When we questioned Makebi Zulu’s victory for the Patriotic Front (PF) presidency, some quarters thought we were being biased in our analysis.
Now, the condemnation of Miles Sampa and Willah Mudolo coming within the embattled for former ruling party has cast a long shadow over the latest attempt by Makebi Zulu to assume leadership of the PF.
What has been presented by his supporters as a moment of renewal instead reflects a deepening crisis, one that continues to erode what remains of the former ruling party’s credibility. 
At a time when the PF desperately needs order, discipline, and adherence to its own constitution, Zulu’s so-called victory emerging from a shadowy and disputed process only amplifies the chaos.
It is not merely the outcome that has drawn sharp criticism from Sampa and Mudolo but the very process itself.
A political party that once commanded national authority now finds itself unable to conduct a transparent and lawful internal election.
Both men have firmly rejected the claims that Makebi Zulu has been elected president, arguing that legitimacy cannot be manufactured outside established structures.
Their condemnation is not rooted in personal grievance alone but in a fundamental principle that leadership must be derived from constitutional and verifiable procedures.
Sampa has been unequivocal in his rejection. According to him, there was no convention and no lawful gathering sanctioned by party structures.
Instead, what has been portrayed as an election appears to have been an attempt to manufacture legitimacy through informal networks and social media declarations. His stance carries weight not only because of his senior role within the PF but also because he understands firsthand the consequences of procedural shortcuts.
Sampa’s criticism underscores just how deeply flawed this latest episode is.
And Mudolo’s reaction reinforces that position with equal force. From outside the country, he moved quickly to distance himself from the claims, insisting that no credible election can be conducted in secrecy and then announced through unofficial channels.
His words point to a broader truth about political organisations. Serious decisions cannot be reduced to whispers and online proclamations.
They require structure, transparency, and accountability. Without these elements, any claim to leadership is hollow.
Against this backdrop of firm rejection, questions arise about what is driving Makebi Zulu’s insistence on claiming the presidency under such contested circumstances.
The answer lies in the ongoing fragmentation of the PF. Since losing power, the party has become a battleground of competing ambitions.
Court cases, parallel conventions, and shifting alliances have replaced coherent strategy and unity. In such an environment, the temptation to bypass procedure and seize advantage becomes increasingly strong.
Makebi Zulu appears to have embraced that path despite the warnings implicit in the condemnation from Sampa and Mudolo. Rather than working within the established framework of the party and waiting for the resolution of legal constraints, he has aligned himself with a faction willing to anoint him through opaque means.
This is not leadership grounded in consensus. It is an attempt to assert authority in a space where legitimacy is already under intense scrutiny.
The invocation of divine endorsement by figures such as Godfridah Sumaili only adds another layer of controversy.
Political legitimacy cannot be conferred through spiritual declarations. It must be earned through credible processes that inspire confidence among members and the public alike.
When religion is used to mask procedural deficiencies, it risks undermining both political and spiritual institutions.
This episode also highlights a deeper and more troubling reality about the PF. The party may be approaching a point of no return.
When senior figures such as Sampa and Mudolo openly reject the same process that produces a purported leader, it signals more than disagreement.
It reflects a party that no longer recognises a single source of authority. The condemnation of Makebi Zulu’s alleged victory is, therefore, not just about one individual. It is about a system that has broken down.
Even the figures reportedly defeated in this disputed contest, including Given Lubinda and others, are left in a state of uncertainty. Without a credible process, victory and defeat become meaningless.
The numbers cited, the percentages announced, and the districts claimed are all rendered irrelevant in the absence of legitimacy.
For Makebi Zulu, the strong and public rejection by Sampa and Mudolo should serve as a moment for reflection rather than celebration.
Leadership obtained through questionable means is inherently unstable. It invites resistance, fuels division, and ultimately collapses under the weight of its own illegitimacy.
If he is serious about leading the PF, he must submit himself to the same constitutional processes that bind every other member.
For the PF, the path forward remains fraught with difficulty. The party must decide whether it still values its own rules or whether it will continue down a path where power is claimed rather than conferred. Until that question is answered, episodes like this will persist, each one further diminishing the party’s standing.
In the end, the controversy surrounding Makebi Zulu’s so-called victory, now sharply condemned by both Sampa and Mudolo, is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom of deeper institutional decay.
Unless that decay is addressed through genuine reform and respect for procedure, the PF will remain trapped in a cycle of confusion, conflict, and growing irrelevance.
