Accountability Cannot Be Seasonal
In politics, memory is often treated as an inconvenience.
Statements once made with passion are quietly abandoned when alliances shift, and yesterday’s scandals suddenly become today’s forbidden subjects. Yet the electorate cannot afford such selective amnesia. 
As Zambia approaches the August 13 general election, voters deserve answers that are consistent, credible, and backed by evidence—not political gymnastics.
The renewed focus on road contracts worth more than K1.5 billion linked to Tonse- Pamodzi Alliance presidential candidate Brian Mundubile is not a distraction from the campaign.
It is exactly the kind of scrutiny that should accompany anyone seeking the highest office in the land. Those aspiring to manage national resources must be willing to account for questions surrounding their own stewardship of public funds.
The questions being asked are neither outrageous nor prejudicial. They go to the very heart of public accountability. Were procurement procedures followed? Were conflicts of interest properly declared?
Were the projects completed according to contractual standards? Can taxpayers see the documentation proving that they received full value for their money?
These are questions that every democratic society should expect its leaders to answer.
Importantly, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has already confirmed that investigations into the matter are ongoing. The Commission has not pronounced guilt, nor should anyone attempt to do so before investigations are concluded.
Equally, however, the existence of an investigation does not shield a public figure from legitimate public scrutiny. Political accountability and criminal liability are not the same thing. A candidate can choose transparency long before any court or investigative body reaches its conclusions.
Perhaps the greatest irony in this saga lies elsewhere.
One of Mundubile’s most enthusiastic campaigners today is former Cabinet Minister Chishimba Kambwili. Yet it was Kambwili himself who, during his bitter fallout with the Patriotic Front (PF) leadership, publicly questioned these same road contracts and openly challenged Mundubile to explain his involvement. His concerns were not whispered in private; they were aired publicly and repeatedly.
What has changed?
Surely, the facts surrounding the contracts have not changed merely because political friendships have. If the allegations were serious enough to raise when the two politicians occupied opposing camps, why have they become insignificant now that they share the same political platform?
Either the concerns were genuine then, or they were nothing more than political weapons. Neither possibility reflects well on those involved.
This is precisely why consistency matters in the fight against corruption. Integrity cannot depend on political convenience. A principle that applies to opponents must equally apply to allies. Corruption should never become a slogan reserved only for campaign rallies against one’s rivals.
Civil society organisations have challenged Mundubile to produce contracts, payment records, engineering reports, and completion certificates. Such a request should not be viewed as persecution. It should be welcomed as an opportunity to clear the air.
Transparency is rarely a political weakness. On the contrary, it is often the strongest defence against suspicion.
The electorate is no longer satisfied with rehearsed campaign speeches and colourful manifestos.
Citizens increasingly want evidence that those asking for power have exercised responsibility when entrusted with it before.
Public office is a position of trust, not privilege. Every kwacha collected from taxpayers carries with it an obligation to explain how it was spent.
The issue also serves as a reminder that Zambia’s anti-corruption agenda must remain above partisan politics.
Institutions such as the ACC must be allowed to complete their work independently and without political interference.
At the same time, politicians should resist the temptation to weaponise allegations when convenient only to abandon them when alliances change.
Ultimately, this debate is bigger than one individual or one election. It is about the standards Zambia expects from those who seek leadership. Public confidence is strengthened when leaders answer difficult questions instead of dismissing them.
Democracy flourishes when accountability is embraced rather than feared.
As election day draws nearer, voters should insist on one simple principle: no one seeking State House should regard transparency as optional. Those who ask citizens for their trust must first demonstrate that they are worthy of it.
That standard should apply equally to friends and foes alike. Anything less reduces accountability to nothing more than another campaign slogan.
