Zambian Elections on Edge: Politician's Explosive 'Ready to Kill' Remark Sparks Outcry

Binwell Mpundu, the Alliance Presidential Affairs Chairman, has become the subject of controversy following the circulation of a video on social media. In the video, Mpundu is depicted saying, “I’m ready to die, I’m ready to kill,” a statement that has sparked significant debate and concern.

Mpundu has vehemently denied creating the video, describing it as entirely Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated. He stated in a Facebook post that he has not had access to his page for several days due to an alleged hacker. Being not very active on social media, he claims he only became aware of the video after it was posted on his page by administrators, who he insists only post content he has approved. Mpundu maintains he did not make or authorise the video and has urged the public to disregard the sentiments expressed, while also offering an apology for the content circulated in his name.

However, further details reveal that Mpundu indeed made remarks challenging guidance from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) on how voters may mark their ballot papers. During this challenge, he stated, “Our lives are at stake. We are ready to die. And we are ready to kill.” He elaborated, “For this election, people like me, I am ready to be killed. I’m also ready to kill. Because I know very well that when everything goes wrong, if anything goes wrong with these elections, some of us will not have our lives.” These extraordinary words from a senior official in an alliance seeking state power have been met with strong condemnation.

The dispute centers on the ECZ’s explanation of what constitutes a valid vote. Chief Electoral Officer Brown Kasaro clarified that an 'X' is not the only acceptable mark, and that a tick, 'X', or dash can indicate a voter’s choice, provided the intention is clear and the mark is within the appropriate candidate’s space. Kasaro also cautioned against multiple marks, signatures, names, or initials that could invalidate a ballot. Mpundu explicitly rejected this clarification, insisting that “Voting will proceed as it has been over all these years. There’s just going to be a cross sign. We will not be ticking this time around.” He questioned the lack of stakeholder consultation and suggested the clarification could raise suspicions about pre-marked ballots, stating, “Would you be surprised if people insinuated that there are pre-marked ballots that have been ticked? That is why you now want to bring in an alien practice.”

The use of such violent rhetoric in a democratic election is highly criticized. While challenging the ECZ through established electoral mechanisms, requesting written guidance, and questioning the legal basis of rules are legitimate, suggesting pre-marked ballots without evidence and adding the phrase “I’m also ready to kill” moves the discussion into dangerous territory. Electoral disputes should be resolved through established polling procedures, verification, complaints, courts, and other legal institutions, not through the threat of violence. Political leaders are expected to de-escalate tensions, especially in the sensitive days leading up to an election, rather than introducing the language of death.

Mpundu’s statement also comes at a challenging time for Tonse Pamodzi’s messaging. Alliance officials have recently made other serious allegations, including possible voting by foreigners, claims of missing operatives sent to Russia for VVIP security training, complaints about campaign violence, and security concerns regarding campaigning in Southern Province. While some of these allegations warrant investigation, serious claims require serious evidence. As polling day approaches, political leaders bear a greater responsibility to distinguish intelligence, suspicion, allegation, and established fact.

There is also an uncomfortable political question for the alliance. Many members of Tonse Pamodzi draw personnel and political experience from the former Patriotic Front (PF) establishment. While this history does not inherently make them responsible for past abuses or disqualify them from seeking office, language about killing becomes particularly damaging for an opposition coalition attempting to persuade voters it offers a credible alternative. Zambia has a history of elections marred by cadre violence, intimidation, and political confrontation overriding policy debate. Reproducing the vocabulary of confrontation does not demonstrate a readiness to govern, and social media reactions reflect these concerns, with commentators linking Mpundu’s remarks to memories of PF-era politics and questioning the alliance's true intentions.

The burden now falls partly on Brian Mundubile, the presidential candidate for the alliance. As Mpundu is identified as the Alliance’s Presidential Affairs Chairperson, his words carry significant weight. Mundubile faces a leadership question: whether his campaign associates itself with these words or rejects them. A presidential candidate cannot demand peaceful treatment for his supporters while allowing ambiguity around violent language from his own senior ranks. The same standard applies to other parties, including the UPND, where cadres attacking opposition convoys should face legal consequences regardless of party affiliation.

The ECZ also owes voters absolute clarity. If ticks, crosses, and other marks demonstrating clear voter intention are permissible under Zambia’s electoral rules, the Commission must continue to explain this repeatedly and in the simplest possible language before election day. Confusion at polling stations creates fertile ground for misinformation. Every voter must know what constitutes a valid ballot before entering the booth, and every political party should receive precisely the same written guidance.

As Zambia enters the most sensitive days of the election, political rhetoric travels faster, and rumours become harder to contain. A careless sentence from a senior politician can be interpreted as an instruction by an excitable supporter hundreds of kilometers away. Leaders therefore carry a greater responsibility now than they did weeks ago. The message is clear: nobody needs to die for this election, and nobody needs to kill for it either. Zambians need to vote, allow the votes to be counted, protect the integrity of the process, and use the law where disputes arise.