WHEN POWER BECOMES A PRISON: ZAMBIA’S DEMOCRACY AT A CROSSROADS
WHEN POWER BECOMES A PRISON: ZAMBIA’S DEMOCRACY AT A CROSSROADS
An Open Letter to Zambia, Africa and the International Community
By EMV Staff Reporter
This should be an eye-opener to every Zambian and every person who believes in democracy, constitutionalism and the peaceful transfer of power.
We fought for democracy for 27 years. Today, after three decades of democratic practice, Zambia finds itself confronting deeply troubling questions about the direction of its democracy and the conduct of those entrusted with protecting it.
The question before the nation is simple but profound:
*Are we witnessing the gradual erosion of multiparty democracy and the emergence of a system in which state institutions are being used to protect political power rather than the Constitution?*
President Hakainde Hichilema must answer that question.
The events surrounding the 13 August 2026 elections, the subsequent disputes, arrests, court proceedings and allegations of political interference have created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Opposition figures, including Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, Mutotwe Kafwaya and others, have faced serious legal and political pressure. These developments deserve transparent scrutiny, not silence.
Zambians woke up early on 13 August believing that their vote was their voice. They stood in queues, endured the heat, cast their ballots and entrusted the Electoral Commission of Zambia with their choices.
If citizens subsequently believe that their votes were manipulated, stolen, suppressed or otherwise denied, then the answer cannot be intimidation.
*The answer must be transparency, verification and justice.*
And if the courts are the constitutional avenue for resolving electoral disputes, then those courts must remain accessible to everyone, ruling party and opposition alike.
Questions have also been raised about the closure or restricted operation of courts on grounds of security. If such measures were necessary, the public deserves a clear constitutional and factual explanation. If security concerns apply to opposition petitioners, why should they not equally apply when members of the ruling party seek legal remedies?
*Democracy cannot have one set of rules for those in power and another for those challenging power.*
THE QUESTION OF THE VOTE
Perhaps the most extraordinary question confronting President Hichilema is this:
*How can an election be described as unquestionably credible if candidates from the ruling establishment itself are challenging election outcomes?*
If opposition candidates claim their votes were stolen, that deserves investigation.
If ruling-party candidates claim their votes were stolen, that equally deserves investigation.
If there are allegations of electoral irregularities in dozens of constituencies, the answer should not be political retaliation. The answer should be independent verification.
The credibility of an election does not belong to a political party.
*It belongs to the people.*
The same principle applies to allegations surrounding mayoral and parliamentary results. Where a candidate who was initially believed to have lost is subsequently declared the winner, the public has every right to ask for an explanation of the evidence and procedures that produced that outcome.
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are the very questions that a healthy democracy should welcome.
FROM MUTOTWE KAFWAYA TO BINWELL MPUNDU
The growing concern now is that the political and legal pressure may be expanding to include more opposition figures.
There are increasingly heated allegations and narratives surrounding Binwell Mpundu. Claims that he threatened violence or contemplated attacks must be investigated through evidence and due process, not through political propaganda, social-media campaigns or predetermined conclusions.
Similarly, allegations concerning Mutotwe Kafwaya and other political figures must be independently established by competent authorities and, where necessary, tested before a court of law.
*A democratic government does not need propaganda to defeat its opponents. It needs evidence, institutions and the rule of law.*
Zambians have heard competing narratives from political actors. Some accusations have been denied. Others have been repeated. Some have generated fear.
But there is one institution that must ultimately determine criminal guilt:
*the independent judiciary.*
No political party should become the investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner of its opponents.
THE DANGEROUS POLITICS OF FEAR
What is particularly disturbing is the perception that political opponents can be labelled dangerous, arrested, charged and publicly condemned before the evidence has been tested.
If an individual has committed a crime, prosecute that person.
If someone has threatened the President, investigate the threat.
If someone has planned violence, produce the evidence.
If someone has committed treason, prove the case in court.
But if criminal charges become instruments for intimidating political opponents, then the criminal-justice system itself becomes a political weapon.
That is where democracy becomes endangered.
The allegations surrounding Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu and others, including claims involving treason, must therefore be subjected to the highest standards of due process.
*A treason charge is not a conviction. An arrest is not proof of guilt. An allegation is not evidence.*
The Constitution must remain stronger than the political interests of whoever occupies State House.
THE MILITARY MUST NEVER BECOME A POLITICAL TOOL
Another question that must concern every Zambian is the alleged involvement of members of the defence and security establishment in political or electoral affairs.
The military belongs to the Republic of Zambia, not to an individual President, political party or administration.
The defence forces swear allegiance to the Constitution and the Republic.
If soldiers were deployed legitimately for security purposes, the government should explain the circumstances, legal authority and scope of that deployment.
If, however, the defence forces were used to influence electoral outcomes or intimidate political opponents, that would represent an extraordinarily serious threat to constitutional democracy.
*No President should believe that the security forces can guarantee permanent political power.*
History teaches us that governments change.
Presidents change.
Parliaments change.
Political parties rise and fall.
But institutions remain.
And when institutions are weakened to protect one administration, the damage eventually affects everyone, including those who initially benefited from that weakness.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING
Zambia has historically presented itself as a country capable of peaceful political transition.
That reputation is valuable.
It should not be sacrificed for the temporary interests of any political party.
The United Nations, SADC, the European Union, African institutions, international observers, civil society and Zambia’s own citizens should therefore insist on one standard:
*Let the evidence speak. Let the Constitution speak. Let the courts speak. Let the people speak.*
If there are electoral disputes, resolve them lawfully.
If there are criminal allegations, investigate them independently.
If there are genuine security threats, deal with them professionally.
But do not use the language of national security as a blanket justification for suppressing legitimate democratic participation.
POWER IS NOT PERMANENT
Every President should understand one fundamental truth:
*Every position of power is a lease, not a purchase.*
The title, the office, the authority and the platform belong to the role, not to the individual.
And roles expire.
The person who abuses power, treats subordinates as though they are furniture, and makes decisions as though they will occupy the same chair forever is simply decorating a room from which they will eventually be evicted.
When that chair is taken back and eventually it will be, the individual will stand in that room as exactly what they always were:
*A human being.*
So act like one while you occupy the office.
A MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO STILL BELIEVE
To those who continue to believe in President Hakainde Hichilema, this is not a call to hate him.
It is a call to hold him accountable.
Supporting a President should never mean surrendering your conscience.
Loving your country should never mean defending everything done by your government.
And supporting democracy should never depend on which political party happens to be in power.
The same democratic principles we demand when our party is in opposition must be defended when our party is in government.
Otherwise, we are not democrats.
We are simply political loyalists.
ZAMBIA MUST CHOOSE
The question before Zambia is no longer simply about President Hichilema.
It is bigger than one man.
It is about whether our institutions are stronger than individuals.
It is about whether the Constitution is stronger than political power.
It is about whether the ballot is stronger than the gun.
It is about whether evidence is stronger than propaganda.
It is about whether the judiciary is independent enough to hear every legitimate petition.
And ultimately, it is about whether the next generation will inherit a democracy or merely the memory of one.
We must therefore reject political violence from **every** side.
We must reject arbitrary arrests from **every** side.
We must reject electoral manipulation from **every** side.
We must reject the weaponisation of State institutions from **every** side.
And we must reject the dangerous belief that winning an election gives anyone unlimited authority.
**No President owns Zambia.**
**No political party owns Zambia.**
**The people own Zambia.**
The Constitution belongs to the people.
The vote belongs to the people.
And the future belongs to the people.
If those entrusted with power have nothing to hide, then they should welcome independent scrutiny.
Open the institutions.
Protect the courts.
Allow lawful petitions.
Publish the evidence.
Investigate every credible allegation.
And let justice be seen to be done.
Because when democracy is genuinely strong, it does not fear questions.
**It answers them.**