PF fumes over MP’s “load shedding would have been worse under the previous President”. Statement

PF Faction Chairperson for Information and Publicity, Emmanuel Mwamba, has issued a pointed critique of Chipangali Member of Parliament Andrew Lubusha and Chama South MP Davison Mung’andu for what he describes as their “opportunistic stunts.” This rebuke comes in the wake of their recent invitation to the Malaila Traditional Ceremony in Mambwe by President Hakainde Hichilema, a move that some perceive as an attempt to curry favor with the current administration.

In his statement, Mr. Mwamba specifically challenged Mr. Mung’andu’s disparaging remarks about the previous government and former President Edgar Lungu. Mung’andu’s assertion that “load shedding would have been worse under the previous President” was labeled by Mwamba as not only inaccurate but also an attempt to mislead the public. “It is essential to remember that the current administration has faced significant challenges, including energy shortages, which they themselves have not been able to resolve,” Mwamba stated, emphasizing the need for a more honest dialogue about the current state of affairs.

Mwamba further articulated that the ongoing energy crisis under President Hichilema’s administration contradicts the praise lavished upon it by Lubusha and Mung’andu. “Their comments reflect a dangerous disconnect from the realities on the ground, where citizens are still grappling with the consequences of poor governance,” he added. He underscored that both MPs should refrain from misleading the public and focus on genuine support for their president, advising them to do so “quietly and without resorting to false flattery.”

The political ramifications for Lubusha and Mung’andu could be significant. First, their public statements could alienate their core constituents, who may feel that their representatives are out of touch with the challenges they face. If voters perceive that their MPs are engaging in opportunistic behavior rather than advocating for their needs, it could lead to a loss of support in future elections.

Moreover, should the energy crisis continue without resolution, Mung’andu and Lubusha’s comments may backfire, as they could be held accountable for endorsing an administration that has struggled to address critical issues. The electorate is often unforgiving of perceived betrayal, and if constituents feel their MPs are prioritizing political survival over honesty, this could foster discontent and lead to calls for new leadership.

Additionally, Mwamba’s warnings about their political careers serve as a sobering reminder of the precarious nature of political alliances. If they continue down this path, they risk being viewed as opportunists, diminishing their credibility within the party and the broader political landscape. This could make them vulnerable to challenges from within their party, as more principled candidates may emerge to take their places, appealing to voters’ desire for authenticity and accountability.

In conclusion, Mwamba’s remarks serve as a reminder of the complexities of political loyalty and the consequences of public statements that may misrepresent the realities of governance. “As public servants, they owe it to their constituents to be truthful and constructive,” he stressed, calling for a more responsible approach to political discourse. The ongoing challenges faced by the current administration should serve as a catalyst for constructive criticism and collaboration rather than opportunistic posturing. If Lubusha and Mung’andu fail to navigate this delicate political landscape thoughtfully, they may find their careers in jeopardy, ultimately leading to their political downfall.