Africa-Press – Zambia. The Mast Newspaper’s editorial alleging that President Hakainde Hichilema “uses tribe as a shield against criticism” is not only inaccurate but also an unfortunate continuation of a long and damaging pattern in Zambia’s political discourse.
It is important to restate the truth clearly: President Hichilema has been a consistent victim, not a beneficiary, of tribal attacks, and much of that toxicity has historically been amplified by the defunct Post Newspaper and media entities connected to Fred M’membe.
For years, particularly during the era of The Post Newspaper, President Hichilema endured some of the most targeted tribal smears seen in modern Zambian politics. It was within that media ecosystem that divisive labels such as “Bantustan” were popularized, terms most Zambians had never encountered before they were weaponised against him.
Those narratives did not emerge organically; they were crafted, circulated, and reinforced with the clear intention of framing him as a tribal figure despite the absence of evidence.
Today, for The Mast, an institution that inherits that political and editorial lineage, to turn around and accuse the President of “using tribe” is not only ironic but intellectually dishonest.
It attempts to rewrite history while ignoring the very real damage that reckless tribal framing has caused to national cohesion.
What must be emphasised is that holding leaders accountable is legitimate; every democratic society relies on a robust, critical press. But accountability must be rooted in fact, fairness, and consistency, not in recycled prejudices or narratives designed to inflame ethnic tensions.
At this stage in our democracy, the country can no longer tolerate the deliberate dissemination of tribal messages disguised as opinion. Zambia has developed sufficient legal precedent and case law to address such behaviour firmly, whether it comes from political actors or from media institutions. Freedom of expression does not grant the right to sow division, manufacture tribal conflict, or endanger the peace that Zambians cherish.
We can debate policy. We can critique leadership. We can disagree on direction.
But we must reject attempts, old or new, to drag the nation back into the quagmire of tribal rhetoric.
Zambia deserves a political conversation grounded in truth, not in the recycled grievances of those who once normalised tribal attacks and now feign outrage when the consequences of their own narrative strategies are exposed.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
