The Editor Zambia
The attempt by the Zambia We Want Party secretary general Muhabi Lungu to portray President Hakainde Hichilema’s description of leaders within the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance as unfair or insulting misses a fundamental point.
Political accountability is not an insult but an unavoidable consequence of public office meaning those seeking to lead Zambia like the Brian Mundubiles and Makebi Zulus of this world must be prepared to answer for the record they helped create. 
The overwhelming majority of the prominent figures leading the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance today built their political careers in the Patriotic Front (PF), an administration that left office under the weight of numerous corruption allegations, unsustainable debt, weakened public finances and accusations of abuse of public resources.
Brian Mundubile, the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance leader, has been accused of being in high-level criminal activities when he was in PF.
The accusation has not come from President Hichilema or a UPND official but from Chishimba Kambwili, who worked with Mundubile in the PF.
Moreover, it is therefore impossible to separate today’s opposition leadership from yesterday’s governing record.
President Hichilema’s criticism is rooted in that political history of the PF graft that was well documented even when the party was in power.
Zambians know about infrastructure scandals done by the Chitotelas of this world, Mukula scandals, Bowman Lusambo corrupt practices, and more.
Whether one agrees with President Hichilema’s language or not, the PF’s governance record has been subjected to intense public scrutiny.
Numerous investigations into misuse of public funds, controversial procurement practices, and unexplained wealth involving former public officials did not emerge from political imagination.
Perhaps the strongest indictment came from within the Patriotic Front itself. Its founding leader, the late President Michael Sata, publicly expressed frustration over corruption among some of his own senior officials.
At one point, Sata openly described certain members of his administration as thieves, lamenting that individuals entrusted with public office were enriching themselves instead of serving citizens.
Significantly, those remarks were never convincingly rebutted by those at whom they were directed. That admission alone demonstrates that concerns about corruption within the PF were not inventions of the opposition or the media. They originated from the party’s own founder.
Since Zambia returned to multiparty democracy in 1991, the country has witnessed different approaches to governance.
During the UNIP era, despite its own political shortcomings, there existed institutional mechanisms such as the Leadership Code and structures intended to monitor abuse of office by public officials.
Those systems sought to discourage political leaders from using public office for personal enrichment.
Successive administrations after 1991 have repeatedly faced allegations that political office increasingly became a gateway to personal accumulation.
Both the MMD and later the PF were criticised by sections of civil society, governance experts, and anti-corruption advocates over the growth of patronage networks and misuse of state resources.
The current UPND administration is attempting to reverse that trend by strengthening procurement systems, digitalising public financial management, increasing transparency in public expenditure, and allowing investigative institutions greater operational independence.
These reforms are designed to close loopholes that previously enabled abuse of public resources. This explains why President Hichilema consistently reminds voters about the PF’s record. Elections are not conducted in a political vacuum. Citizens are entitled to compare the record of previous governments with the promises being made today by many of the same individuals who once occupied positions of power.
When opposition leaders like Muhabi Lungu ask voters to return them to office, they cannot reasonably expect citizens—or their political opponents—to ignore the past.
Democracy requires both promises for the future and honest reflection on the past.
Zambian people know who is lecturing them on being better leaders because their memories are still fresh to compare the graft in PF and the fight against corruption that HH has waged. They will decide whether the leaders seeking another opportunity have adequately accounted for the legacy they left behind.
In a democracy, political memories matter. They are neither insults nor propaganda but part of the historical record upon which voters make informed choices.
