🇿🇲 EDITOR’S NOTE | PF No Longer in Crisis But in Contradiction
Patriotic Front is no longer dealing with ordinary internal wrangles. It is now confronting a full-blown identity crisis where politics, law, and survival are pulling in different directions. The Wednesday briefing by Given Lubinda does not calm the situation. It exposes it.
The March 21 convention, which many within PF have been presenting as a turning point, has now been fundamentally redefined by one of its own architects. Lubinda makes it clear that what took place was not, in fact, a PF convention. His words are precise and damaging.
“The convention from start to end was not a PF convention… It was a no-name convention.”
This single admission collapses the political narrative that had been built around that gathering.
What PF presented to the public as a leadership solution was, by Lubinda’s own explanation, a legal manoeuvre. A “special purpose vehicle” designed to avoid contempt of court while producing a flag bearer. This is not party consolidation. It is political improvisation under legal pressure.
This is where the contradiction becomes dangerous.
On one hand, PF insists it is a structured political party with a constitution, organs, and continuity. On the other hand, it is now admitting to holding parallel processes outside its own identity to navigate court restrictions. A party cannot simultaneously claim constitutional order while operating through what is effectively an off-book mechanism. The tension is no longer theoretical. It is now on record.
Lubinda’s grievances about the conduct of the process deepen the problem rather than resolve it. His analogy is as sharp as it is revealing. “A student goes and examines themselves. They also mark their own script.” This is not just criticism. It is an indictment of internal credibility. It suggests that even within PF’s own ranks, trust in internal processes has broken down.
Then comes the most consequential shift.
Lubinda accepts, albeit reluctantly, the legal reality that Miles Sampa emerges strengthened from the courts.
“Because we did not prove that his convention was illegal it therefore means that the product of that convention is in itself legal.” This is not endorsement. It is resignation to legal arithmetic. The courts have not unified PF. They have simply handed one faction an advantage.
But even this position is unstable.
Elsewhere, PF structures are still contesting that same judgment through the Court of Appeal. Raphael Nakacinda is arguing that the High Court erred in law, that the central committee never ceased to exist, and that the October 24 meeting did not constitute a lawful general conference. So while one senior leader is urging acceptance of Sampa’s legal standing, another is actively seeking to overturn it. Let us not talk about Robert Chabinga. This is not strategy, it is contradiction institutionalised.
Lubinda’s call for unity is therefore politically sound but structurally hollow.
“I can assure us all that unless we unite we shall fall together as fools.” It is a powerful line. It is also a line that sits on a fractured foundation. Unity cannot be declared in press briefings while being contested in courtrooms. It cannot be negotiated while factions are dissolving structures, forming alliances, and attacking each other publicly.
The reference to “mingalato pro max” is more than political humour. It reflects a deeper concern within PF that deception, manipulation, and procedural shortcuts are now embedded in its internal culture. When senior leaders begin to describe their own processes using the language of trickery, the crisis has moved beyond factionalism. It has become systemic.
History is repeating itself, but in a more complex form.
After the death of Michael Sata, PF descended into a succession battle that split the party between competing centres of power. That crisis was eventually resolved through state machinery and political compromise. Today’s PF does not have that luxury. It is operating outside government, under legal scrutiny, and with multiple factions claiming legitimacy simultaneously. The tools that once held it together are no longer available.
Lubinda is correct on one point.
“PF is not dead and PF is not going to die.” Political parties rarely die in law. They weaken in function. They fragment in practice. They lose coherence long before they lose registration. What PF is experiencing now is not death. It is disintegration of authority.
The 2026 election is approaching.
At this rate, PF risks entering that election not as a unified opposition force, but as a legally entangled, politically divided formation where leadership is contested, processes are questioned, and strategy is unclear. Voters do not engage with internal legal arguments. They respond to clarity, direction, and coherence.
Right now, PF is offering none of the three.
This is no longer a question of who leads the Patriotic Front. It is a question of whether the Patriotic Front still knows what it is.
© The People’s Brief | Editors