By EditorZambia
By any serious measure of political credibility, Wynter Kabimba’s criticism of veteran politician Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika is not only justified — it is long overdue.
In questioning Akashambatwa’s moral and political authority to unite Zambia’s fragmented opposition, Kabimba has said aloud what many within political circles whisper privately: that opposition unity cannot be credibly led by someone whose own record is defined more by theory, miscalculation and retreat than by sacrifice, consistency and results. 
At the heart of Kabimba’s argument is a simple but uncomfortable truth. Leadership, especially in coalition politics, is not self-declared. It is earned through action. It is demonstrated when circumstances are difficult, not when it is fashionable to offer commentary from the sidelines. Akashambatwa’s recent positioning as an “elder” seeking to rally opposition political parties into a united front ignores his own history — a history marked by missed opportunities and political exits when resilience was required.
Kabimba correctly reminds the nation that the challenge of uniting the opposition is not new. It existed when Akashambatwa was politically active and influential. At that time, Akashambatwa was not a powerless observer; he was embedded in the ruling Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) and served as an adviser to President Rupiah Banda. If there was ever a moment when strategic insight, persuasion, and bridge-building were needed, that was it. Yet history records no successful unifying legacy under Akashambatwa’s watch. Instead, his tenure ended in political failure, culminating in his removal and redeployment to TAZARA in Tanzania — hardly the trajectory of a master coalition builder.
More telling still is Akashambatwa’s early departure from the MMD. Rather than staying within the party to fight internal battles, reform policy direction, or mobilise dissent from within, he chose the easier route: leaving. Politics, however, is not an academic seminar. It is a contestation of endurance, negotiation, and sometimes uncomfortable compromise. Walking away when the terrain becomes hostile is not the mark of someone qualified to lecture others on unity.
Kabimba’s critique cuts deeper when he describes Akashambatwa as “too much of a theorist.” This is not an insult; it is a diagnosis. Zambia’s political opposition does not suffer from a shortage of ideas, papers, or public commentary. It suffers from a shortage of disciplined, grounded leadership capable of managing egos, aligning interests, and translating rhetoric into binding agreements. Coalition politics is messy work. It demands patience, political capital, and credibility among peers. Akashambatwa’s record offers little evidence of these qualities in practice.
There is also a moral dimension to Kabimba’s argument. Opposition unity cannot be built on selective memory or historical revisionism. Leaders who failed when they had influence cannot simply reappear later as neutral elders without first accounting for those failures. Kabimba is right to say that credibility is earned through consistency, not retroactive claims of relevance. Voters are not naïve. They remember who stood firm, who retreated, and who re-emerged only when the political winds shifted.
The pattern Kabimba highlights — of politicians reinventing themselves as kingmakers after losing electoral relevance — is a real and corrosive problem. It breeds cynicism among voters and mistrust among political actors. Unity efforts driven by ego, nostalgia, or a desire to reclaim relevance are not only ineffective; they are dangerous. They risk fragmenting the opposition further by creating parallel centres of authority with no mandate.
Kabimba does not reject opposition unity. On the contrary, he supports it in principle. But his insistence on realism, accountability, and structured processes is precisely what distinguishes serious coalition politics from political theatre. Genuine unity requires transparent dialogue, formal agreements, policy alignment, and mechanisms for internal accountability. It cannot be achieved through press statements and self-appointed elderhood.
Zambia’s opposition history is littered with short-lived alliances that collapse under the weight of personality clashes and weak frameworks. Kabimba’s reference to these failures is not an attack for its own sake; it is a warning. Without disciplined leadership and honest reflection, new unity drives will repeat old mistakes.
In challenging Akashambatwa’s credibility, Kabimba is also making a broader point about political maturity. True leaders acknowledge past shortcomings and learn from them. They do not pretend those shortcomings never existed. If Akashambatwa genuinely believes in opposition unity, the starting point should be introspection, not posturing.
As Zambia moves toward future electoral contests, the opposition faces a choice. It can continue to recycle familiar names and hollow calls for unity, or it can build coalitions rooted in trust, structure, and accountability. Wynter Kabimba’s intervention pushes the conversation in the right direction. It reminds us that unity is not about who speaks the loudest or longest but about who has demonstrated, through action, the capacity to lead.
On that test, Akashambatwa falls short. And Kabimba is right to say so.
