Miles Sampa Dismisses Makebi Zulu ‘Convention’ as Nullity

The Patriotic Front’s leadership contest has escalated into a legal and political standoff after Miles Sampa rejected claims that a general conference elected Makebi Zulu as party president, insisting that no lawful convention has taken place under an existing court order.

Sampa, the Matero Member of Parliament and PF Secretary General for Politics, said the party remains bound by a restraining order issued by Kabwe Judge-in-Charge Hancubwili Limbani, which prevents any convention from being held until the matter is resolved. He stated that any process conducted under the current conditions is invalid and cannot produce a legitimate leadership outcome.

His remarks directly contradict claims circulated over the weekend that Zulu had emerged victorious in a tightly held vote involving several senior party figures, including Chishimba Kambwili, Given Lubinda and Chitalu Chilufya. Platforms aligned to Zulu presented the outcome as a concluded leadership transition.

Sampa dismissed those claims, describing the purported conference as a nullity. In a voice note released to ZNBC, he said the PF will only hold a convention once the court order is discharged, adding that the party remains committed to respecting judicial processes.

The legal position advanced by Sampa is reinforced by external political commentary. United Party for National Development deputy spokesperson Elvis Nkandu described the reported election of Zulu as an abrogation of the law, noting that the question of legitimate PF leadership remains before the courts and has not yet been determined.

Nkandu said any leadership outcome announced while the matter is still under judicial consideration cannot be recognised within a legal framework, placing the dispute beyond internal party processes. His remarks align with Sampa’s position, strengthening the argument that the reported outcome lacks legal standing.

Zulu has, in response to the reported outcome, called for unity within the party, urging members to move forward and consolidate structures. His message signals an attempt to stabilise the party following months of internal tension, but it now sits alongside firm resistance from factions that reject the process.

The division within the PF has been further exposed by differing reactions from senior members. Former Religious Affairs Minister Godfridah Sumaili was quoted as backing Zulu’s emergence, while Joseph Mudolo distanced himself from the reported vote, describing it as illegal and unconstitutional.

These competing positions highlight a fragmented leadership structure, where parallel claims of authority continue to exist without a single recognised outcome.

Governance stakeholders have also weighed in on the dispute. Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) Executive Director Arthur Muyunda warned that the PF will continue to face confusion if it does not adhere to legal processes.

Muyunda advised party leaders, including Robert Chabinga, to engage in dialogue aimed at resolving differences within the framework of the law. He said the leadership question remains before the courts and that attempts to proceed with a convention have only deepened uncertainty within the party.

The dispute reflects a broader pattern of instability that has characterised the PF since 2023. The party has experienced multiple leadership claims, competing conventions and ongoing legal challenges that have complicated efforts to establish a unified structure.

Sampa himself previously presided over a separate convention in 2023, which resulted in his election as party president before he later ceded the position to Given Lubinda. That sequence continues to influence the current landscape, where overlapping claims of authority remain unresolved.

The emergence of Zulu as a claimed leader adds another layer to an already complex situation, where political declarations and legal processes are unfolding simultaneously.

At present, the PF finds itself operating within two parallel tracks. One is political, driven by declarations of leadership and calls for unity. The other is legal, where the courts are expected to determine whether any convention or leadership outcome can be recognised.

Until that determination is made, the party remains divided between competing interpretations of authority, with no single position commanding universal acceptance.