AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PATRIOTIC FRONT FAITHFUL
By Bwembya Mwaume
Fellow Patriotic Front members, we have reached a decisive moment in the life of our party. This is no longer a season for polite silence or diplomatic ambiguity. It is a moment that demands clarity. The PF is facing what can only be described as its own Solomon Test. The question before us is straightforward: who truly wants to preserve the party, and who is prepared to divide it in order to advance personal ambition?
In the biblical account, the true mother was revealed by her willingness to protect the child rather than see it destroyed. Today, the PF is that child. And unfortunately, there are individuals who seem prepared to fragment it if that guarantees them control over a portion of it. When leaders sidestep established party procedures, create parallel centers of influence, or align externally without transparent consultation, it is not innovation, it is self-interest dressed as strategy.
Leadership is not proven by how quickly one positions themselves for the presidency. It is not proven by mobilizing temporary loyalties or projecting authority over structures that were never constitutionally transferred. Leadership is proven by loyalty to party organs, respect for institutional processes, and discipline under pressure.
Barely days after launching what appears to be a self-driven campaign to project control over PF structures, Brian Mundubile and his team now find themselves confronting a political reality they may have underestimated. The Patriotic Front is not a personal enterprise that can be taken over by declaration. It carries a historical and ideological DNA rooted in the legacy of President Michael Chilufya Sata and President Edgar Chagwa Lungu. Its structures were built through sacrifice, grassroots mobilization, and collective discipline, not through pronouncements.
The recent welcome extended to Hon. Makebi Zulu by PF structures in Kasama has clearly unsettled certain quarters. Instead of responding with political maturity, what followed were attempts to “fire” or dissolve structures that were never under their authority in the first place. Those structures belong to the Patriotic Front. They had not defected. They had not joined any parallel arrangement. They simply exercised their right to engage within the party framework.
This is precisely what many of us have warned about: no individual can seize PF structures and convert them into a personal campaign machinery. The party’s foundation is institutional, not individual. What we are now witnessing signals visible cracks in the narrative of control. When legitimate party engagement creates panic, it exposes weakness rather than strength.
The maneuvers involving the Tonse Alliance have further amplified these concerns. Alliances are not inherently problematic in politics. However, bypassing your own house while claiming to represent it raises legitimate questions. Acting first and consulting later does not demonstrate unity; it creates confusion. Presenting unilateral decisions as collective direction weakens trust.
And when these actions are questioned, attention is redirected toward the Acting President. But shifting blame does not eliminate responsibility. If unity is truly the objective, why undermine the very structures designed to preserve it?
Those who have resorted to suspending, isolating, or attempting to intimidate others simply for engaging politically do not demonstrate strength , they expose insecurity. Leadership is not threatened by dialogue. Leadership is not shaken by consultation. Leadership does not panic when members exercise their political rights within the party framework.
It is deeply ironic that some of the loudest voices today are complaining about not being consulted when they were removed from MCC WhatsApp groups. Yet those same individuals did not consider consultation necessary before publicly attacking party leadership or engaging external formations. They did not brief their committees when aligning themselves with uncertain political pathways. Consultation cannot be selective. Accountability must be mutual.
Hon. Chitalu Chilufya has been clear: the Patriotic Front remains intact, and members must not be misled into following factions operating outside recognized party structures. The official PF framework remains legitimate and functional. What we are witnessing in certain quarters is not reform, it is desperation, including attempts to dissolve structures that do not legally belong to them.
Let it be stated clearly: all remaining presidential aspirants are free to interact with PF structures across the country without fear or favor. Engagement is not rebellion. Dialogue is not disloyalty. No member should be intimidated for operating within the constitutional framework of the party.
The truth many are hesitant to confront is that impatience for personal ascendancy is beginning to overshadow commitment to collective survival. Some appear willing to destabilize the PF rather than submit to a structured and transparent process. That is not courage. That is ambition without restraint.
As we move toward 2026, credibility is already being measured. Members are watching closely. They can see who is defending the institution and who is maneuvering around it. They can see who respects party organs and who treats them as obstacles.
The Patriotic Front is bigger than any single ambition. It was built through sacrifice. It survived because of discipline. And it will remain relevant only if we reject attempts to personalize it.
This is the Solomon Test. If you truly love the PF, you will protect it, even when it demands patience and humility. If you are prepared to fracture it for personal positioning, history will record that choice accordingly.
The future of the Patriotic Front will not be secured by those chasing control. It will be secured by those defending its foundation