The Editor Zambia
The recent remarks by Brian Mundubile suggesting that citizens should remove the United Party for National Development (UPND) government in order to secure the release of jailed Patriotic Front (PF) officials raises serious questions about the direction, judgment and moral standing of the opposition political leader.
One must ask: What kind of political reasoning is this?
A democratic election is not a parole hearing. State power is not supposed to function as a rescue mission for convicted political allies. 
Leadership must be anchored on national interest, economic management, governance, and institutional integrity, not on promises, whether implied or direct, to liberate individuals serving prison sentences after court processes.
Before any discussion about “freeing” anyone can even arise, a more fundamental question demands an answer: why are figures such as Bowman Lusambo, Ronald Chitotela, and others in prison in the first place?
These individuals did not wake up one morning and find themselves incarcerated because of political slogans. Their legal troubles emerged from allegations, prosecutions, and judicial proceedings within Zambia’s court system.
Whether one agrees with the outcomes or not, the process involves institutions of law, not campaign rallies.
To frame elections as instruments for overturning convictions is, therefore, deeply dangerous. It sends a troubling message that the justice system should bend according to who occupies State House.
Such rhetoric undermines public confidence in judicial independence and feeds the perception that political office is merely a shield against accountability.
Even more worrying is the implication that political loyalty should supersede legality. A mature democracy cannot operate on the basis that every change of government must automatically produce political pardons for allies facing corruption or abuse of office convictions. That path leads directly into institutional decay.
Zambians are confronting serious national questions, the cost of living, youth unemployment, mining sector expansion, energy security, and economic recovery.
Citizens expect opposition leaders to present alternative policies, coherent economic frameworks, and governance solutions.
They do not expect emotional mobilisation centred on freeing convicted comrades.
The opposition risks appearing detached from public priorities when it consistently revolves around the legal predicaments of former office bearers instead of articulating a compelling national vision.
Sympathy politics has limits, especially in an electorate increasingly demanding accountability from leaders regardless of political affiliation.
There is also a deeper political miscalculation in such statements. Many voters interpret them as indirect admissions that certain convictions are politically inconvenient to the opposition establishment.
Rather than defending innocence through legal mechanisms, the conversation shifts towards acquiring political power first and addressing convictions later. That is a dangerous optic in any constitutional democracy.
If anyone believes a conviction was wrongful, Zambia’s legal framework already provides avenues for appeal and review. Courts exist precisely for that purpose. The ballot box, however, should never be transformed into a tool for negotiating freedom for convicted political figures.
The Zambian people deserve better than politics built around personalities facing legal consequences. They deserve leadership focused on national development, institutional credibility, and responsible democratic discourse.
Anything less drifts dangerously off the radar of serious governance.
