Mumbi Phiri’s Remarks on Electoral Strategy Spark Intense Tribal Political Debate

A political storm on tribalism has erupted following remarks attributed to Patriotic Front senior member Mumbi Phiri concerning electoral strategy for the 2026 general elections, drawing sharp condemnation from the ruling party and a prominent public intellectual, while receiving a full-throated defense from another opposition leader who agrees with her assessment.

The controversy began after Mrs Phiri’s comments, which focused on the composition of a winning presidential ticket, entered the public domain. In direct response, the United Party for National Development (UPND) issued a formal press statement on Sunday, October 5th, 2025, expressing its position. The party, through its Deputy National Spokesperson Hon. Elvis Nkandu, stated it had “noted with deep concern the remarks attributed to the Patriotic Front’s Mumbi Phiri.” The UPND characterized her comments as “both regrettable and divisive,” asserting that they “run counter to the very foundation upon which our nation was built.”

The ruling party’s statement extensively invoked the national principle of “One Zambia, One Nation,” framing it not as a mere slogan but as a “solemn pledge.” The UPND argued that this pledge guarantees “that every citizen, regardless of tribe or region, would belong equally to one nation under one flag.” From the party’s perspective, “to suggest that political success must depend on ethnic combinations is a betrayal of that founding vision and the sacrifices of those who came before us.”

Detailing its own governing philosophy, the UPND statement outlined that “President Hakainde Hichilema and his administration believe that leadership must be anchored in merit, public service and the collective good. Not in tribal arithmetic.” It firmly declared that “Zambia’s leadership will never be defined by tribe, but by commitment to the people.” The statement further contended that the administration “will be judged by the people on the effectiveness of its policies and how well they serve the nation,” providing examples such as the “expansion of the CDF, delivering free education or unlocking economic growth.”

Concluding its rebuke, the UPND called for a higher standard of political discourse. “We ask that all political parties – including the Patriotic Front – focus on how best to deliver for all Zambians and to refrain from tribal politicking,” the statement read. It issued a broader appeal, calling “upon all members of civil society, political leaders across all parties, and every citizen to reject and condemn such divisive rhetoric in the strongest possible terms.” The party emphasized the enduring importance of national unity, stating, “Our unity has been our strength for six decades, and it remains the cornerstone of our democracy and peace.” The UPND’s final message was a call for remembrance: “Let us always remember that our future depends not on what divides us, but on what unites us. Together, we are moving forward as One Zambia, One Nation.”

Echoing the UPND’s condemnation from an independent standpoint, Zambian historian and political commentator Sishuwa Sishuwa posted a statement on his Twitter account. He expressed his unambiguous rejection of the remarks, writing, “I strongly condemn and completely reject this abhorrent tribalism and divisive talk of regionalism from Mumbi Phiri.” Sishuwa articulated an alternative vision for national leadership, stating, “To develop, Zambia does not need a given region or an individual from a particular ethnic group in State House. The country simply needs competent men and women who are patriots, have a feasible plan, and are committed to restoring the nation’s dignity, regardless of where they come from.”

Reinforcing the UPND’s foundational argument, Sishuwa reiterated the need to “remain One Zambia, One nation.” He applied this principle directly to the upcoming election, specifying the grounds on which political contests should be fought. “If Hichilema is to be removed from office in the 2026 election,” Sishuwa wrote, “it should be because he has failed to govern, not because he is an ethnic Tonga or because he does not hail from Eastern or Bemba-speaking provinces.”

In stark contrast to these positions, Sean Tembo, President of the Peoples’ Party (PeP) and Spokesperson for the TONSE ALLIANCE, issued a comprehensive statement titled “TRIBALISM? WHAT TRIBALISM?” in which he vigorously defended Mumbi Phiri. Tembo reframed the controversy, arguing that “Hon. Mumbi Phiri’s statement that if a Bemba picks an Easterner running-mate, then we will win, is a political strategy statement and not a tribal statement, as some are alleging.”

He directly challenged critics, posing a series of rhetorical questions: “Those who say this is a tribal statement, can you explain how it amounts to a tribal statement? Also tell us what combination of candidates would not amount to a tribal presidential ticket?” Tembo contended that a ticket comprising two different regions could not be logically defined as tribal. “To begin with, how does a ticket made up of two regions amount to a tribal ticket?” he asked, suggesting that a tribal ticket would only exist “if Hon. Mumbi Phiri had said the winning ticket needs to be a Bemba with another Bemba as running mate, then perhaps that would be seen as tribal. But that’s not what she said.”

Tembo then confirmed his full alignment with Phiri’s strategic outlook, writing, “By the way, l agree with Hon. Mumbi Phiri 100%. The ticket that has the greatest chance of removing UPND is one with a northerner (Muchinga, Luapula or Northern Province) as presidential candidate, and an Easterner as running mate.” He acknowledged that “other ticket combinations can also win,” but affirmed that “in my view, the ticket that has the greatest chance of winning is the one Hon. Mumbi Phiri proposed.”

To substantiate his argument, Tembo drew a direct parallel to political strategy in the United States. “Anywhere in the world, political parties have regional strongholds. Nothing wrong or tribal about that,” he stated. “Even in the US, democrats are strong up north, and republicans are strong down south.” He explained the American concept of “swing states,” noting that it is standard practice for presidential candidates to select running mates from these areas to maximize electoral appeal. “It is meaningless for a democratic presidential candidate to pick a running mate from a southern state such as Mississippi or Alabama,” Tembo wrote, “because such a running mate would not bring any votes to the ticket from where they’re coming from, because those are staunch republican states.”

Applying this logic to the Zambian context, Tembo offered a specific local example to illustrate his point about political strongholds. “In my considered view,” he stated, “both Hon. Given Lubinda and Hon. Raphael Nakachinda cannot win a Ward Councillor seat on a PF ticket, in their respective home villages, because those are UPND strongholds. That’s a fact. You might like it, or you might hate it, but it’s a fact.”

Tembo concluded his defense by attributing the criticism of Phiri to political motives, alleging that “The majority of those trying to condemn Hon. Mumbi Phiri’s statement are either UPND supporters or those that have been hired by the UPND to undermine the opposition from within.” He struck a defiant tone, declaring that “us well-meaning opposition leaders will not be bullied or blackmailed into floating a politically-impotent ticket, which will make us lose next year’s elections. We shall not be shy to openly talk about a ticket that has the greatest chance of winning us next year’s elections.” His final words on the matter were an unequivocal reaffirmation: “What Hon. Mumbi Phiri said is a matter of fact. Whether you like a particular fact or you hate it, nothing changes, it remains a fact.”