- In this regard, among the pertinent questions the public has been having are the internal mechanisms in the UPND to guarantee democracy and the rule of law.
Dear Editor,
WE are disappointed that UPND president Hakainde Hichilema through his hired mouth piece Anthony Bwalya can go to the greater lengthy even to trivialise the questions of constitutionalism as “not being important.”
Mr Hichilema has once again failed us by giving us an assurance that he will be accountable to the people he seeks to lead.
The basic functions of the spokesperson is to assume the proxy role to provide answers and clarity on important questions which the third party may not get from the principal.
In this regard, among the pertinent questions the public has been having are the internal mechanisms in the UPND to guarantee democracy and the rule of law.
The respect for the law of the land should be traced from the way their constitution is applied, and we have every reason to worry if it is applied selectively.
The appearance by the two members of HH’s inner circle on the last Friday’s edition of Radio Phoenix programme dubbed, “Let the people Talk” is among such platforms HH’s proxies can be asked for clarity on pertinent questions.
One sceptical listener who had a privilege of calling in to ask what the constitution of UPND prescribe as far as the tenure of office of the UPND president states.
Typical of his principal’s attitude of dodging questions, Mr Bwalya blatantly disregarded the caller’s honest pursuit for the truth and “inviting him to the secretariat.”
We wonder whether Mr Hichilema values the importance of being accountable to the people he seeks to lead.
It is very disproportionate that the question which was asked in public on behalf of the people who share the same view can be answered in private.
If Mr Bwalya failed to answer that question on the public forum, there is no way he can answer it at a very secluded and restrictive venue namely, the UPND Secretariat.
In our view, that question may not be suitable to be answered or asked at a restricted place.
From this, we can infer that Mr Bwalya “tactfully evaded” the question.
This is the difference with President Lungu and his agents who purportedly speaks for him even from the Patriotic Front’s perspective.
There are pertinent questions regarding his political future.
As an illustration, President Lungu appreciates that the nature of his office makes his personal not to be easily accessible or ubiquitous to answer pertinent questions from the public.
As such, it would be unfair to invite every person answering genuine questions to the place of our convenience.
There has been several efforts for Mr Hichilema to show intolerance to divergence views.
On his social media platforms, he has blocked a number of people who staunchly criticise him.
This is in his quest to create a perception that the social media patrons have unilaterally rallied behind him.
We therefore see it as an act of gross irresponsibility for Mr Hichilema to dodge the genuine questions.
How then does he inspire confidence that he will run an accountable Government in the event he was given an opportunity to walk the corridors of power?
We saw nothing wrong in asking him about the tenure of his office and we see everything wrong in him avoiding to answer such a question.
MARVIN CHANDA MBERI.
Author
