By Burnett Munthali
Political commentator has responded to recent remarks by Laura Miti, who argued that “there is no justifiable reason for Tasila Lungu to stay away from Parliament.”
The analyst observed that while Miti’s statement reflects a common expectation that elected officials should attend parliamentary sessions, it is important to consider the broader context surrounding Lungu’s absence.
They noted that parliamentary attendance is a constitutional duty, but public officials may have legitimate reasons, including health, diplomatic obligations, or constituency work, that sometimes prevent them from being physically present.
However, the analyst emphasized that continuous absence without clear communication undermines public confidence and raises questions about accountability and representation.
In this case, the lack of a detailed explanation from Tasila Lungu has fueled debates among political observers and the general public regarding his commitment to parliamentary responsibilities.
The commentator further suggested that political figures have a responsibility to be transparent about their reasons for missing sessions to maintain credibility and trust with their constituents.
They also warned that ignoring parliamentary duties could set a dangerous precedent if left unchecked, potentially eroding the effectiveness of legislative oversight.
Ultimately, the analyst concluded that while Miti’s call for Lungu’s attendance is understandable, it should be balanced with an understanding of any legitimate obligations that may require temporary absence.
The response highlights ongoing tensions in Zambian politics regarding the balance between accountability, transparency, and the practical demands placed on public officials.
As the debate continues, citizens and political analysts alike are calling for clear communication from all leaders to ensure that parliamentary duties are taken seriously while addressing broader national responsibilities.
