Mwamba says Zambians should expect little from HH’s second term as Zambia returns to IMF borrowing

LUSAKA – The opposition Tonse Pamodzi Alliance has questioned what Zambians should expect from President Hakainde Hichilema’s second term after Government reached a new staff-level agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a proposed US$1.472 billion financing programme.

Emmanuel Mwamba, a senior official in the opposition alliance, has criticised Finance Minister Dr Situmbeko Musokotwane, accusing him of relying on borrowing rather than adequately mobilising domestic revenue, particularly from the mining sector.

Mwamba’s criticism follows an announcement by Pamela Mambwe Nakamba, Economic Adviser to President Hichilema, that Zambia and the IMF had reached an agreement on a new 36-month programme following the successful conclusion of the previous arrangement in January 2026.

In her statement, Nakamba said the proposed programme would provide access to US$1.472 billion at zero interest over three years, subject to approval by the IMF Executive Board.

She said the arrangement would complement the Government’s Grow Zambia Agenda by safeguarding economic stability and supporting diversified and inclusive economic growth.

But for Mwamba and the opposition alliance, the latest agreement raises a fundamental question: after years of economic reforms, debt restructuring and an earlier IMF programme, is Zambia now moving towards greater economic independence, or continuing to rely on external financing?

‘Musokotwane only knows how to borrow’

Mwamba has accused Musokotwane of making borrowing the principal instrument of economic management.

The opposition official argues that Government should concentrate more on collecting revenue from the mining industry rather than repeatedly turning to the IMF for financial support.

His criticism also challenges the prospects for Hichilema’s second term, with the alliance contending that Zambians should not expect significant improvements if the Government continues with what it describes as a borrowing-dependent economic approach.

The mining sector is central to this debate because copper remains Zambia’s principal export and a major source of foreign exchange. How effectively the country collects taxes and other revenues from mining therefore matters to its capacity to finance public services, infrastructure and development without continually increasing its debt obligations.

However, the question is not simply whether Zambia should borrow or avoid borrowing altogether. It is also whether the funds obtained generate sufficient economic returns, whether the terms are sustainable and whether domestic revenue collection can meet a greater share of the country’s spending needs.

Mwamba’s criticism places the burden on Musokotwane and the Government to demonstrate how the proposed programme will translate into stronger domestic revenue, jobs, higher household incomes and improved living conditions.

Zambia and the IMF agree on a new US$1.472 billion programme

According to the announcement by Nakamba and information released following the IMF mission to Lusaka, the proposed programme will run for 36 months under the Fund’s Extended Credit Facility.

The IMF mission, led by Edward Gemayel, held discussions with Zambian authorities from September 29 to October 9, 2026.

The proposed financing is intended to support Zambia’s balance-of-payments and budget financing needs, preserve macroeconomic stability, maintain debt sustainability and help advance private-sector-led growth.

The agreement follows the conclusion of Zambia’s previous IMF programme in January 2026. That earlier arrangement formed part of the country’s efforts to recover from its 2020 sovereign debt default and restructure its external debt.

The new agreement is a staff-level understanding, meaning the proposed programme still requires the relevant IMF approvals and the implementation of agreed prior actions before it can take effect.

It is therefore important to distinguish between reaching an agreement and receiving the money. The announcement does not mean the entire US$1.472 billion has already been disbursed to Zambia.

The IMF has said the economy is projected to grow by 5.6 percent in 2026, supported by agriculture, mining and exports. It has also acknowledged that fiscal pressures intensified during the year, including revenue shortfalls and higher spending.

These pressures provide part of the context for the new programme and the debate over how Government intends to finance its priorities.

Government says the programme will support the Grow Zambia Agenda

Nakamba has defended the proposed arrangement as complementary to the Government’s Grow Zambia Agenda.

She said Hichilema had reiterated, during a meeting with the IMF mission, that there was no contradiction between the national development agenda and the proposed economic programme.

The Government’s position is that macroeconomic stability can create conditions for investment, production, exports and more inclusive growth.

In practical terms, the proposed programme is expected to support economic management while Government pursues its ambitions in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, tourism, energy and infrastructure.

The central test, however, will be whether these objectives produce measurable improvements in the lives of ordinary Zambians.

Economic growth figures alone do not necessarily show whether households are experiencing higher incomes, whether businesses are creating jobs or whether the cost of living is becoming more manageable.

The programme’s success will therefore depend not only on meeting fiscal and economic targets but also on whether the intended reforms support employment, business expansion and improved public services.

The borrowing debate and Zambia’s debt legacy

Zambia’s relationship with the IMF cannot be separated from its recent debt history.

The country defaulted on its sovereign debt in 2020 and subsequently entered a prolonged process of debt restructuring. The earlier IMF programme supported the Government’s efforts to restore macroeconomic stability and establish a framework for negotiations with creditors.

The completion of that programme in January 2026 was an important milestone, but it did not remove all the pressures facing the economy.

The new proposed facility signals that Government still considers external financing and an IMF-supported policy framework important to its economic strategy.

For the opposition, this raises questions about whether the country is becoming sufficiently capable of financing its own development through domestic revenue and productive economic activity.

For Government, the argument is that concessional financing, when properly managed, can support stability and create room for growth.

The distinction between the two positions comes down to how the financing is used, what conditions accompany it and whether the country becomes less vulnerable to debt distress over time.

A programme offering zero-interest financing would have different immediate financing costs from a commercial loan. Nevertheless, concessional borrowing remains financing that must be managed within the country’s broader debt and repayment obligations.

The IMF’s proposed programme is therefore not, by itself, proof either that the Government’s economic strategy has failed or that it will succeed. Those conclusions depend on the programme’s implementation and its measurable results.

What should Zambians expect in HH’s second term?

Mwamba’s criticism puts the Government’s economic promises under renewed scrutiny as Hichilema begins his second term.

The questions extend beyond the size of the proposed IMF facility. They include how much additional domestic revenue Government can collect, whether mining revenues will increase, how public expenditure will be controlled and whether economic growth will translate into employment and higher household incomes.

There is also the question of how the programme will affect the Government’s ability to fund social services and development priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline.

For businesses, the key concerns include access to financing, predictability in economic policy, electricity supply and opportunities to expand production. For households, the most immediate measures of progress are likely to be jobs, income, food affordability and the quality of public services.

The Government has presented the proposed IMF programme as a means of consolidating economic gains and supporting the next phase of growth. Tonse Pamodzi Alliance, through Mwamba, has challenged whether continued reliance on borrowing can deliver the results Zambians expect.

The debate will ultimately be settled less by competing political statements than by the economic outcomes recorded during Hichilema’s second term.

If domestic revenue improves, productive sectors expand and household incomes rise without renewed debt distress, Government will have evidence to support its growth strategy. If borrowing continues without corresponding improvements in jobs, incomes and public services, the opposition’s criticism is likely to remain central to the national economic debate.

For now, Zambia has reached a new staff-level agreement with the IMF. The proposed US$1.472 billion programme still awaits the required approvals, while the question facing Government is whether the next three years will demonstrate that economic stabilisation can be converted into broader prosperity.