HICHILEMA IS LYING; ABENA LUAPULA ARE NOT TRIBALISTS
Mr Hakainde Hichilema was last Saturday in the Chiengi district of Luapula Province attending the Builile traditional ceremony. Whilst there, Mr Hichilema is quoted to have said that Luapula Province has been lagging behind because the people of that region had from time immemorial been promoting their tribesmen to be presidents of the country, and that political fights and tribalism had negated the economic progression in the region.
This interpretation of our country’s political history is factually incorrect and twisted. It is a well-known fact that out of the seven presidents that have ruled Zambia, only Mr Fredrick Chiluba originated from Luapula. Therefore, how can Mr Hichilema allege that people from Luapula only promote their tribesmen to be presidents? And how can Mr Hichilema accuse people from Luapula of tribalism when an assessment of the presidential elections results for Luapula and Southern provinces between 2006 and 2021 indicate a contradictory outlook.
For example, in 2006 presidential elections, Southern Province gave Mr Hichilema (UPND) who hails from there 279,329 votes against 8,234 votes from Luapula Province, Mr Levy Mwanawasa (MMD) who came from Copperbelt and Central provinces polled 70,901 votes from Southern Province and 64,936 votes in Luapula Province, Mr Michael Sata (PF) who hailed from Northern Province then polled 13,559 votes from Southern Province against 118,901 votes in Luapula Province). And in the 2008 presidential elections, following the death of Mr Mwanawasa, Southern Province gave Mr Hichilema (UPND) 266,754 votes against 1,758 votes from Luapula Province, Mr Rupiah Banda (MMD) who hailed from Eastern Province polled 71,519 votes from Southern Province and 47,289 votes in Luapula Province, and Mr Sata (PF) got 24,609 from Southern Province and 151,822 votes from Luapula Province.
Further, in the 2011 presidential elections, Mr Hichilema polled 181,094 votes in Southern Province against 1,588 votes in Luapula Province, Mr Banda got 51,550 votes from Southern Province and 32,552 votes from Luapula Province, and Mr Sata polled 11,779 votes from Southern Province and 100,301 votes in Luapula Province. In the 2015 presidential elections following the death of Mr Sata, Mr Hichilema polled 272,182 votes in Southern Province against 10,493 votes in Luapula Province, Mr Edgar Lungu, who hails from Eastern Province had 20,937 votes from Southern Province and 81,289 votes from Luapula Province. Mr Daniel Pule, who hails from Luapula Province, got 137 votes in Southern Province and 493 votes in Luapula Province. While in the 2016 presidential elections, Mr Hichilema got 527,893 votes in Southern Province and 35,929 votes in Luapula Province against Mr Lungu’s 42,907 votes in Southern Province and 205,770 votes in Luapula Province. Then, in the 2021 presidential elections, Mr Hichilema polled 601,998 in Southern Province and 119,550 votes in Luapula Province against Mr Lungu’s 36,255 votes in Southern Province and 233,129 votes in Luapula Province.
With this evidence, is it fair for Mr Hichilema to accuse the people of Luapula of practising tribal politics? why is it so hard for Mr Hichilema to admit that the Southern Province has been voting on tribal lines since 2001? Why does he live in denial? Why is Mr Hichilema so deceptive?
It just doesn’t end here. What tribalism can Mr Hichilema blame on the people of Luapula when they have accepted and respected culture by totally submitting to certain traditional authorities in the province whose ethnic descent are from regions outside Luapula, the Southern Province to be specific. These people have magnanimously embraced these traditional authorities with the highest form of customary recognition and respect and are today living peacefully and happily together as one people. Are these the people Mr Hichilema can boldly accuse of tribalism? This is not fair. Mr Hichilema has gone too far with his divisiveness.
And why does Mr Hichilema see tribe in all he does? Why is tribe so important for him? Why is he swift to spot tribalism in others when he is the high priest or apostle of tribalism? For Mr Hichilema, it seems that practising tribalism in the manner he does is not wrong, but pointing it out is a crime of hate speech or inciting tribal war. And so far, it seems only people from one side of the country are tribal, no wonder they are being arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for tribal hate speech or inciting tribal war. Why?
We have said it before, when it comes to discussing tribalism and national unity, Mr Hichilema is not the right candidate to lecture the country. And certainly, his lying lips are not the finest to make such declarations about tribalism and national unity. Mr Hichilema is a hardcore tribalist and should be the last person to insinuate that he cares for this country and its tribes, and therefore, would want to maintain the peace and unity we have enjoyed for almost 60 years now, because his deeds, which seem deliberate by the way, point in the opposite direction. We want to place it on record that there is nothing peaceful and unifying about the method Mr Hichilema is governing this country today.
Indeed, tribalism and national unity must be addressed, but not in a one-sided manner. It must be addressed both in speech and deeds.
We also advise Mr Hichilema to humble himself and respect all traditional leadership in this country. We say so because he has ignited too many fires with several traditional authorities countrywide. So many palaces have a story or two to tell over his uncultured demeanour, arrogance, and pomposity. Mr Hichilema must remember that presidents come and go, but the institution of traditional leadership is permanent.
Let Mr Hichilema respect all the chiefs of this country and fix all broken relationships. He knows those he has offended.
Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party
HICHILEMA IS LYING; ABENA LUAPULA ARE NOT TRIBALISTS
