The United Transformation Movement (UTM) is facing a growing internal storm, with the recent removal of a district leader raising questions about loyalty, factional battles, and the party’s strategy ahead of the 2030 elections.
At the center of the controversy is Kanengo District Governor Frackson Kanjere, whose sudden dismissal has unsettled grassroots supporters.
The upheaval comes months after Newton David Kambala resigned from UTM’s Presidential Advisory Council in October 2025, citing the council’s inability to support party president Dalitso Kabambe in making strategic decisions ahead of the general elections.
Although Kambala stepped down from the advisory council, he remains a party member, a position that appears to have placed him at the heart of an emerging factional fault line within UTM.
Tensions boiled over on Tuesday when supporters from Nankhaka, Chipala, and Dzenza constituencies gathered at Mgona Ground, intending to visit the party’s central region headquarters to seek clarification on Kanjere’s removal.
They were reportedly warned to cancel the visit, allegedly due to the presence of men armed with pangas at the headquarters, a stark illustration of the simmering hostility surrounding the issue.
The letter dismissing Kanjere, signed by Regional Secretary Christopher Mapalamba, provided no detailed explanation, instructing him only to cease acting as a party official and return party property immediately.
Kanjere, however, insists that accusations against him, including allegedly backing Kambala and supporting former DPP leader Arthur Peter Mutharika in last year’s elections, have been exaggerated. He says he will remain in the party despite his removal.
The developments raise pressing questions for UTM: Are these dismissals targeting members perceived as Kambala supporters? Is the party already positioning for the 2030 convention, where Kabambe’s leadership could be contested? And more broadly, is the party’s internal loyalty test threatening cohesion ahead of critical elections?
Some observers suggest that while these actions are officially framed as procedural, they may reflect deeper strategic calculations, signaling early jockeying for influence within UTM.
The grassroots pushback demonstrates that members are unwilling to accept opaque decisions without scrutiny, hinting at potential fractures that could shape the party’s future.
As UTM navigates this period of uncertainty, one question remains: Is the party consolidating loyalty and discipline, or quietly setting the stage for a leadership battle in 2030?
