Former Zambian Justice Minister, Given Lubinda, has recently resurfaced to voice profound disappointment and lamentations following his electoral defeat to Makebi Zulu at a highly contested party convention. After nearly three weeks of public absence, Lubinda appeared before the media with visible frustration, asserting that the convention was not conducted in line with assurances made to him and other candidates.

Lubinda detailed several grievances, claiming that pledges for independent monitors across all districts were unfulfilled. Instead, he alleged that these monitors were handpicked by an 'interested party'—specifically, the election manager, who himself was a preferred candidate. This perceived bias, he stated, deeply shocked him. Acknowledging that the outcome did not favor him, Lubinda expressed profound hurt not just from the loss, but from what he described as betrayal from within the party. He reflected on how individuals he had placed complete trust in had abandoned him, likening their actions to 'dipping in the same soup bowl' before turning against him.

Furthermore, Lubinda revealed that he, along with other unsuccessful candidates such as Greyford Monde and Chishimba Kambwili, had filed a petition outlining 16 grounds of dissatisfaction with the convention's conduct. However, he lamented that this petition was summarily dismissed without the petitioners being granted an opportunity to be heard, an anomaly he sharply questioned. He also challenged the declaration that the elections were free and fair, arguing that the same individuals who managed the process also rendered the final judgment. Lubinda vehemently denied allegations of holding secret meetings to destabilize the party, asserting his right to association.

Lubinda's public outcry emerges amidst an intense struggle for legitimacy within the Patriotic Front (PF), with rival factions fiercely contending for leadership. Emmanuel Mwamba has, for instance, affirmed Makebi Zulu as the legitimate PF faction president, citing his popular election at the recent convention. Zulu reportedly secured victory with 49.2 percent of the vote from 110 districts, surpassing contenders including Lubinda, Chitalu Chilufya, and Chanda Katotobwe. Conversely, Matero lawmaker Miles Sampa has strongly disputed the convention's legitimacy, declaring himself PF president based on a Lusaka High Court ruling and proceeding to dissolve party structures. These escalating wrangles are marked by accusations and counter-accusations as factions battle for control ahead of the impending August 13 general elections.

A critical assessment of Lubinda's press briefing reveals it not merely as an expression of sadness, but as a stark illustration of political betrayal, opportunism, and greed. Lubinda, in his capacity as PF acting president, played a pivotal role in organizing the very 'no name convention' he now discredits, with Miles Sampa serving as deputy general secretary. The irony lies in both Lubinda and Sampa now disowning a process they meticulously crafted, simply because the outcome did not align with their personal ambitions. This behavior is characterized as hypocrisy, aimed at undermining the opposition's unity and integrity.

Lubinda's conspicuous refusal to acknowledge Makebi Zulu as the legitimate leader of the PF, despite having helped orchestrate the process, is viewed as a deliberate act of political defiance rather than an oversight. Critics argue that participating in and organizing an electoral process, only to repudiate its legitimacy when the results are inconvenient, is purely opportunistic. This stance highlights a troubling pattern: an unwillingness to relinquish influence, even when institutional procedures mandate it, thus inviting accusations of greed and political selfishness. Effective leadership transitions, particularly within opposition politics, demand discipline and adherence to established procedures. Lubinda's actions, however, suggest a fixation on control and an unwillingness to cede ground, potentially at the expense of party cohesion.

Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident. Lingering allegations suggest Lubinda may have previously attempted to undermine or even impeach Edgar Lungu during his presidency. While these claims remain politically debated, they contribute to a broader narrative of Lubinda's loyalty being contingent on personal ambition rather than steadfast principle. Even in the post-Lungu era, Lubinda's conduct has, at times, appeared to undercut the very legacy he now claims to uphold. Positioning oneself as a custodian of Lungu’s political heritage while simultaneously engaging in actions that fragment the party Lungu led presents a significant contradiction. This raises the fundamental question of whether his actions are geared towards preserving a legacy or leveraging it for personal gain.

By rejecting Makebi Zulu’s standing within the current PF structure, Lubinda is not merely disputing an individual; he is undermining the institutional credibility of the party itself. Political organizations cannot function on selective legitimacy, where processes are deemed valid only when they serve personal interests. This duality is corrosive, fostering internal democracy's decay, fueling factionalism, and eroding public confidence. For a political entity striving to rebuild and reposition itself in Zambia’s political landscape, such instability is inherently self-defeating. Ultimately, Lubinda’s actions risk being interpreted as a profound betrayal—not only of party unity but also of Edgar Lungu's legacy. True loyalty in politics is demonstrated through consistent conduct, not mere rhetoric. If Lubinda genuinely seeks to honor Lungu’s legacy, then respecting institutional outcomes and fostering unity would be the logical starting point. Instead, what is apparent is a politics of convenience, prioritizing personal positioning over collective stability, which continues to define Given Lubinda’s contentious role within the Patriotic Front today.