The Editor Zambia
“It is only in Africa where criminals voted out of power can regroup to loot the country once more.”
Those piercing words by Wole Soyinka echo with unsettling clarity in Zambia’s current political discourse, particularly in the context of the Patriotic Front (PF)’s renewed ambitions. 
The recent insistence by Davies Mwila that Brian Mundubile must appear on the ballot for the August 13, 2026 general election is not merely political rhetoric. It is a stark reminder of a troubling pattern that Soyinka warned about, where those rejected by the electorate attempt to reinvent themselves as saviours, despite a record that suggests the contrary.
To suggest that Mundubile, a central figure and linchpin in the PF, is the answer to Zambia’s economic challenges is, to stretch credulity beyond its limits.
The PF’s tenure in government remains widely regarded as one of the most turbulent in Zambia’s history. It was a period marked by unprecedented levels of lawlessness, where cadres operated with impunity and state institutions appeared compromised. The erosion of governance norms was not incidental; it was systemic.
Even more troubling was the blatant tribalism that increasingly defined the PF’s political strategy. National unity, a cornerstone of Zambia’s post-independence identity, was repeatedly undermined by divisive rhetoric and practices that pitted citizens against one another along ethnic lines.
For a country long celebrated as a beacon of peace in the region, this represented a dangerous departure from its founding ideals.
Economically, the PF presided over a period of severe mismanagement.
Mounting debt, reckless spending, and a lack of fiscal discipline pushed Zambia into one of its most difficult economic crises in decades.
The burden of this mismanagement did not fall on politicians but on ordinary citizens who faced rising costs of living, currency instability, and shrinking economic opportunities.
It is within this context that Mwila’s claim that Mundubile can “liberate” Zambia from economic hardship becomes not only ironic but deeply disingenuous.
One must ask a simple but critical question: How can those who were architects or enablers of economic decline now present themselves as its remedy?
Leadership demands accountability because it requires that individuals own up to their past roles, not attempt to rewrite history in pursuit of political power.
Mwila’s remarks about “mingalato” tactics preventing Mundubile’s candidacy also raise eyebrows. Such claims often serve as a convenient shield against legitimate scrutiny.
In a democracy, the integrity of the electoral process must be upheld, and any candidate seeking public office must be prepared to withstand legal and ethical examination. To frame this as sabotage is to undermine the very democratic principles the PF claims to defend.
Furthermore, Mwila’s sudden concern about tribalism rings hollow given the PF’s own record. It is difficult to take such calls for unity seriously when they come from individuals who were part of a system that thrived on division.
True unity cannot be preached selectively; it must be practiced consistently.
Zambians are not without memory. The electorate’s decision to vote out the PF was not accidental. It was a deliberate rejection of a governance style that had veered off course.
Attempting to return to power without addressing the failures of the past is not only politically risky but morally questionable.
As the 2026 elections approach, the stakes for Zambia could not be higher. The country stands at a crossroads, with voters tasked with choosing between progress and regression.
The re-emergence of familiar faces from a discredited past should prompt serious reflection among the electorate.
In the end, Soyinka’s warning is not just a critique of African politics; it is a cautionary tale.
Zambia must decide whether it will heed that warning or become yet another example of history repeating itself.
