🇿🇲 EDITORIAL | Mundubile’s Communication Problem Just Got Worse
The controversy surrounding Binwell Mpundu has taken a decisive turn. What began as a dispute over whether artificial intelligence produced a viral election video has developed into something more consequential for the Tonse Alliance: a breakdown in political communication serious enough to leave its presidential candidate publicly defending an explanation which Mpundu himself has now disowned.
On Monday evening, Mpundu acknowledged the video in which he spoke of being prepared to “kill” over Thursday’s election was authentic. He said his media team had wrongly described it as AI-generated and, in the process, misled NRPUP presidential candidate Brian Mundubile. Mpundu now says his remarks were made in the context of self-defence.
This changes the substance of the controversy. On Sunday, the video circulating from Mpundu’s Facebook page contained the words: “Our lives are at stake. We are ready to die. And we are ready to kill.” After the remarks attracted widespread criticism, Mpundu’s account carried an explanation claiming the recording was AI-generated and his Facebook account had been compromised. Mundubile subsequently defended his presidential affairs chairperson, saying: “That was AI. He could not possibly speak like that.”
We now know, from Mpundu himself, the video was not AI-generated. This is precisely why political leaders must resist establishing facts before facts have been established. Our concern from the beginning was never simply whether artificial intelligence could produce a convincing political video. Modern technology makes manipulated media a legitimate electoral concern. The larger question was how the leadership of an organisation seeking control of the State responds when information is incomplete.
Mundubile was apparently given incorrect information by people within his political organisation. Mpundu now says his media team misled him. If this account is accurate, Mundubile himself became a casualty of his campaign’s communication system. But this does not remove the leadership question. It sharpens it.
A presidential candidate cannot personally verify every piece of information reaching his desk. No President can. This is precisely why systems matter. Advisers matter. Reporting lines matter. Verification matters. Leaders routinely make decisions using information supplied by other people. The quality of those people, and the systems used to test their information, becomes part of the quality of leadership itself.
The Tonse Alliance therefore has more than a Binwell Mpundu controversy. It has a communication problem. Statements are made. Explanations follow. Clarifications follow the explanations. Now an explanation publicly adopted by the presidential candidate has been contradicted by the very official he was defending.
For a campaign asking Zambians to entrust it with the presidency in three days, this is not insignificant. Mundubile is contesting for State House for the first time. He has built considerable political visibility during this campaign and generated enthusiasm among sections of the electorate. Presidential credibility, however, requires more than enthusiasm. Voters are also examining judgement, temperament, command, organisation and the quality of people surrounding a candidate.
A presidential campaign is, in many respects, a preview of executive government. If information can move through a campaign structure, reach the presidential candidate and cause him to make a categorical public declaration which collapses within roughly a day, voters are entitled to ask how the system works. Who verified the AI claim before Mundubile repeated it? Who established the Facebook account had been compromised? Who advised the presidential candidate to make a categorical defence rather than acknowledge an unresolved allegation? And now, after Mpundu says his media team misled Mundubile, what happens inside the organisation?
These are questions of political management, not personalities.
Our position from the beginning was straightforward. Mundubile did not need to determine the authenticity of the recording himself. He could have acknowledged Mpundu’s denial, announced an internal inquiry, referred the technical questions to competent investigators and temporarily removed him from campaign activity while facts were established. Such action would not have pronounced Mpundu guilty. It would have protected the institution.
The latest development also changes Mpundu’s own defence. The argument has moved from authenticity to context. His position is no longer that the recording was fabricated. He now accepts making the remarks but says he was speaking about self-defence. The complete recording and surrounding circumstances therefore become important in assessing what he meant.
Police have reportedly opened investigations following a complaint by Democratic Advocates for Good Governance Executive Director Fabian Mutale. UPND Secretary General Batuke Imenda has also written to the Electoral Commission of Zambia seeking intervention. Those processes should proceed according to law. Mpundu is entitled to explain himself and to due process. Investigators must examine the complete material rather than isolated excerpts.
Political responsibility, however, operates differently from criminal responsibility. A political organisation does not require a criminal conviction before deciding whether the conduct of one of its senior officials meets its own standards. Nor does temporarily stepping aside amount to guilt. Mature institutions understand the distinction.
There is also a broader issue concerning the language itself. Zambia votes on Thursday. Political tensions have already produced pockets of violence during the campaign. Police are under pressure to maintain order. Election institutions are trying to preserve confidence. In such an environment, language involving being “ready to kill”, even when subsequently explained as f, carries consequences beyond the speaker.
Political leaders must understand the weight of their words. Crisis communication is not cosmetic. It is part of governance. Good political communication establishes what is known, separates it from what is alleged and identifies what remains unresolved. It does not rush to fill uncertainty with convenient explanations. Sometimes the strongest response available to a leader is the simplest: we do not know; we are going to establish the facts.
Had Mundubile taken this approach on Sunday, Mpundu’s admission on Monday would not have placed the presidential candidate in contradiction with his own official. Instead, Mundubile must now contend with a public statement he made on information which Mpundu says was incorrect. This was avoidable political damage.
More importantly, the episode gives Mundubile an opportunity to confront a weakness which has become increasingly visible around his campaign. His alliance needs stronger message discipline, clearer reporting structures and advisers capable of verifying sensitive information before placing it before the presidential candidate. A leader is only as secure as the information system surrounding him.
The stakes become considerably higher in State House. Presidents receive intelligence assessments, security briefings, economic forecasts, diplomatic advice and recommendations carrying consequences for millions of people. They cannot independently investigate everything. They depend on institutions capable of distinguishing verified information from assumption, allegation and political convenience.
On Sunday, the country was told the video was artificial intelligence. On Monday, the man appearing in it said it was him. He now says his media team misled his presidential candidate.
That sequence should concern the Tonse Alliance more than criticism coming from outside its ranks.
The problem is no longer simply what Binwell Mpundu said. It is how an incorrect explanation apparently travelled through the political machinery surrounding Brian Mundubile and emerged from the presidential candidate as established fact.
Mundubile has not, from the information presently before us, responded to Mpundu’s latest admission. He should be given an opportunity to do so. The People’s Brief will therefore wait to hear his explanation before drawing further conclusions about what he knew, what he was told and how his campaign intends to deal with the communication failure Mpundu has now acknowledged.
48 hours before Zambia votes, however, the broader lesson is already visible. Manifestos tell voters what politicians intend to do. Difficult moments reveal how leaders process information, manage their teams and exercise judgement when facts are uncertain.
Sometimes those moments tell us more than campaign speeches ever could.
© The People’s Brief | Editor-in-Chief