country must balance hydroelectricity, solar power, thermal generation and fuel supply.
Would separating electricity from petroleum improve coordination and accountability, or create another administrative boundary in a sector that needs integrated planning?
The government would need to explain the intended division of responsibilities, the expected cost and the measurable improvements the new ministry is supposed to deliver.
The same questions apply to the proposed separation of Infrastructure and Urban Development, Housing, and Lands. These areas have distinct functions, but they also overlap in planning, land administration, construction and urban development. A new structure should make responsibilities clearer, not create more opportunities for departments to work at cross-purposes.
Social media turns the proposed ministries into a joke
The document has also generated a wave of humour on social media, with some Zambians using sarcasm to question the number and naming of the proposed ministries.
Teddy Nkunka commented, “BATUBELESHA zoona,” while other users joked about the creation of ministries for load-shedding, salt, kitchen affairs and even enjoyment.
One commenter suggested that a Ministry of Loadshedding would be more appropriate than a Ministry of Electricity. Others questioned why functions such as housing and lands, or infrastructure and urban development, could not be handled through more consolidated arrangements.
The comments are humorous, but they reflect a serious concern beneath the jokes: whether the government is responding to citizens’ everyday problems with practical institutional reforms or adding structures whose value has not been clearly explained.
Social media comments are not a representative survey of public opinion. They nevertheless provide a snapshot of the questions being raised by some citizens as the proposed restructuring enters public discussion.
The deputy minister question
Another point of comparison is Zambia’s decision to do away with deputy ministers. The position has been defended as a way to limit public expenditure, with State House previously arguing against reintroducing deputy ministers on cost grounds. <Cite refs={[“turn661080search14”]}/>
That position makes the current debate particularly relevant. If additional political offices are considered an expense that must be justified, the government should explain how creating or separating ministries would deliver enough value to warrant the associated costs.
At the same time, the number of ministries and the number of deputy ministers are not identical issues. A government could operate fewer ministries with more deputy ministers, or more ministries without deputy ministers. What matters is the total cost and effectiveness of the structure.
The public deserves a transparent explanation of the expected staffing levels, ministerial expenditure and administrative savings under the proposed arrangement.
What Parliament should demand before approving the changes
Under Article 92(2)(d) of the Constitution, the proposed establishment, merger and dissolution of ministries requires National Assembly approval. State House has said Vice-President W.K. Mutale-Nalumango will move the motion seeking approval for the realignment. <Cite refs={[“turn661080search0″,”turn661080search4”]}/>
As Parliament considers the proposal, several questions deserve clear answers.
Which ministries will be created, merged or dissolved? How much will the proposed structure cost annually? Which functions will be consolidated, and how will duplication be eliminated? What savings are expected, and how will those savings be measured? Finally, how will the changes improve the delivery of electricity, healthcare, education, agriculture and other essential public services?
These questions are important because restructuring should be judged by its results, not by the number of offices on an organisational chart.
If the proposed changes reduce overlapping mandates, improve coordination and strengthen accountability, they could serve a useful purpose. If they create additional offices without clear responsibilities or measurable benefits, they risk adding to the administrative burden.
The real test is value for taxpayers
The 30-ministry list circulating online has shifted the debate from whether government should be realigned to what the proposed structure would actually achieve.
The government says the objective is efficiency and better service delivery. The opposition has raised concerns about costs and borrowing, while social media users have responded with humour and questions about duplication.
The next step should be transparency. The government needs to clarify the status of the circulating list, publish the official proposed structure and explain its financial implications before Parliament makes a decision.
Ultimately, the question for Zambians is straightforward: will the restructuring deliver a more efficient government that uses public money wisely, or will it create more offices without demonstrating corresponding improvements in service delivery?
That is the standard against which the proposed realignment should be judged.
Community Feedback