PF Returns To PF – But Will the Confusion End?
By Dr Mwelwa
The latest court developments have produced a moment many Patriotic Front members thought impossible only months ago. The Registrar of Societies has now removed Robert Chabinga and Morgan Ng’ona from the official records, and Miles Sampa has been reinstated as President of the Patriotic Front. Legally speaking, the party has been returned to PF.
But politically, the real questions are only beginning.
For months, PF supporters have watched a confusing legal and political drama involving competing leadership claims, injunctions, dismissals, and parallel structures. Now that the Registrar has implemented the court order, one fact appears settled: Miles Sampa currently holds the legal authority of PF President.
Yet law and politics rarely move at the same speed.
The first and most important question is whether Sampa will now restore the party to the pre–October 24, 2023 office bearers, as outlined in the consent agreement between Brian Mundubile and others versus Miles Sampa. That agreement clearly stated that the disputed October meeting and its outcomes were to be nullified and that the Registrar should revert PF leadership to its previous structure.
If Sampa truly accepts the spirit of the consent agreement, then restoring the previous leadership—including Given Lubinda’s role—would be the logical next step. But if he consolidates power under the current arrangement instead, PF could find itself in yet another cycle of legitimacy disputes.
This raises an equally critical contradiction.
If the court now recognizes Miles Sampa as PF President, what becomes of the “acting president” structure that has existed around Given Lubinda? Can a party simultaneously have a legally recognized president and an acting president? Politically and constitutionally, that situation cannot coexist for long.
Either Lubinda’s role becomes redundant, or a new internal arrangement must be negotiated. Without clarity, PF risks entering yet another phase of parallel authority—exactly the crisis the courts were meant to resolve.
Then there is the unresolved Mundubile and Others vs. Sampa case, scheduled for judgment on 27th March 2026. That matter centers on the consent agreement nullifying the October 2023 meeting and restoring previous leadership. If the court signs and enforces that judgment, the political equation could shift again.
In other words, today’s “victory” may not be the final chapter. It may simply be another turning point in a longer struggle for control of the party.
There is also a deeper political dimension that cannot be ignored.
Many observers believe the ruling party benefits from prolonged opposition instability. When opposition parties remain trapped in court battles, leadership disputes, and legitimacy questions, voters grow confused, demoralized, and disengaged. In such an environment, the ruling establishment faces a weaker challenge.
From this perspective, the return of PF to Miles Sampa may not necessarily resolve the internal crisis. It could deepen the strategic confusion—especially if multiple factions continue claiming authority while the 2026 elections approach.
This is the danger PF must confront.
The party now stands at a crossroads. If Sampa uses the ruling to reconcile factions, restore the agreed structures, and rebuild unity, PF could still emerge stronger from this crisis. But if the ruling becomes another instrument of factional consolidation, the wounds will widen.
And when parties fight themselves longer than they fight elections, voters eventually move on.
For PF members and the broader opposition, the real issue is no longer who holds the party letterhead today. The real issue is whether PF can regain institutional coherence before Zambia heads into another election cycle.
Courts can restore positions on paper.
But only political maturity can restore a movement.