By Brian Matambo | Lusaka, Zambia 
 
Yesterday’s Emmanuel Mwamba Verified Show (9 January 2026) host, Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba, who is also a Patriotic Front Member of the Central Committee and Chairperson for Publicity and Communication, offered one of the clearest windows yet into the internal condition of the Patriotic Front and, by extension, the state of Zambia’s opposition politics. What unfolded was a candid and at times uncomfortable examination of a party that remains nationally significant yet increasingly paralysed by indecision, overlapping authority, and shrinking political time. 

The central question running through the programme was not whether the Patriotic Front still matters. By every measure of structure, reach and residual loyalty, it does. The question, instead, was whether PF can still act like a party preparing for power rather than one trapped in an extended post-defeat transition. 

Callers from across Zambia and the diaspora repeatedly returned to the same concern: leadership uncertainty is now PF’s single greatest liability. The party has not failed for lack of organisational presence or national footprint, but for its inability to settle the most basic issue ahead of an election year, who leads the party and under what authority. 

That anxiety was expressed most sharply in the critique that the party is attempting to manage a leadership process in which authority and ambition are concentrated in the same hands. One caller framed it bluntly: “You can never be a player and a referee at the same time.” The concern was not legalistic but political. Even where the constitution may allow such an arrangement, perception, fairness and internal confidence are already under strain. In a fragile political environment, legitimacy is shaped as much by trust as by procedure. 

Trust emerged as a recurring theme, particularly in relation to the period following the death of former President Edgar Lungu. While contributors differed on whether understandings existed regarding succession and party stewardship, the debate itself revealed a deeper problem: PF has not clearly resolved how authority was meant to transition in practice. That unresolved space has allowed suspicion to take root, turning internal disagreement into public uncertainty. 

Equally prominent was the pressure of time. January, callers warned, is already slipping away. Nomination deadlines are fixed, campaign calendars unforgiving. One caller summed up the concern succinctly: “Time is not with us.” The longer leadership questions remain unsettled, the greater the risk that PF enters the election season divided, distracted or legally constrained. 

Beyond strategy and procedure, the programme captured a growing emotional fatigue among supporters. One caller admitted feeling lost, uncertain where to place political hope. Another warned that continued confusion only benefits the ruling party, because disarray in the opposition is itself a political advantage. These were not hostile voices, but supporters expressing anxiety that the party is failing to read the urgency of the moment. 

The discussion also exposed a widening gap between internal party processes and voter expectations. Several callers argued that the growing number of presidential aspirants has slowed decision-making and complicated consensus. Some insisted that the political ground already recognises a limited number of viable contenders, and that leadership must listen to that reality rather than assume time remains for prolonged internal negotiation. As one caller put it, the party risks “holding the people at ransom” if it prioritises internal comfort over electoral readiness. 

At the same time, the programme resisted simplistic shortcuts. Contributors challenged the idea that age, region or factional arithmetic alone could deliver victory. Zambia’s electoral history, they argued, does not reward demographic formulas, but clarity of message, organisational seriousness and visible readiness to govern. 

Throughout the broadcast, Ambassador Mwamba maintained a consistent line: PF’s strength lies in its national footprint, but that strength is being steadily eroded by hesitation and internal contestation. Disciplinary threats and expulsions, he cautioned, would only deepen fractures at a moment when restraint and unity are strategic necessities, not rhetorical choices. 

The programme did not resolve PF’s leadership question, nor was it intended to. What it did was strip away the illusion that delay carries no cost. The Patriotic Front is approaching a point where indecision itself becomes a decision, one that may shape the outcome of 2026 as decisively as any campaign message. 

In that sense, the broadcast functioned less as a political performance and more as an audit. It confronted the reality that PF cannot indefinitely rely on its history, its structures or its inherited loyalty. In an election year, relevance is no longer measured by legacy, but by readiness.