Mr. Banda’s grounds for Mr. Hichilema not to “insult” him do not hold much water. Mr Banda is president of a republic, not a traditional village chief more inclined to blood ties of tribal cousinship than political solutions argued out in the limelight of a national stage. Perhaps it would do good if the article, or Mr. Banda himself in his argument, pinpointed the insults that Mr. Banda is referring to? Otherwise, it all sadly sounds like the Ol’ Boys politics of a bygone Africa. Nowadays, such tactics must not be allowed to work. It should mean nothing that Mr. Banda could be Mr. Hichilema’s father. So what?

It is being shallow minded when a leader of a political party resorts to insulting other political figure heads no matter who they are. Politicians by virtue of what they advocate are supposed to critises policies,programes etc. we elect political leader based on what they promise to deliver not on how good they are at hailing insults at other political heads. Hachilema wakeup insults do not put food or create jobs for our brothers.Critise RB on policies and programmes then you will earn the respect of people.

I for one think it is much more shallow-minded of a president to parry attacks using such "weak, relative argumentation": i.e. Hakainde Hichilema vis-à-vis Michael Sata attacking / “insulting” Rupiah Banda on a myriad national issues. It is clear from Mr Banda’s allusion (to these two) that it is permissible for Sata to “insult” him not only because he is his age-mate, but also because he is his “tribal cousin”. The latter part is especially wrong, sounds awkward, because it slyly drags tribe into matters of national political consensus, national consciousness. Zambia has more than 70 tribes and I personally see it as WRONG for Banda to seem to expect us to agree with him that a Bemba may insult him but not a Tonga. This type of thinking is political crap, lazy, backward and low-level.

That’s my own opinion. And yes, I am Zambian.