[POLITICS] GIVEN LUBINDA’S PRESSER: Greed. Betrayal & Political Opportunism Exposed.
….. It’s A Betrayal Of Edgar Lungu & Lubinda’s Sordid Departure From A Path He Himself Crafted, But Reality Showed Him He Was Not The Democratic Choice
The press briefing by former PF vice president and acting president Given Lubinda is not a sad reality but a manifestation of how political betrayal, opportunism and greed plays out in our day to day life.
Lubinda, as PF acting president organized a no name convention, which was managed by Miles Sampa as deputy general secretary. The outcome did not favor either Lubinda or Sampa, but manifested the people’s will within the limited PF structures.
Today, Lubinda and Sampa are rubbished the very process they pontificated was carefully crafted because the outcome did not favor them.
Listening to Lubinda’s press conference and following Sampa’s declaration makes for extremely sad and disturbing reality on the health ogf trhe opposityion.
The question that immediately emerges is. Really? Are these men sure they are eating their own vomit? Both Lubinda and Sampa organized the election and supervised the process, but lost to a novice in Makebi Zulu.
Did Lubinda mot say he will accept the outcome? What hypocrisy is this that is aimed at derailing the opposition?
Given the gravity of internal fractures within Zambia’s former ruling party, the latest press briefing by Given Lubinda demands more than casual scrutiny—it warrants a firm, critical reckoning.
Lubinda’s conspicuous failure to acknowledge Makebi Zulu as the legitimate leader of the Patriotic Front (PF), following a process he himself helped midwife alongside Miles Sampa, is not merely an oversight. It is a calculated act of political defiance. One cannot organize a process, participate in its outcomes, and then selectively repudiate its legitimacy when the result proves inconvenient. That behavior is not ideological—it is opportunistic.
At its core, Lubinda’s posture reflects a troubling pattern: a refusal to relinquish influence, even when institutional processes demand it. This is where accusations of greed and political selfishness begin to find traction. Leadership transitions, particularly in opposition politics, require discipline and fidelity to procedure. Lubinda’s stance instead signals a fixation on control—an unwillingness to cede ground, even at the cost of party cohesion.
More troubling, however, is that this is not an isolated episode. Allegations have long circulated that Lubinda previously attempted to undermine or even impeach Edgar Lungu during his tenure. While such claims remain politically contested, they contribute to a broader narrative: that Lubinda’s loyalty has often been contingent, shifting with the winds of personal ambition rather than anchored in principle.
Even in the aftermath of Lungu’s presidency, Lubinda’s conduct has, at times, appeared to undercut the very legacy he now invokes. To position oneself as a custodian of Lungu’s political heritage while simultaneously engaging in actions that fragment the party he led is a contradiction that cannot be ignored. It raises a fundamental question: is this about preserving a legacy, or repurposing it for personal leverage?
By refusing to recognize Makebi Zulu’s standing within the current PF structure, Lubinda is not just disputing an individual—he is undermining the institutional credibility of the party itself. Political organizations cannot function on selective legitimacy. Either processes matter, or they do not. Lubinda appears to want both: the authority derived from internal processes when it suits him, and the freedom to discard them when it does not.
This duality is corrosive. It weakens internal democracy, fuels factionalism, and erodes public confidence. For a party attempting to rebuild and reposition itself in Zambia’s राजनीतिक landscape, such instability is self-defeating.
Ultimately, Lubinda’s actions risk being interpreted as a betrayal—not only of party unity but of Edgar Lungu himself. Loyalty in politics is not measured by rhetoric but by consistency of conduct. If Lubinda genuinely seeks to honor Lungu’s legacy, then respecting institutional outcomes and fostering unity would be the logical starting point.
Instead, what is on display is a politics of convenience—one that prioritizes personal positioning over collective stability. And that, more than any press briefing, is what continues to define Given Lubinda’s contested role within the Patriotic Front today.