 THE CANDIDATES | PF Base Readjusts as Mudolo Loses Grip, Mundubile Rises

Something shifted inside the Patriotic Front this week. A quiet recalibration, followed by a decisive break. Figures who once whispered about a fresh technocratic face at the top have stepped back, leaving Willah Joseph Mudolo politically exposed and increasingly isolated.

Davies Mwila and Mumbi Phiri, once counted among his strongest internal patrons, have reportedly crossed the aisle to Brian Mundubile’s corner. Their exit is not symbolic; it signals a calculated retreat from a candidate they now see as incapable of carrying the PF base into a national contest.

The verdict from within the trenches is blunt. Mudolo carries intellect, ambition, and presentation, but lacks political oxygen.

Inside PF structures, the joke has grown sharper: “online president.” His recent habit of addressing the nation from a mock press-briefing podium, flanked by two flag-bearers, sparked more satire than momentum. Viewers praised his fluency but questioned substance. Even his accent became a talking point, drifting between soft Malawian tones and Bemba code-switching that felt more performance than politics.

The party’s provincial coordinators and constituency foot soldiers have been clear. PF wants a street-tested fighter, not a polished economist broadcasting from Johannesburg. The grassroots demanded a figure who can stand in muddy village rallies, endure church hostility, withstand police escorts, and cut through the noise with raw experience. Mudolo brought numbers, spreadsheets, and theory. PF cadres wanted muscle, memory, and political scars.

This week, key powerbrokers bowed to that sentiment. “The Mudolo project will not take us anywhere,” one insider confessed. The line was not personal. It was tactical. Momentum matters in Zambian politics, and right now, Mudolo does not have it.

Mundubile, by contrast, has been moving in the shadows with the discipline of a veteran. Province by province, ward by ward, church by church, he has stitched together an internal constituency. He carries scars from PF’s most turbulent days and speaks the language of the base: loyalty, continuity, and defiance. He is not flamboyant. He is not experimental. But he understands the PF bloodstream.

This pivot tells a deeper story. PF is not looking for novelty. It is searching for a steady hand to navigate survival, restore order in fractured structures, and assemble a credible challenge to the ruling party. Those who believed the next PF leader would be a fresh technocrat now see the reality. The base still values trench politics over boardroom speeches.

Mudolo remains a voice and a presence, but without structural support, his path narrows. The PF is entering a grinding internal season that will reward resilience, not eloquence.

Next in The Candidates: Populists, pragmatists, and the dark horses redefining Zambia’s 2026 battle.

© The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu

Lusaka, Thursday, August 2026

Patriotic Front (PF) Presidential hopeful, Makebi Zulu, has issued a powerful call for national renewal, declaring August 2026 as “Zambia’s Moment of Renewal.”

In a passionate statement that has echoed across political and social circles, Seasoned Lawyer Mr. Zulu said the time had come for Zambians to reclaim their destiny from broken promises and economic hardship.

“Zambia has been tested by broken promises, rising prices, and leaders who spoke of new dawns but delivered longer nights,” he said.

“Yet, in the dust of disappointment, a fire still burns the fire of a people who know they can rise again.”

Drawing parallels with democratic comebacks around the world, Zulu cited Malawi’s electoral turnaround and the resurgence of opposition forces in Europe as inspiration for Zambia’s own revival.

“Across the world, comebacks define democracy,” he said.

“And here in Zambia, the people are ready for their own comeback.”

Zulu painted a grim picture of the country’s current state, describing life under the UPND government as “unbearable.” He noted that the price of mealie meal had risen above K300, fuel costs had doubled, and power cuts had returned, while inflation continued to erode the value of the kwacha.

“Youths roam the streets without work while officials brag about progress only they can see,” he said.

“Over 65% of Zambians live in poverty. The patience of the people is wearing thin.”

The former Eastern Province Minister also accused the government of surrendering Zambia’s sovereignty to foreign powers through international deals that have burdened ordinary citizens. “Zambia, once a beacon of democracy, has become a testing ground for foreign control,” he warned.

“The IMF deal brought austerity, not relief. China and the West pull us in opposite directions while ordinary citizens pay the price. We cannot eat geopolitics we need jobs, dignity, and direction.”

Zulu acknowledged that the previous PF administration made mistakes but said the party had learned and reformed. Quoting former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, he said, “We have made mistakes, and for that, we apologize.”

“That is leadership humility and accountability,” Hon. Zulu added.

Outlining his vision for Zambia’s comeback, Hon. Zulu announced a five-point renewal agenda anchored on economic freedom, youth empowerment, justice, unity, and accountability.

✅ Economic Freedom: Restore affordability, rebuild production, and protect the kwacha.

✅ Jobs for Youth: Focus on skills, industries, and access to credit not slogans.

✅ Justice for All: End selective prosecution and political intimidation.

✅ National Unity: Reject tribal politics and regional favoritism.

✅ Power to the People: Implement real decentralization and accountability.

He has emphasized that the 2026 general election would not be about personalities but about restoring hope and dignity to the Zambian people.

“Next year, Zambia will not need new excuses; it will need courage. It will not need sympathy; it will need unity,” he said.

“The comeback will be bold, spiritual, and unstoppable.”

He concluded with a rallying call for citizens to register to vote, describing it as the “surest weapon” for change.

“When Zambians stand up in 2026, the world will see a nation that refused to die.”

PF IN LIVINGSTONE DESCRIBES BOYCOTT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSULTATIONS AS PATRIOTIC ACT

By: Augustine Kapambwe

The Patriotic Front (Pf) In Livingstone Has Described Organisations And Individuals Boycotting The Ongoing Public Consultations On Constitutional Amendments As True Patriots Defending The Rule Of Law And National Integrity.

Speaking To Sun Fm Tv News, Livingstone District Information And Publicity Secretary Felix Bunda Said Those Pulling Out Of The Consultation Process Were Acting In Line With The Recent Constitutional Court Judgment, Which Found That The Procedure Surrounding The Amendments Was Not Properly Followed.

Mr. Bunda Stated That Withdrawing From What He Termed An “Illegal Process” Was An Act Of Courage And Patriotism, Adding That Such Individuals And Institutions Were Demonstrating Genuine Love For Zambia.

On The Broader Political Environment, He Expressed Concern About The Ongoing Voter Registration Exercise, Citing Inefficiencies At Some Registration Centres Where Officers Were Reportedly Absent.

Mr. Bunda Said This Situation Risked Disenfranchising Citizens Who Wished To Exercise Their Democratic Right To Vote.
#SunFmTvNews

By Lawrence Musunte

CAN YOU SEND A REPRESENTATIVE TO A FUNERAL YOU ARE BARRED FROM ATTENDING?

Let’s dig into the politics surrounding the burial of the late President Edgar Lungu, whose remains are still a subject of contestation in the South African courts.

My post today is about the misuse of the word “represent.”

I went to school in Zambia, and I don’t think our education system fails when it comes to English.

What we truly lack are three things;

1. Critical thinking skills.
2. Individual reasoning. We ( Zambians ) are communal thinkers; we don’t ask questions, we simply copy and paste whatever narrative is communally favoured.
3. Emotional objectivity.

We are often blinded by hatred. If a narrative is against a person we communally despise, it doesn’t need to be questioned. But if it’s against someone we communally love, suddenly we demand logic and fairness.

Now, since President Edgar Lungu’s death four months ago, the Lungu family through their lawyer has made it clear that President Hakainde Hichilema should not attend the funeral.

The lawyer argues it’s because ECL was mistreated and his benefits withdrawn (although we all heard ECL’s own speech when he announced his return to active politics, in which he practically threw away the privileges of a former President).

To make matters worse, the late President’s sister went on a public outburst using unpalatable insults in the Pretoria High Court, and used the language of superstition, accusing HH of wanting to use ECL’s body for rituals.

Okay, that’s the background. Let’s return to the word “represent.”

President Hakainde Hichilema has been barred from attending the funeral of Edgar Lungu. He is clearly an undesirable guest at a funeral that, ironically, is elevated to the status of a State Funeral, an event that would attract foreign dignitaries.

And now, some learned lawyers are suggesting that President Hichilema should send Vice President Her Honour W.K Mutale Nalumango to represent him.

This is where the misuse of the word “represent” becomes fundamentally fraudulent.

Let’s illustrate this point, I am a preacher bear with me;

Imagine Matthew is getting married to Petruder, but they don’t want Lawrence at their wedding. Can Lawrence send a representative to a wedding he’s not invited to? Should Lawrence find someone to crash the wedding and deliver his message to the bride and groom? That’s absurd. Because Lawrence wasn’t invited he has no wedding invitation to give a representative.

So, let’s educate ourselves while free speech is still legal.

If President Hakainde Hichilema is barred, not invited, and deemed undesirable at President Edgar Lungu’s funeral, then Vice President Madam Mutale Nalumango cannot truly represent him in any official capacity.

Representation implies permission or acceptance by the host.

You don’t ask a President to “send a representative.” You simply invite the President, and it is the Presidency that decides whether he will attend personally or send someone on his behalf.

In fact, most people who receive a representative instead of the President do so with a pinch of salt because having the President himself attend your event is a great honour.

Now, this is what many “ignorantly loudly learned” people fail to understand;

If the Lungu family has explicitly stated that the President is not welcome, then for HH to send a representative would be a disrespect to that decision.

To “Represent” only makes sense if the attendance is accepted or allowed. If attendance is barred like in this case of ECL, “represent” becomes inappropriate because it implies legitimacy that doesn’t exist.

And here’s another simple lesson: When a funeral is declared a State Funeral, it automatically becomes a function hosted by the State.

The President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema, becomes the official host on behalf of the nation.

Even though the family of the deceased has input or ceremonial influence, the overall framework, funding, and protocol all come from the State.

So yes, once a funeral is elevated to a State Funeral, it’s no longer a private family event.

The detractors of the President and his government want a dignified State Funeral with military honours and gun salutes but they don’t want the Head of State, who is the host, to attend.

That makes absolutely no sense, not even to the uneducated.

By Osward Bwali

So many people have wondered why Professor Muna Ndulo, one of Zambia’s greatest legal minds, has not said a word about the ongoing attempts by President Hichilema to force changes to the Constitution of Zambia before the next election. First came Bill 7 and its bad proposals that reminded us of Edgar Lungu and the PF’s infamous Bill 10. Nearly everyone outside the UPND condemned the Bill. Professor Ndulo said nothing. Next came the Constitutional Court judgement that outlawed the process that led to the creation of Bill 7. Defenders of the constitution hailed the verdict and praised the judges for their show of rare courage to rule against the executive. Professor Ndulo said nothing. Then came Hichilema’s decision to appoint a Technical Committee to consult Zambians on whether they support his proposals in Bill 7 or not.  Nearly everyone outside the UPND has questioned the legality of the committee and condemned the president’s attempt to re-reintroduce Bill 7 using the backdoor. Professor Ndulo said nothing.

As Hichilema is raping the constitution, would this not be the most appropriate time for constitutional scholars or experts like Professor Ndulo to pull his weight behind the defence of the constitution? Many people, me included, remember how Professor Ndulo was at the heart of public conversations on opposing Bill 10. Ndulo warned us that Lungu was out to install a constitutional dictatorship using Bill 10. He appeared on public platforms and wrote several articles denouncing the Bill. Given that most of the proposals in Hichilema’s Bill 7 are the same proposals that were contained in Lungu’s Bill 10, why has Professor Ndulo remained silent when what he opposed yesterday under one president is repeated today under a different president? Initially, I thought I had just missed his comments on Bill 7, so I combed the internet for a whole week in search of his views on Hichilema’s Bill. My search yielded nothing. 

The closest thing I found during my search was a post on X made by Linda Kasonde. She wrote the following on 18 October 2025: “Attached is Professor Muno (sic) Ndulo’s opinion on what a true Technical Committee should be in terms of composition and process. According to him, a real Technical Committee should be made up of a small group of experts rather than a Commission disguised as a Technical Committee. He notes lessons that Zambia can learn from the previous Constitutional Review Commissions and the Technical Committee of 2011. Please find time to read through it.” Excited, I rushed to the read the attachment that Kasonde had shared, but got disappointed when I discovered that the opinion, she was referring to was, in fact, a general policy paper written in January 2024 on constitution making in Zambia since 1964.  In it, Ndulo, perhaps without knowing that Hichilema and the UPND would later do what he was warning against, made a few observations that are still valid.

For instance, the Professor of Law stated that “Zambia has engaged in several constitution making processes since independence in 1964 without success. Previous processes have been executive driven and determined by narrow, short term political interests. There is still need for constitutional reforms in order to reform the authoritative vertical state structure that predisposes the state to authoritarian rule.  The process for constitutional reform must be well designed in order to succeed and avoid pitfalls of the past. It must be democratic, inclusive, representative and be insulated from political interreference by an Act of parliament. The process should be led by recognised experts in constitutional law. The Kenyan 2008-2010 constitution making process offers an ideal model that Zambia could adopt and contextualise in order to draft a legitimate constitution.”.

Ndulo should know better given that he was part of the experts that wrote the Kenyan constitution he is referring to. In fact, one would say he is a household name in Kenya. When I meet people on the streets or students at my university here in Nairobi, they mention his name immediately they know that I am from Zambia. So, given that the current process of constitution making that has been initiated by Hichilema is “executive driven and determined by narrow, short term political interests”, is not “insulated from political interreference by an Act of parliament”, is not “led by recognised experts in constitutional law”, why is Professor Ndulo silent as Hichilema tries to rape the constitution? Why is it so difficult for him to add his voice to the current discussions on constitution making, this time using a specific rather generalised example? In the absence of any explanation from Professor Ndulo, I think his silence on Hichilema’s bad attempt at constitution making emanates from three factors.

The first is that Professor Ndulo is conflicted by business interests. The institute that he founded alongside his brother, Professor Manenga Ndulo who is an economist at the University of Zambia, gets lucrative contracts from the same government that he is supposed to criticise. Here, I am talking about the Southern African Institute for Policy and Research (SAIPAR), a body that has previously and publicly advertised what it does for the UPND government through consultancies and workshops. Although the face of SAIPRA is a Dutch white lady named Dr Marja Hinfelaar who, according to its website, serves in some capacity and helps draw funding from Western donors, SAIPAR is owned by the Ndulo brothers. Under PF, the institute survived on foreign donors and some small government contracts, but Lungu was not as vindictive as Hichilema. If Professor Ndulo was to publicly criticise Hichilema today, the lucrative contracts that SAIPAR continues to get from several government ministries, which are its lifeblood, will be stopped.  As a result, he has opted to remain quiet so that SAIPAR can continue to benefit from the UPND government.

The second possible reason behind professor Ndulo’s silence is tribe. Like Hichilema, Ndulo is Tonga, and I am yet to come across any criticism in which he has criticised the current president. There are many illegalities that Hichilema has engaged in since 2021 and over which Professor Ndulo would have spoken out had the same occurred under Lungu. For instance, we still have an Auditor General who is not allowed by law to be in office. And a close friend in SAIPAR recently told me that Professor Ndulo privately criticises some of Hichilema’s decisions including Bill 7, but he will not voice out the same criticism publicly. It is hard to dismiss the perception that his silence on Hichilema’s illegalities and attempt to rape the constitution has to do with the idea that he is reluctant to criticise a man who hails from the same tribe as him. In July this year, Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa wrote an article on his X account in which he asked a question that I think remains relevant: “Why are Tongas, Lozis, and Zambians from Northwestern Province reluctant to publicly criticise Hichilema’s leadership failures?”  In addition to Ndulo, one can add Professor Oliver Saasa to the list of Tongas, Lozis and Northwesterners who used to speak out under PF but are now quiet even when similar wrongs occur.

As Dr Sishuwa pointed out in the same article, “we seem to have different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, the current trajectory sets a dangerous precedent where we make it seem like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who hail from the region where the president does not come from. If Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred.”

The third and final possible reason is that Professor Ndulo’s criticism of previous leaders was not based on principle; it was motivated by a desire to install in State House a leader he supports. This possibility differs from the one discussed in point number two in that while the previous one has tribe as its motivation, this one has politics. In other words, Professor Ndulo may not be tribal even if his silence and failure to criticise a Tonga-speaking president may seem to suggest so. He is simply reluctant to criticise a politician or a political party that he has quietly supported all along. This way, we may understand his criticism of all previous presidents as motivated by a desire to get his man and party into power, not by principle. Of course, it is possible that this point and the one above are both correct, but I raise it here because a part of me cannot come to terms with the unfolding reality: that one of Zambia’s best minds cannot bring himself to publicly criticising the actions of the UPND and president Hichilema on issues that cry for his voice, issues that he has spent decades of his professional life defending when they are undermined by those in power.

I love Professor Ndulo and it pains me to write this article, criticising him. As an anthropologist, I easily cede ground to best minds like him when it comes to understanding subjects of a public nature that are beyond my training, so when he decides to keep quiet, I feel robbed of the contribution of a respected and authoritative voice that can benefit the general public, those in power, and our democracy. And I doubt I am the only one. Only a few days ago, Solicitor General Marshal Muchende said that the government also has the right to propose constitutional changes. This was in defence of Bill 7 now disguised as public consultations by a not-so-Technical Committee. Even with the limited understanding of my anthropological training, I do know that a constitution is a set of rules that the people give to those in government, spelling out how they wish to be governed.

Professor Muna Ndulo, where are you? I know we are all mortal, but there have been no reports of your death, so I assume you are still alive and well. Why do you continue to keep quiet when Hichilema is violating the very principles that you defended in your policy brief, when the president is trying to rape the constitution of Zambia before the next election? Why can’t you speak out in defence of the people as you did under previous presidents? If you are now too old and are retired from public commentary, please let us know so that we excuse you.

Source: The Mast

SILAVWE’S GPZ JOINS JOHN SANGWA AND DORIKA BANDA’S MOVEMENT FOR NATIONAL RENEWAL

Pleased to announce the partnership between the Golden Party Zambia (GPZ) and the Movement for National Pleased to announce the partnership between the Golden Party Zambia (GPZ) and the Movement for National #TogetherWeWillRenewal (MNR).

This partnership represents a new wave of unity among citizens and reform-minded organisations determined to restore dignity, hope, accountability, and national purpose.
Jackson Silavwe
President
GPZ.
29|10|2025

OPPOSITION LACKS CLEAR ECONOMIC PLANS – CHANDA

Kanchibiya Member of Parliament, SUNDAY CHANDA, says opposition political leaders need to present credible and evidence-based economic alternatives ahead of the 2026 general election.

Mr. CHANDA observes that, so far, no opposition presidential hopeful has presented a fully developed economic plan that matches or effectively challenges the ruling party’s agenda across key sectors.

He says while several aspiring leaders have criticized Government on socio-economic issues, many of their proposals remain broad and lack implementation detail.

Mr. CHANDA says Zambians deserve more than political rhetoric, adding that credible and actionable policy alternatives are essential for meaningful national debate.

He explains that without clear opposition road-maps on employment, economic diversification, inflation and debt management, elections risk becoming contests of personality rather than policy.

The Kanchibiya lawmaker has also said competition of ideas strengthens democracy, as realistic policy options compel those in power to refine their own strategies for the benefit of citizens.

This is according to a statement issued by Mr. CHANDA.

ZNBC

⬆️ REGIONAL BRIEFING | Dar es Salaam Under Curfew After Election Violence

Tanzania’s government has imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew in the capital after violent clashes erupted between police and protesters on election day. The confrontation marks the most serious unrest the country has seen in years, deepening fears over democratic backsliding under President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s administration.

The violence broke out as Tanzanians cast their ballots in a general election widely seen as a foregone conclusion for the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party. Opposition leaders had already denounced the process, citing intimidation, disqualifications, and the jailing of key rivals.

According to hospital sources at Muhimbili National Hospital, dozens of wounded civilians were admitted following the clashes. Witnesses reported fires across several districts, with vehicles and public infrastructure damaged as protesters called for electoral reforms and unrestricted political activity.

Police chief Camelius Wambura announced that the curfew would take effect from 18:00 local time, urging residents to stay indoors “until further notice.” Security forces have since sealed off major intersections and deployed patrol units across the city.

Internet access has been sharply restricted, with social media platforms inaccessible except through virtual private networks (VPNs). The blackout has limited independent reporting and fueled speculation about the scale of the violence.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan, expected to win a new term, faces mounting criticism from human rights organizations over what they describe as the “systematic suppression” of opposition voices. The main opposition leader, Tundu Lissu, remains in jail facing treason charges, while his party, CHADEMA, boycotted the polls.

The unrest exposes the deep mistrust surrounding Tanzania’s political institutions and highlights growing frustration among young urban voters who see the electoral system as closed and unaccountable.

As night falls over Dar es Salaam, the curfew underscores a government struggling to contain both dissent and perception, a nation at a crossroads between stability and repression.

© The People’s Brief | Goran Handya; Ollus R. Ndomu