By EditorZambia
Frank Mutubila leans on 55 years in the media as proof of perspective, but experience is only as useful as the honesty it produces.
In this case, the once celebrated broadcaster makes several leaps that simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. 
So, let’s interrogate his claims the way he claims to have interrogated himself over the decades.
- Is criticism of a broadcaster equal to a constitutional amendment?
Frank draws a parallel between Marta Paynter’s critique of his TV presentation and citizens’ concerns about a constitutional amendment.
But here is the first crack:
How does a personal anecdote about thick skin suddenly become a lecture to a Head of State managing competing national interests, political sabotage, and orchestrated misinformation?
Is a TV columnist’s feedback the same as a coordinated effort by hegemonic political actors disguising their ambitions behind the phrase “citizens’ concerns”?
The analogy collapses under its own weight.
- If Mutubila admits that the President has achieved major successes, why pretend that the hostility is neutral criticism?
Mutubila acknowledges the obvious: economic stabilisation, restored credibility, unprecedented social spending under fiscal stress, and the painful repair of a debt catastrophe he neatly avoids to name.
But then he asks: “How can the same 59% who voted for you hate you?”
Here’s a better question:
Isn’t it dishonest to pretend that the loudest noise comes from ordinary citizens when the decibel level is driven by political losers desperate to resurrect old patronage systems?
If Mutubila recognises the achievements, why pretend that the opposition to the government reforms is neutral, organic, or issue-based?
He knows better.
- Is Bill 7 really comparable to Bill 10 or Chiluba’s Third Term?
Mutubila invokes history, but selectively.
Bill 10 was a trojan horse stuffed with political side-deals.
To keep Edgar Lungu in power. It was a naked power grab.
But here is the pressing question:
Where in Bill 7 is the equivalent of a third-term clause or a partisan poison pill?
If the comparison is meant to alarm, it fails because fear is not an argument.
Mutubila had failed to identify the alleged danger in Bill 7; he simply borrows the emotional weight of past abuses.
That is rhetoric, not reasoning.
- Is the constitution truly “above all of us”including broadcasters who conveniently forget that context matters?
Mutubila insists that the constitution must not be “centred on the President.”
Fair point.
But here is the contradiction he hopes you ignore:
If the constitution is above everyone, why does he reduce the current debate to scepticism about President Hichilema’s motives rather than engaging the substance of the amendment?
You can not defend constitutionalism by personalising the debate on one side while pretending to be neutral on the other. Mutubila is simply parotting the hegemonic hate that is being spewed on President Hichilema.
- Does CDF prove delimitation is unnecessary, or is that a simplistic reading of a structural problem he avoids?
Mutubila claims CDF is too small a share of the national budget to justify delimitation and that equal allocation is purely a government choice.
But again, a stubborn question arises:
Is he genuinely unaware that equal CDF allocation across constituencies of vastly different populations is itself a constitutional equity problem, not a budgeting preference?
If Lusaka Central has 150,000 residents and another constituency has 20,000, is “equal allocation” truly fairness or an inherited flaw the amendment tries to correct?
Mutubila doesn’t answer that. He avoids it.
- Why does Mutubila imply bad faith on the President’s part while giving a free moral pass to those opposing Bill 7?
Mutubila warns that attributing political motives to Bill 7’s critics is “dangerous territory.”
Fair enough.
But why then does he openly insinuate that the President wants the amendment “for political reasons”?
Where is the evidence?
Where is the balance?
A true examiner asks both sides hard questions, not one.
- If the process was imperfect, does that automatically invalidate the purpose?
Mutubila is complaining about rushed procedures and technical committees he didn’t like.
Fine. Processes can always improve.
But the fundamental question he avoids is this:
Does a flawed consultation process automatically make the substantive reform itself illegitimate?
By his own logic, the 1996 amendments were bad because they were targeted and partisan.
Where is the equivalent targeting in Bill 7?
He never identifies it.
- And finally, the question Mutubila avoided, like the centre camera in a live studio:
If Bill 7 is supposedly dangerous, unnecessary, politically motivated, poorly packaged, historically suspect, and constitutionally inferior, then tell the nation:
Which specific clause is dangerous?
Which provision undermines democracy?
Which change is anti-citizen?
Mutubila asks the President what is in Bill 7 that is wanted “so desperately.”
But turn that question around:
What is in Bill 7 that Mutubila finds so threatening yet cannot name?
What argument is Mutubila making other than personal discomfort dressed as constitutional purity?
Silence is not an answer.
Vague caution is not an argument.
Historical nostalgia is not a substitute for constitutional literacy.
In conclusion, Frank Mutubila’s article tries to sound balanced, but beneath the polished tone lies a soft argument padded with emotion, nostalgia, and selective logic.
The veteran broadcaster wants to position himself as an elder statesman of reason, yet he tiptoes around the hard truths, avoids specifics, and leans heavily on history without engaging the present.
If we are to debate Bill 7 honestly, we must ask sharper questions than what Mutubila is willing to entertain:
Where is the danger, exactly?
Where is the evidence of manipulation?
Where is the unconstitutional intent?
And why are critics allergic to specificity?
Until those questions are answered, the holes in his argument remain wide enough for the entire newsroom to walk through.
