Lubinda Accuses Government of Hijacking PF Through Registrar

Patriotic Front acting president Given Lubinda has said government has no authority to involve itself in the internal affairs of the opposition party, insisting that matters relating to discipline and leadership within PF fall outside the mandate of the State.

He maintained that recent public statements by government officials on PF disciplinary actions amounted to political interference and risked misleading the public on the constitutional separation between party affairs and state authority.

Political parties, Lubinda noted, are voluntary associations governed by their own constitutions and internal rules. Decisions taken within those structures, he argued, cannot be overridden, validated, or dismissed through government pronouncements or public commentary.

From that standpoint, he rejected any suggestion that government officials had a legal basis to comment on or arbitrate internal PF decisions, including those involving Members of Parliament whose conduct may conflict with party resolutions.

Lubinda warned that attempts by government representatives to present themselves as referees in PF matters undermined constitutional principles that guarantee political parties the right to manage their internal affairs without state interference.

The PF constitution, he said, clearly outlines disciplinary procedures and leadership structures, adding that disputes arising within the party must be addressed through established internal mechanisms rather than external commentary from the executive.

He further pointed to what he described as a persistent blurring of the distinction between party membership and parliamentary office. While Members of Parliament enjoy constitutional protection in the execution of their legislative duties, party membership, he emphasised, remains subject to party rules and discipline.

From PF’s perspective, party discipline cannot be dictated by external actors, including the executive arm of government. Allowing such involvement, Lubinda cautioned, would establish a precedent capable of being used against any political organisation.

In his view, government’s role is limited to upholding the law and protecting constitutional order. Intervention in political party disputes, he argued, exceeds that mandate and erodes institutional boundaries.

Lubinda linked the current controversy to what he described as an earlier “hijacking” of PF leadership through administrative action by the Registrar of Societies. According to his account, a rogue party president was allowed to hold PF documents that did not reflect the truth or the party’s constitutional position.

He alleged that Chabinga was recognised as PF president through the Registrar of Societies without any PF constitutional process, including the holding of a convention or endorsement by the party’s governing organs. That recognition, he said, amounted to leadership being imposed from outside the party.

Such actions, Lubinda argued, would one day be tested in court, maintaining that the Registrar of Societies had exceeded its administrative mandate by interfering in matters that were strictly internal to the party.

He contrasted the current situation with the conduct of a previous Registrar of Societies, whom he credited for refusing to bend to political pressure. That resistance, he said, prevented manipulative attempts to weaken PF or bar it from contesting elections, a trend he claimed had since taken root.

PF, Lubinda stated, remains committed to resolving its internal matters in accordance with its constitution, regardless of public speculation or commentary by government officials.

Respect for institutional boundaries, he added, is essential for political competition in a multiparty democracy. Failure to uphold those boundaries weakens democratic practice and creates confusion among citizens.

On that basis, PF expects government to focus on governance and service delivery rather than commentary on opposition party affairs, while the party continues to assert its independence and resist what it describes as political overreach.