By Mubanga Mubanga
President Hakainde Hichilema has expressed disappointment over the decision by a consortium of opposition leaders to leave a letter meant for him at the gate of State House
In a statement issued today, State House chief communication specialist Clayson Hamasaka stated that the opposition chose to drop the letter at the gate of State House despite the open door policy of President Hichilema.
“However, the decision to leave an important national communication at the gate, despite the President’s well-known openness to engagement, remains a curious choice,” Hamasaka stated. “It offers little in advancing meaningful dialogue,particularly as the document was immediately splashed on social media before reaching the addressee.”
Hamaska stated that President Hichilema was considering the contents of the letter.
He stated that had prior communication been made, State House could have facilitated a direct conversation.
“Had prior communication been made, State House would have facilitated a direct conversation. That would have been more effective than depositing a document at the entrance and hope it conveys the intended gravity,” Hamasaka stated. “Nonetheless, in the national interest and with unwavering commitment to unity and democratic maturity, State House remains open to respectful, constructive engagement with all political stakeholders as we continue working together for a stronger and more prosperous Zambia.”
Hamasaka stated that President echoed the counsel of Pope Luo XIV who recently said that disagreements are navigated through dialogue and cooperation.
“The President echoes counsel of his Holiness Pope Luo XIV who recently reminded us that disagreements are best navigated through fraternal encounter, dialogue and cooperation. National matters demand structured good faith discussions – not gestures that prioritize spectacle over substance,” Stated Hamasaka. “On the issues that the opposition have been vocal about such as energy, debt restructuring, mining and agriculture, State House expects practical alternatives, not symbolic acts.”
