Zambia: power must answer for the use of force

A security allegation must face evidence. A reported death must face independent scrutiny. Neither duty cancels the other.

OPINION · THE DAILY PULSE EDITORIAL

The word “security” can describe a real danger. It can also leave the public with questions it is expected to stop asking. When an operation results in a reported death, a democracy has to do the difficult work of answering: what happened, what was necessary and who can investigate independently? Zambia’s institutions must be strong enough to hold that conversation.

On 20 August 2026, Amnesty International called for an independent investigation into the reported fatal shooting of former cabinet minister Mutotwe Kafwaya during a security operation in Kabulonga on 14 August. Amnesty said the full circumstances remained unclear. It also reported the authorities’ allegation that those arrested were involved in an insurrection plot and that military-grade weapons had been recovered. These are serious competing claims requiring investigation; this article does not establish criminal responsibility.

Evidence should carry the argument

Our position is straightforward: a security operation resulting in a reported death deserves transparent scrutiny. Families need timely information. Detainees need lawyers and access to a court. Investigators need independence from the people whose conduct they are examining. Anyone accused of an offence deserves a fair opportunity to answer the evidence.

Governments cannot ignore genuine threats. Opposition membership does not place anyone above the law. Equally, an accusation of a security offence must not replace the process required to prove it. If the evidence is strong, an impartial process gives it credibility. If the evidence is weak, that same process protects people from the cost of a politically convenient allegation.

The problem also develops before polling day

Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2026 described restrictions on civic space during 2025, including use of the Public Order Act against political gatherings. It cited Zambia’s Electoral Reform Technical Committee’s concerns about police impartiality and political interference. Those findings concern a documented earlier period; they should not be presented as a verdict on every later police decision.

The broader lesson is that a ballot cannot compensate for a public sphere in which people fear speaking, organising or asking difficult questions. Citizens need institutions that apply comparable standards to ruling parties, opposition parties and people who belong to neither. A police service earns trust when its reasons can be examined and its decisions challenged.

A useful reform agenda would make peaceful-assembly decisions transparent, improve independent oversight of deaths involving security operations, and publish the progress of sensitive investigations without prejudicing trials. These are safeguards for everyone, including officials who may one day leave office.

Zambia does not need citizens to agree on one party in order to agree on these standards. The harder and more valuable achievement is to build rules that remain credible when our preferred side loses, is criticised or is accused. Democracy should make that disagreement survivable.