The Editor Zambia
Brian Mundubile’s statement claiming that his Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT) shows that he has won the 2026 presidential election raises an important question: Where is the evidence?
There is nothing wrong with a political party conducting its own tally of results. In fact, parallel tabulation can be useful as an independent check against the official process. 
But a party’s internal tally is not, by itself, the official declaration of an election.
The authority to receive, verify, and declare the presidential results rests with the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), not with presidential candidates, political parties, or their private tabulation centres.
The ECZ’s published election timetable provides for receipt and verification of results from August 15 to 17, with a declaration of the presidential result scheduled for August 17.
Therefore, on August 14, the fact that the ECZ has not yet declared a winner can not automatically be presented as evidence of an attempt to manipulate the election.
Mundubile’s statement appears to create precisely that impression.
He says his PVT has established that he has won, but he does not publish the figures behind that claim.
He does not provide the constituency- by-constituency totals, the number of polling stations represented, the methodology used, the margin by which he allegedly leads or the copies of the Gen 20 forms on which his conclusion is based.
If the Tonse Alliance genuinely has a complete and verifiable national tally, the obvious question is: why not publish it?
The public should be allowed to scrutinise the same evidence that Mundubile says has convinced him that he has won.
It is also important to distinguish between an allegation and an established fact. Mundubile refers to reports that military personnel have taken control of totalling centres in Mufulira, that Gen 20 forms have allegedly been removed, that ballot boxes have allegedly been unlawfully moved in Chawama and Matero, and that officers in Northern Province may have been instructed to pass through a senior government official’s residence.
These are extremely serious allegations because words such as “reports”, “allegedly”, “if confirmed” and “we have received” are not proof that electoral fraud has occurred.
A responsible political leader should be careful not to transform unverified reports circulating within party structures into conclusions that could undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
Mundubile is right that electoral materials belong to the democratic process and that their chain of custody must be protected.
But the same principle applies to political claims. Information released to the public must also be accurate, verifiable, and supported by evidence.
His argument that presidential results are already available to party agents is equally important. If Tonse ‘Pamodzi Alliance agents were present during counting and received copies of the relevant forms, then the strongest response to any suspected irregularity is not speculation. It is documentation.
Produce the forms.
Name the polling stations.
Show the figures.
Identify the discrepancies.
Then allow the ECZ, observers, the media, and, where necessary, the courts to examine them.
That is how electoral disputes should be handled in a constitutional democracy.
There is another weakness in Mundubile’s statement. He simultaneously says that he has already established that he has won and that the official results must still be published and reconciled against the original records.
These two positions require careful distinction.
If his PVT is merely a preliminary projection based on results collected by party agents, then it should be presented as such.
If, on the other hand, he is claiming that his figures constitute the definitive national result, he must explain why his private tabulation should supersede the constitutional institution legally mandated to verify and declare the result.
Zambia has been through disputed elections before. The lesson from those experiences is that allegations must be tested against documentary evidence and the law, not settled through competing political declarations.
The European Union’s observation of the 2021 election, for example, documented the importance of the verification process and the presence of political agents and observers during the tallying process.
It also noted that presidential results were progressively made available by constituency after the final declaration.
That experience demonstrates that verification is not necessarily evidence of manipulation. It is part of the electoral process.
Mundubile is, therefore, correct on one fundamental point: the people’s vote must be protected.
But protecting the vote also means protecting Zambians from premature declarations, unverified accusations, and politically convenient conclusions.
If Mundubile believes his party has won, he should welcome the verification process rather than suggest that the delay itself is evidence of interference.
Let the ECZ complete its constitutional responsibility.
Let every Gen 20 form be checked.
Let party agents reconcile their copies with the official records.
Let observers scrutinise the process.
Let genuine discrepancies be documented and challenged through the appropriate legal channels.
And if Mundubile’s PVT really shows a Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance Alliance victory, then publishing the complete data would strengthen his case enormously.
The burden now is not simply on the ECZ to demonstrate transparency. It is also on those making extraordinary claims to demonstrate the evidence behind them.
A parallel tally can challenge an official result. It can not replace the official electoral process before that process has been completed.
Zambia does not need competing declarations of victory. It needs evidence.
The ultimate winner should not be the candidate who speaks first or shouts loudest, but the candidate whose votes are established through a transparent, verifiable, and lawful counting process.
The people have voted. Now let the evidence speak.
