Tonse Alliance vs. UPND: A Political Storm Over Tribalism Allegations

The political landscape in Zambia is once again shaken by accusations of tribalism, this time involving the opposition Tonse Alliance and the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND). The controversy erupted after Tonse Alliance Secretary General, Hon. Raphael Nakachinda, remarked during a campaign in Petauke that “the people of Southern Province are intolerant of other political parties other than UPND.” This statement has sparked strong reactions, with the government condemning it as tribal and divisive. Chief Government Spokesperson, Hon. Cornelius Mweetwa, went further to suggest possible legal action against Nakachinda for allegedly fueling ethnic divisions.

In a swift rebuttal, the Tonse Alliance, through its spokesperson Sean Tembo, dismissed the allegations, arguing that Nakachinda was merely stating a political reality. According to the opposition, Southern Province remains the only region in Zambia where all elected positions—from MPs to councilors—are held by UPND candidates, whereas other provinces have political diversity. The alliance insists that rather than treating this as a tribal statement, the government should address the lack of political tolerance in UPND’s stronghold and promote inclusivity.

The debate has now extended beyond Nakachinda’s comments, with the Tonse Alliance accusing the UPND government of hypocrisy. They argue that regionalism is deeply entrenched within government structures, pointing to alleged biased appointments in key positions. The opposition contends that questioning such practices should not be considered hate speech or criminal but rather part of the national conversation on fairness and equity. However, the ruling party maintains that its appointments are based on merit and that accusations of regional favoritism are politically motivated.

Adding legal weight to its defense, the Tonse Alliance has invoked Section 65 of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act No.2 of 2021, arguing that Nakachinda’s remarks do not qualify as hate speech. They claim that since he is Tonga by tribe, he cannot be accused of inciting hatred against his own ethnic group. Moreover, they argue that his statement was factual rather than derogatory. This has sparked a wider debate on whether Zambia’s hate speech laws are applied selectively and how far politicians can go in discussing ethnic and political dynamics without crossing the line.

While the legal arguments rage on, the deeper issue remains Zambia’s fragile political unity. Tribal voting patterns have long been a sensitive topic, often manipulated by politicians to gain support. The government’s response to Nakachinda’s remarks could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. Will political statements be judged based on factual accuracy, or will any mention of tribal voting be deemed divisive? These questions linger as Zambia navigates its complex ethnic and political realities.

As the 2026 elections approach, the risk of tribal rhetoric escalating into a full-blown political weapon is high. Both the ruling party and the opposition must exercise caution in their messaging. The government must work towards genuine inclusivity, while opposition parties should avoid exploiting ethnic sentiments for electoral gain. Failing to do so could deepen existing divisions and undermine national unity. Zambia needs leaders who prioritize policy over identity politics.

Ultimately, this controversy is a test of Zambia’s democratic maturity. Can political leaders engage in discussions about tribalism and inclusivity without resorting to threats and arrests? Will voters focus on development and governance rather than ethnic identity? The answers to these questions will shape Zambia’s political future, determining whether the country moves towards greater unity or remains trapped in the cycle of tribal politics.

Kumwesu February 4, 2025