By EditorZambia
The United Party for National Development (UPND) has reached a critical point where internal discipline in communication is no longer optional but essential.
The directive issued by Secretary General Batuke Imenda, ordering lower party structures to halt all public statements unless cleared through the proper channels, is both timely and necessary. 
It is a reminder that political messaging, especially from a ruling party, can not be left to chance, emotion, or individual interpretation.
In recent weeks, the UPND has found itself entangled in a web of conflicting narratives, not because of external propaganda, but because of its own members issuing contradictory statements.
The episode involving Kabwe acting youth chairman Kelvin Mwangala is a perfect illustration. Mwangala’s initial statement alleging UPND involvement in the assault of Given Lubinda, followed by a sharply different retraction, did not just cause embarrassment, it provided ammunition for opponents eager to portray the party as chaotic and uncoordinated.
The situation worsened when Media Director Mark Simuuwe distanced the party from Mwangala entirely, deepening public confusion.
Had Mwangala not issued his unguided statement, Mark Simuuwe’s measured message could have steadily stood.
Political communication demands clarity, coherence, and credibility. A party that speaks with too many voices risks losing public trust, not because its policies are wrong, but because its message is drowned out by internal noise.
For the UPND, which is still consolidating its identity and governance style after assuming office in 2021, maintaining a unified voice is indispensable.
With social media amplifying every rumour, half-truth, or premature comment, the damage from unverified statements spreads faster than it can be corrected. This is precisely what has happened in the wake of the Kabwe and Chingola incidents.
The growth of the party’s structures, while a sign of democratic participation, has also generated new challenges. Many district, constituency, and ward officials now treat Facebook posts as official political interventions.
Unfortunately, these posts often appear before the national secretariat can verify facts or craft a measured response. As a result, the public is left with multiple conflicting accounts on matters that demand precision, especially on issues involving violence, national security, and political accountability.
Imenda’s directive aims to restore order and reaffirm the principle that communication must flow from the top. This is not about silencing members or suppressing debate; it is about ensuring that the party’s official position is communicated responsibly.
Discipline in messaging is as important as discipline in conduct. Without it, the party appears fragmented and reactive rather than organised and principled.
The opposition has already seised on these inconsistencies to question the UPND’s internal cohesion. The only way to counter that narrative is through enforcement.
If the party is serious about regaining control of its message, disciplinary measures for unauthorised statements can not remain theoretical. They must be applied consistently.
Ultimately, the directive is a necessary corrective. It reminds members that being part of a governing party comes with heightened responsibility.
Unity of message is not merely an organisational preference; it is a governance imperative.
For the UPND to maintain public confidence, every member must respect the established communication hierarchy.
Apart from sporadic communication, the other main ailment that afflicts the UPND communication strategy is the delay in responding to incorrect negative opposition narratives.
