The Editor Zambia
The growing confusion surrounding the issuance of adoption certificates within the United Party for National Development (UPND) is no longer a minor administrative inconvenience.
The development has evolved into a serious political fault line that threatens internal cohesion, electoral preparedness, and the party’s standing ahead of the 2026 general election. 
At the heart of the disorder is a weak internal coordination, poor oversight, and glaring deficiencies within the party’s candidate selection framework.
What should have been a structured and disciplined process has instead descended into uncertainty, contradictions, and accusations of manipulation.
In several constituencies and wards, competing claims of adoption have emerged, while some aspiring candidates reportedly received conflicting communications regarding their status. Such confusion does not merely damage reputations; it erodes confidence in the integrity of the party itself.
Political parties survive on order, credibility, and trust in internal systems. Once members begin to believe that procedures can be altered arbitrarily or that outcomes are influenced outside established structures, the foundation of collective discipline begins to crack.
The current turbulence within the UPND adoption process reflects precisely that danger.
The matter becomes even more serious when viewed against the broader political reality on the ground. Many of those who feel unfairly excluded are not politically insignificant figures operating on the fringes of the party. The majority of them command genuine grassroots support, possess local structures, and enjoy strong community recognition.
Their resolve to stand as independent candidates should not be dismissed as emotional reaction or isolated rebellion. It is a symptom of deep frustration with a process many increasingly view as opaque and inconsistent.
History has repeatedly shown that independent candidates emerging from ruling parties rarely disappear quietly. They fragment votes, divide campaign machinery, weaken mobilisation structures, and create long-term bitterness within party ranks. In closely contested constituencies, even a modest split in support can prove politically fatal.
What makes the situation particularly troubling is the perception that accountability within the process has been weak. The absence of swift clarification from party structures has allowed speculation, mistrust, and factional narratives to flourish.
In politics, silence during confusion is rarely interpreted as neutrality; it is often perceived as complicity or institutional weakness.
President Hakainde Hichilema cannot afford to treat this matter as an ordinary internal dispute. If left unchecked, the adoption certificate debacle risk leaving deep political wounds that could haemorrhage support at a critical moment.
A ruling party approaching a major election cannot afford unnecessary internal wars created by avoidable administrative disorder.
There is now an urgent need for decisive intervention. President Hichilema may wish to act swiftly, restore order, and demand full transparency regarding how these irregularities emerged.
Those responsible for creating confusion within the adoption system must be identified and held accountable. Failure to do so would send a dangerous signal that disorder, inconsistency, and procedural recklessness carry no consequences within the governing party.
The UPND rose to power on promises of professionalism, integrity, and institutional discipline. Its supporters expect a higher standard of governance not only in national affairs but also within the party’s own internal operations.
If the current confusion is allowed to fester, the political damage may extend far beyond candidate selection disputes. It could fundamentally weaken confidence in the party’s ability to manage its own affairs fairly and competently.
The warning signs are already visible. What remains to be seen is whether the leadership will confront the problem with urgency and authority before temporary confusion matures into lasting political fracture.
