By EditorZambia
In a week when the nation expected maturity, clarity, and principled leadership from its lawmakers, a troubling spectacle has unfolded before the eyes of Zambians.
A group of self-righteous MPs led by Brian Mundubile have suddenly abandoned the solemn responsibility placed on them by voters and fled—not to Parliament where the fate of Bill 7 is to be decided—but to the Oasis Forum, a civil society consortium that has increasingly drifted into open political contestation and clearly become a rogue political front for tribalists and regionalists. 
This move, both dramatic and deeply irresponsible, raises urgent questions about the integrity of those elected to represent the people and the emerging role of the Oasis Forum as a parallel political arena.
The action of these MPs is not just puzzling; it is a direct affront to the constitutional order.
Members of Parliament are elected to debate, defend, oppose, amend, and ultimately vote on legislation—inside Parliament. Their mandate is clear, their platform is clear, and their duty is clear. To desert that mandate and seek validation from an external body is to bypass both democratic responsibility and the people they claim to serve.
What makes the situation more alarming is the political theatre surrounding the visit.
Over 43 MPs signed a petition against Bill 7, yet instead of taking that petition where it should naturally go—the National Assembly—they marched it to the Oasis Forum at Kapingila House.
Even more astonishing is the presence of unlikely figures such as Dr. Chitalu Chilufya and Anthony Mumba, whose sudden appearance in this political pilgrimage raises questions about sincerity, strategy, and motive. Only one Independent MP, Binwell Mpundu, attended, perhaps sensing the political undertones swirling around the event.
But the central question remains unanswered: Since when did the Oasis Forum become the arbiter of parliamentary decisions?
The Oasis Forum, once respected for promoting dialogue on national issues, has in recent years lost its neutrality, openly drifting into the terrain of partisan activism.
Its pronouncements, alignments, and interventions increasingly resemble political messaging rather than impartial civil advocacy. And instead of correcting this slide, certain public figures have leveraged the Oasis Forum as a megaphone for personal political agendas—eroding the moral weight the organisation once carried and transforming it into a convenient rallying point for political pressure.
The MPs’ pilgrimage to the Oasis Forum therefore reads less like a principled stand and more like a calculated evasion of legislative duty. If the dramatic performance is packaged as patriotism, the public must ask: patriotism to whom?
The voters who placed them in Parliament—or the unelected activists whose positions they now seem eager to mirror?
Brian Mundubile, who has struggled to articulate a compelling national message even within his own political party, has now cast himself as a martyr declaring he is “ready to die for mother Zambia.”
Such rhetoric, delivered not on the floor of the House but on the steps of the Catholic Secretariat, stretches credibility beyond its limits.
Dying for the country begins with fulfilling the obligations of office, not abandoning them for attention-seeking photo-ops at civil society offices.
The choice of venue—Kapingila House—further intensifies the symbolism of this misguided performance.
This is the administrative heart of the Catholic Church in Zambia, a location whose moral authority should not be exploited for political gains. Not used to champion personal and tribal causes advanced by individuals who are using the church to add divine weight to their wicked schemings.
For MPs to run there with petitions, they already have the constitutional power to act on in Parliament, undermining both democratic norms and the sanctity of religious institutions.
If Kapingila House now becomes a destination for elected officials to seek political legitimacy, what remains of Parliament’s authority?
The Oasis Forum comprises the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB), the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), NGOCC, and the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ).
Until recently, it was celebrated as a broad civil platform anchored in unity.
But its growing political assertiveness—combined with the habit of certain individuals using it for personalised crusades—has eroded the perception of neutrality it once commanded.
For instance, when professional bodies such as LAZ, under its current leadership of one Lungisani Zulu, begin to speak more like political actors than legal advocates, the line between civic duty and political partisanship becomes dangerously blurred.
Similarly, when NGOCC leaders like the self-styled ‘Iron lady’ Beauty Katebe use the Forum as an extended stage for personal political activism rather than gender advocacy, or when senior church figures like our holy archbishops Ignatius Chama and Alick Banda consistently take positions that echo political currents rather than moral guidance, public confidence inevitably declines.
These shifts underscore why the MPs’ visit to the Oasis Forum must be questioned.
Are these MPs accountable to their constituents—or to civil society groupings increasingly drawn into political combat?
If the Oasis Forum is not the electorate, if it has no constitutional mandate to vote on legislation, and if it can not amend or pass laws, what exactly is its role in receiving petitions intended for parliamentary action?
The entire episode exposes a deeper dysfunction: the inability of some MPs to operate confidently, coherently, and responsibly within the institutions designed for their work.
Instead of utilising parliamentary debate—a forum empowered to scrutinise, challenge, and shape legislation—they have opted for populist theatrics, outsourced accountability, and embraced external validation.
It is this abdication of responsibility that Zambians must reject. Constituents did not elect MPs to dramatise governance.
They did not elect them to turn Parliament into a secondary arena while elevating an unaccountable forum as a political tribunal.
And they certainly did not elect them to use civil society organisations as a platform for personal or partisan battles.
Elected officials must recognise that the dignity of Parliament is upheld only when its members treat it as the first and final venue for legislative engagement.
Anything less is a betrayal—not of political party, not of ideology, but of the Zambian people.
If MPs are truly ready to “die for mother Zambia,” let them begin by living up to the responsibilities mother Zambia gave them: to debate, to vote, to legislate, to lead. Not to run. Not to perform. And certainly not to outsource their constitutional mandate to those who were never elected to carry it.
