Brian Mundubile has confirmed that he is engaged in discussions with Makebi Zulu regarding possible cooperation ahead of Zambia’s August 13 general election.

Mundubile acknowledged the talks while addressing questions about opposition positioning and coordination. He described the engagement as discussions centred on working together, though he stopped short of announcing a formal alliance or structured coalition arrangement.

The confirmation places the Patriotic Front (PF) at the centre of renewed opposition dialogue as political formations prepare for the presidential, parliamentary and local government elections scheduled for later this year.

Mundubile has been acting in a leadership role within the PF during a period marked by internal reorganisation and legal processes affecting the party’s leadership structure. With the elective convention expected to determine the party’s presidential candidate, the question of cooperation with other political actors has gained prominence.

He did not disclose specific terms under discussion with Makebi Zulu, nor did he outline whether the talks involve electoral pacts, campaign coordination or broader political strategy. The emphasis remained on dialogue.

Makebi Zulu has been an influential figure in opposition politics and has previously taken positions critical of the ruling administration. Engagement between the two signals recognition that opposition fragmentation can weaken competitiveness in a presidential race conducted under a first-past-the-post system.

Political cooperation discussions are not new in Zambia’s electoral history. Alliances, informal arrangements and strategic withdrawals have shaped past outcomes. However, the viability of any collaboration depends on agreement over leadership, campaign messaging and constituency-level coordination.

Within the PF, internal consolidation remains an immediate priority. The party’s elective convention is expected to formalise leadership and confirm its presidential candidate. The timing of that process intersects directly with any potential opposition engagement.

Mundubile’s statement signals openness but does not confirm convergence. Dialogue at this stage may serve as groundwork for later decisions once internal party matters are settled.

The August 13 election date sets a firm timeline. Parties must finalise candidates, structure campaign operations and secure national presence. Opposition actors face the strategic calculation of whether to compete independently or coordinate to consolidate votes.

Mundubile did not indicate whether additional opposition figures are involved in the discussions. He confined his remarks to engagement with Makebi.

No joint statement has been issued. No memorandum of understanding has been announced. No framework agreement has been presented publicly.

The confirmed position remains that talks are ongoing.

Whether those discussions result in structured cooperation will depend on subsequent negotiations and internal party resolutions.

The election calendar remains fixed. Political actors continue shaping their strategies within that framework.

Mundubile’s acknowledgement establishes that opposition dialogue channels are active. The next development will depend on decisions taken within party structures and the outcome of further engagement between the two figures.

A heated exchange in the National Assembly over the delayed burial of former president Edgar Lungu has shifted attention from the legal dispute itself to the conduct of the Speaker, whose remarks during the session have drawn criticism for appearing partial and dismissive.

Matero Member of Parliament Miles Sampa used his allotted time to question why the former head of state had not been buried eight months after his death. Framing the matter as cultural and moral, Sampa described the delay as “unchristian” and against societal values, before appealing directly to the executive to withdraw a case in a South African court so burial arrangements could proceed.

“May I conclude by appealing to government, especially the Minister of Justice and the Vice President. May they withdraw the case in the South African court so that we can bury President Edgar Ongo, so that this country can move on,” Sampa said.

Instead of limiting her intervention to maintaining order and guiding procedure, the Speaker entered the substance of the dispute. She rebuked Sampa, suggested he was trivialising the matter, and redirected responsibility to what she described as the appellants, identified as the former president’s family.

“If there’s anyone who can withdraw the matter, it’s the appellants, the Edgar Lungu family who can withdraw. They are the ones who have gone to court,” she said. She further challenged Sampa’s appeal to the Vice President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stating they could not withdraw a matter they did not initiate. “Get your facts right,” she added.

The tone and content of the intervention have prompted concern about the Speaker’s constitutional role. In Zambia’s parliamentary system, the Speaker is expected to act as an impartial referee, facilitating discussion and ensuring adherence to procedure. The office is not designed to defend executive decisions or advance a particular narrative on contested political questions.

Critics argue that the Speaker’s remarks went beyond managing time and decorum. By asserting that only the appellants could withdraw the matter and by publicly correcting the opposition MP on factual grounds, she effectively advanced the executive’s position in an ongoing and sensitive dispute.

The controversy is sharpened by the broader context. The burial impasse did not arise in isolation. It followed a breakdown in arrangements between the government and the family regarding the handling of the former president’s remains. The matter escalated to litigation in South Africa, after which both sides entrenched their positions. Sampa’s appeal in Parliament was directed at de-escalation through executive withdrawal of the case.

Against that background, the Speaker’s insistence that responsibility lay squarely with the appellants has been described as one-sided. While it is accurate that litigants may withdraw proceedings, it is equally true that disputes often involve cross-actions and that governments retain discretion in how far to pursue legal battles, particularly in matters touching on national reconciliation and the dignity of a former head of state.

The Speaker’s remarks also raised procedural questions. By telling Sampa that he had a “bigger role to play” in bringing the body so it could be buried, she appeared to assign political responsibility to a member of the opposition rather than confining herself to procedural guidance. That framing suggested alignment with the executive’s stance rather than neutrality between competing positions.

Parliament is intended to be a forum where elected representatives question the executive without fear of being dismissed or corrected in a manner that appears partisan. When the presiding officer adopts language that mirrors the government’s defence, it risks eroding confidence in the neutrality of the chair.

The burial of a former president carries constitutional weight and symbolic importance. It is not merely a family matter nor solely a legal dispute. It is a national issue involving the state, the family, and public sentiment. In such circumstances, the Speaker’s role is to protect space for scrutiny and ensure balanced treatment of all sides.

By intervening substantively and sharply rebuking the opposition MP, the Speaker placed herself at the centre of the controversy rather than above it. The perception that she spoke on behalf of the government, instead of leaving executive answers to the Vice President or the relevant minister, has intensified scrutiny of her conduct.

The exchange in the chamber did not resolve the burial impasse. What it did expose was a widening concern over whether the neutrality of the presiding office is being preserved in moments of political sensitivity. The question raised in the House remains unanswered: when and how the former president will be buried. What now stands equally exposed is a dispute over whether the Speaker maintained the distance and fairness her office demands.

President Hakainde Hichilema has told individuals offered public appointments to decline positions if they are unwilling to align with his administration’s policy direction.

Speaking during a swearing-in ceremony , the President emphasised that public service requires shared purpose and disciplined execution of government programmes. He stated that accepting office while resisting policy direction undermines service delivery and national development objectives.

The President’s remarks were delivered during the administration of oaths for newly appointed officials, including diplomatic appointees. He stressed that government positions are not ceremonial but carry responsibility to implement agreed policy frameworks.

“If you cannot align with our vision, decline the appointment,” the President said, underscoring that cohesion within the executive branch is critical.

He warned against what he described as internal resistance that slows implementation of government priorities. The President indicated that appointments are extended to individuals expected to contribute positively toward national transformation goals under the New Dawn administration.

The statement comes at a time when Zambia is approaching the August 13 general elections. Political activity has intensified across parties, and public messaging has sharpened as election timelines draw closer.

President Hichilema framed alignment not as personal loyalty, but as commitment to the broader national development agenda adopted by his government. He emphasised performance, delivery and accountability within public institutions.

The President also criticised what he described as complacency in certain public offices, stating that government representation, particularly in foreign missions, must reflect professionalism and measurable results. He signalled that diplomatic and administrative roles should advance Zambia’s economic and governance interests rather than operate in isolation from central policy direction.

The remarks appear to reinforce earlier messaging from the executive regarding performance management and restructuring within public service institutions. Cabinet reshuffles and reassignments in recent months have been accompanied by repeated calls for discipline and implementation consistency.

The President’s directive places responsibility on appointees to self-assess their willingness to execute government programmes before accepting office. According to the report, the administration expects full adherence to policy direction once appointments are made.

Zambia’s general elections will determine leadership at presidential, parliamentary and local government levels. Political observers note that internal cohesion within governing structures becomes increasingly important during election periods, when administrative effectiveness is closely scrutinised.

By publicly stating that individuals should decline appointments if they cannot align, the President signals a tightening of executive expectations around loyalty to policy direction and delivery benchmarks.

The message also functions as guidance to prospective appointees amid ongoing administrative changes. It reinforces the principle that acceptance of office implies commitment to implementing government priorities without reservation.

Zambia will hold general elections on August 13, 2026, covering presidential, parliamentary and local government positions. The President’s directive to appointees comes within that broader political calendar.

His position, as stated during the swearing-in ceremony, is that acceptance of office requires full commitment to implementing government policy. Individuals unwilling to align with that direction, he said, should decline appointments.

The Patriotic Front says it will proceed with its elective convention despite the Lusaka High Court adjourning a consent judgement linked to the party’s internal leadership process until March 27, 2026.

The matter, which had been expected to bring clarity to aspects of the PF’s internal reorganisation, was deferred, extending a period of legal uncertainty that has shaped the former ruling party’s decision-making in recent months. The court is handling proceedings tied to internal disputes and consent arrangements affecting the party’s leadership structure.

In comments reported on the front page of Friday’s Daily Nation, Given Mukandila stated that the PF remains determined to hold its convention and elect a leader who will stand as its presidential candidate in the August 13 general election. He indicated that the adjournment would not prevent the party from moving ahead with preparations.

The High Court’s postponement means that final clarity on the consent judgement will only emerge at the March 27 sitting. That development raised immediate questions about whether the PF would delay its planned convention to await the court’s position. Mukandila’s remarks suggest the party believes it has sufficient grounds to continue with its internal timetable.

The PF governed Zambia from 2011 to 2021. Since leaving office, it has faced internal disputes over leadership authority, party structures and organisational direction. Court actions involving senior figures and competing claims have influenced how and when key decisions are taken.

The elective convention carries significant weight. It is expected to determine the party’s presidential candidate for the August 13 polls, which will include presidential, parliamentary and local government elections. Political activity across parties has intensified as timelines narrow and alliances take shape.

Within the PF, questions of unity remain central. Given Lubinda has been associated with the preservation of the party’s original structures, a position that continues to resonate among members who view institutional continuity as critical. At the same time, others have explored alternative strategic paths amid prolonged litigation.

The adjournment has not settled those internal differences. Instead, it extends the period in which competing interpretations of legitimacy coexist. The party now faces a dual track: pursuing legal resolution in court while advancing political preparations on the ground.

There is also the practical matter of ballot participation. With the general election set for August 13, timelines for candidate endorsement and nomination will tighten in the coming months. Any delay in producing a recognised leader could complicate the party’s electoral posture. Mukandila’s statement signals that, from the PF’s perspective, waiting for the March ruling is not an option.

For members aligned to the historic PF identity, including Lubinda, the challenge is balancing loyalty to established structures with the realities imposed by court processes. If the legal path remains protracted, political actors within the party will be required to decide whether unity can be forged within the existing framework or whether alternative arrangements will emerge.

The High Court’s March 27 sitting is expected to address the consent judgement affecting internal proceedings. Its outcome may shape the formal standing of certain processes. In the meantime, the PF leadership has indicated that organisational preparations will continue.

Calls for cohesion are likely to intensify as the convention approaches. The party’s capacity to present a single candidate and a unified structure will determine how effectively it competes in August.

With the adjournment confirmed and the convention timetable unchanged, the PF enters a decisive phase in which courtroom developments and political strategy move in parallel.