The government’s directive, which requires all council officials to reside within the districts of their designated duty stations, is, at its core, a practical effort to restore discipline, efficiency, and accountability in local governance.
Issued through a memorandum dated February 3, 2026, by the Secretary for Local Government and Rural Development, Moses Chimphepo, the order seeks to address a long-
standing challenge that has quietly undermined service delivery at the council level: long-distance commuting by public officers.
There is little doubt that the problem identified by the Ministry is real. Late reporting for duty, frequent absenteeism, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, and the misuse of council resources, such as fuel, have become common complaints in many local authorities.
When officers live far from their duty stations, punctuality becomes compromised, supervision weakens, and accountability suffers. Ultimately, it is ordinary citizens who bear the cost through delayed services, poor project supervision, and unresponsive councils.
From this perspective, the directive is both logical and long overdue. Local government exists to serve communities at the grassroots level. For officers to effectively understand local challenges, respond to emergencies, and engage meaningfully with community structures, physical presence is essential.
An officer who resides within the district is more likely to be accessible, invested in local development outcomes, and responsive to the needs of the people they serve. Living among the community also nurtures a sense of ownership and responsibility that cannot be cultivated from afar.
However, while the intention behind the directive is commendable, its implementation requires careful consideration. Over the years, many council officials have established their lives in cities or districts far from their postings due to limited housing, inadequate social services, or concerns related to security and their children’s education.
Some districts lack sufficient accommodation, reliable utilities, or basic amenities to make immediate relocation feasible. Ordering officers to relocate “immediately” without addressing these realities risks breeding resentment, lowering morale, and triggering unintended non-compliance.
The government must therefore complement this directive with practical support measures. Councils should assess housing availability within their jurisdictions and explore solutions such as staff housing, housing allowances, or partnerships with private landlords.
Where relocation is genuinely constrained by factors beyond an officer’s control, temporary arrangements or a phased implementation approach should be considered. Discipline must not come at the expense of fairness.
Furthermore, the directive must be applied consistently and transparently. Selective enforcement would only reinforce perceptions of favoritism and undermine the very accountability the policy seeks to promote. Senior officials should lead by example, demonstrating that no one is above the directive, regardless of rank or influence.
Ultimately, the requirement for council officials to reside within their duty stations reflects a broader truth about public service: effectiveness is rooted in presence, commitment, and accountability.
If implemented thoughtfully and humanely, this policy has the potential to significantly improve service delivery, restore public confidence in local councils, and reaffirm the principle that public office is a duty to serve not a convenience to manage from a distance.
The real challenge, therefore, lies not in the directive itself, but in ensuring that its execution strengthens local governance rather than strains the very workforce entrusted with upholding it.
