Hichilema Seeks to Merge Ministries After Governing With Four Ministers: Does Zambia Need a Leaner Cabinet? Hichilema Seeks to Merge Ministries After Governing With Four Ministers: Does Zambia Need a Leaner Cabinet?
Breaking News Zambia
NewsPresident Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to seek parliamentary approval to restructure government ministries has reopened a fundamental question about the size and cost of Zambia’s political leadership: how many ministries does the country need, and how much value does each one deliver to taxpayers? In a statement issued on Monday, October 26, 2026, State House announced President Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to seek parliamentary approval to restructure government ministries has reopened a fundamental question about the size and cost of Zambia’s political leadership: how many ministries does the country need, and how much value does each one deliver to taxpayers? In a statement issued on Monday, October 26, 2026, State House announced Hichilema seeks approval to realign Zambia’s ministries. We examine the cost of Cabinet, the role of ministers and whether restructuring can reduce waste.
President Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to seek parliamentary approval to restructure government ministries has reopened a fundamental question about the size and cost of Zambia’s political leadership: how many ministries does the country need, and how much value does each one deliver to taxpayers?
In a statement issued on Monday, October 26, 2026, State House announced that the President had written to Parliament seeking approval for the proposed establishment, merger and dissolution of government ministries. Vice-President W.K. Mutale-Nalumango is expected to move the motion in the National Assembly.
The government says the proposed realignment is intended to improve efficiency, strengthen public service delivery and ensure that the machinery of government supports the Grow Zambia Agenda.
But the announcement comes against an unusual background. Following his re-election in August, Hichilema appointed and swore in only four Cabinet ministers on September 14: Situmbeko Musokotwane for Finance and National Planning, Mulambo Haimbe for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Professor Roma Chilengi for Health, and Dr Gilbert Siame for Green Economy and Environment.
More than six weeks later, those remained the only four ministers appointed in the new administration, according to the available official announcements. The government, however, has maintained that public administration and government programmes have continued despite the vacant ministerial positions.
That experience raises questions that go beyond the number of appointments. If government departments can continue operating without ministers in most portfolios for an extended period, what does that tell us about the role of ministers, the work of permanent secretaries and the structure of the executive?
Can government function with fewer ministers?
The experience provides a useful opportunity to examine how the Zambian government operates.
A ministry does not consist solely of the minister. It has a permanent secretary, directors, technical officers and other civil servants responsible for administering programmes, implementing policies, managing public resources and delivering services.
These officials do not disappear when a minister leaves office or when a replacement has yet to be appointed. The administrative machinery continues working, and many routine activities can proceed under established policies, budgets and procedures.
This helps explain why the absence of ministers does not necessarily bring government operations to a halt.
However, it would be misleading to conclude that ministers are therefore unnecessary.
Under Article 116(2) of the Constitution, a minister is responsible, under the direction of the President, for the policy and strategic direction of an assigned ministry, department or state institution. Ministers also provide political leadership, represent the government in Parliament and answer for decisions and performance within their portfolios.
Permanent secretaries and other civil servants perform different, although complementary, responsibilities. They administer public institutions and implement government policy, while ministers provide political direction and accountability.
The real question, therefore, is not whether Zambia can operate without ministers indefinitely. It is whether the existing distribution of ministerial responsibilities is the most efficient arrangement for the country.
Are more than 20 ministers necessary?
Zambia has traditionally maintained a Cabinet structure covering areas such as finance, agriculture, fisheries and livestock, mines, energy, health, education, defence, local government, transport, tourism, justice and other functions.
The argument for separate ministries is that each sector has distinct responsibilities, technical demands and policy priorities. Agriculture, for example, requires sustained attention to food production, farmer support, irrigation and agricultural markets. Health has its own demands involving hospitals, medical supplies, staffing and public health.
Separate ministries can give such sectors focused political leadership and make it easier to identify who is responsible for particular policy outcomes.
However, separate ministries can also create administrative costs, overlapping mandates and coordination challenges, particularly where their responsibilities intersect.
For example, agricultural production depends on energy, transport, water, trade and environmental policies. Infrastructure development involves finance, local government, land administration and environmental considerations. If these responsibilities are spread across institutions that do not coordinate effectively, the result can be duplication, delays and additional expenditure.
This is where the proposed realignment deserves close scrutiny.
Rather than simply asking whether Zambia has too many ministers, the country should examine whether each ministry has a distinct and necessary function, whether overlapping responsibilities can be consolidated, and whether the resulting structure would improve delivery.
The number of ministries alone cannot determine whether government is efficient. Their mandates, staffing, budgets, performance and ability to work together matter just as much.
What does a minister actually cost the taxpayer?
The cost of maintaining a minister extends beyond a salary.
Depending on the applicable arrangements, the total cost of a ministerial office can include allowances, official transport, security, travel, support staff, office operations and other administrative expenses.
Some of these costs are shared with the wider civil service, so they should not automatically be counted as additional expenditure attributable solely to a minister. Nevertheless, maintaining political offices requires public resources.
A meaningful assessment of the proposed restructuring should therefore establish the full cost of the existing ministerial structure, including the costs associated with the institutions and support arrangements attached to each portfolio.
It should also identify the potential savings from merging or dissolving ministries, while accounting for the costs of transferring staff, combining departments, reorganising systems and settling any transitional expenses.
Without such figures, the public cannot determine whether the realignment will produce substantial savings or primarily change the names and reporting arrangements of government institutions.
There is also a broader issue of opportunity cost. Money spent maintaining administrative structures is money that must be weighed against competing demands for medicines, school facilities, agricultural support, water infrastructure and other public services.
That does not mean all administrative expenditure is wasteful. Government needs effective institutions to deliver those services. The objective should be to ensure that administrative spending produces a reasonable public benefit.
Is the delay in appointing ministers a lesson for government?
The period in which only four ministers were appointed has exposed a distinction between the day-to-day operation of the civil service and political leadership.
It has demonstrated that public institutions can continue performing many of their routine functions while ministerial appointments remain incomplete. It has not, however, established that the same arrangement could deliver equally effective policy direction, coordination and accountability over an entire five-year term.
There are important questions about decisions that require political leadership, inter-ministerial coordination and representation before Parliament.
The timing is also significant. The new administration must implement its economic programme, while Parliament considers government priorities and the national budget. The effectiveness of this work depends not only on civil servants maintaining routine operations but also on clear leadership and accountability.
The period should therefore be treated as an opportunity to assess how responsibilities are distributed, rather than as conclusive evidence that a smaller Cabinet would automatically be better.
A leaner executive could reduce costs and clarify responsibilities if designed properly. But reducing the number of ministers without addressing duplicated functions, weak coordination or administrative inefficiencies could simply transfer the problems elsewhere.
Will the realignment reduce waste?
State House says the proposed restructuring is intended to improve government efficiency and support the Grow Zambia Agenda. Yet the announcement has not specified which ministries will be merged, which will be dissolved, whether new ministries will be established or how much the changes are expected to save.
Those details are essential.
Parliament should be able to examine the rationale for each proposed change, the expected financial implications, the effect on public servants and the likely impact on service delivery before approving the new structure.
The government should also explain how performance will be measured after the realignment. Will it reduce administrative expenditure? Will it shorten the time required to implement projects? Will it improve coordination between sectors? Will citizens receive better services?
These are measurable questions, and the government should be prepared to provide answers.
The process should also distinguish genuine savings from the movement of expenditure between budget lines. If two ministries are merged but retain the same duplicated functions, staffing arrangements and operating costs, the reorganisation may achieve little beyond a change in structure.
Conversely, a carefully designed merger could reduce duplication, consolidate related responsibilities and improve accountability without weakening essential services.
The questions Parliament and taxpayers should ask
As the proposed realignment comes before Parliament, several questions deserve public attention:
- Which ministries are proposed for establishment, merger or dissolution, and why?
- What is the current total cost of maintaining the ministerial structure, including salaries, allowances and associated administrative support?
- How much does the government expect to save annually after the restructuring?
- How will overlapping responsibilities and duplicated administrative functions be eliminated?
- What safeguards will ensure that the reorganisation does not disrupt public services or delay important decisions?
- What performance indicators will be used to determine whether the new structure is more efficient?
These questions should not be treated as opposition to the government’s plans. They are part of responsible public expenditure scrutiny.
The Constitution provides for the President to establish, merge and dissolve government ministries, subject to National Assembly approval under Article 92(2)(d). Parliament’s role is therefore important in examining the proposed structure and its implications before approving the changes.
Beyond the number of ministers
Zambia does not necessarily need the largest possible Cabinet, nor does it follow that the smallest possible Cabinet would serve the country best.
What matters is whether the government has the right structure, capable leadership and clear lines of accountability to deliver its priorities at a reasonable cost.
The experience since September has raised a legitimate question about how much of government business depends on political office holders and how much is carried out by the permanent administrative system. The proposed realignment now creates an opportunity to examine that question more systematically.
If the President’s objective is to remove waste, improve efficiency and direct more public resources towards national development, the public should be able to see the evidence in the proposed structure, the financial projections and the results achieved after implementation.
Ultimately, taxpayers should judge the exercise not by how many ministries are announced or dissolved, but by whether government becomes more efficient, public services improve and public money produces better outcomes for Zambians.
Related posts:
- Hichilema Names First Four Ministers, Warns Cabinet: ‘Those Who Veer Away Will Be On Their Own’
- “I will be tough this term” – President Hichilema
- Mundubile Release Demand Grows as Lawyers Are Denied Access at Mukobeko
- Nevers Mumba quits politics, but the benefits question remains
Community Feedback