ZAMBIA FIRES BACK! Government Slams EU Parliament's 'Premature' Election Crisis Resolution Amid Rule-of-Law Concerns

A recent resolution by the European Parliament concerning Zambia's post-election situation and the death of former Cabinet Minister Mutotwe Kafwaya has ignited a sharp diplomatic exchange, with the Zambian government describing the resolution as premature. Zambia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Mulambo Haimbe, stated that the European Parliament's adoption of Resolution P10_TA(2026)0311 on September 17, 2026, utilized urgency procedures without prior engagement with Lusaka and before the final report of the EU Election Observation Mission. Haimbe emphasized that serious determinations regarding a sovereign state should be based on verified facts and informed by engagement with the concerned government, and noted that Zambia had requested a formal partnership dialogue with EU bodies.

However, critics contend that by prioritizing diplomatic optics over human life, the UPND administration is betraying its foundational promises of constitutionalism, freedom of expression, and fundamental human rights. They argue that the Ministry's complaint about the use of urgency procedures intentionally misses the point, as such mechanisms exist precisely because human lives, physical safety, and fundamental rights may be actively under threat, making time a critical factor. The timeline surrounding Mr. Kafwaya's death, who died on August 14, 2026, during a joint state security operation in Kabulonga, Lusaka, further complicates the government's stance. Official confirmation of his death was only acknowledged by state authorities on August 19, 2026, after five days of silence, just a month before the European Parliament passed its resolution. This delay in acknowledging a former lawmaker's death under state custody is highlighted as a display of hypocrisy when complaining about international observers acting too quickly, positing that urgency is a natural response to state-sanctioned opacity.

Regarding Mr. Kafwaya's death, Minister Haimbe expressed regret and stated that the circumstances were under active investigation by the Zambia Police Service with independent oversight from the Zambia Human Rights Commission. He rejected any suggestion of a policy of extrajudicial action and reiterated that facts would be established through due process, adding that Kafwaya's family was offered the opportunity to participate in the postmortem examination through a legal representative and an independent pathologist. Critics, however, dismiss the claim of an “active investigation” as a black hole for accountability, arguing that expecting citizens or international partners to accept this at face value ignores a glaring conflict of interest: the police cannot independently investigate themselves or other state security agencies involved in a fatal shooting. They assert that true accountability demands an unfettered, specialized Judicial Commission of Inquiry, backed by independent civil society oversight, with the full power to subpoena high-ranking officials and law enforcement command, rather than merely procedural steps like allowing a family pathologist at a post-mortem.

On allegations concerning access to justice and treason charges, Haimbe invoked Article 122 of the Zambian Constitution, underscoring the independence of the Judiciary. He maintained that individuals facing criminal charges are entitled to a fair and impartial trial, due process, and legal representation, and that decisions related to bail, trial dates, and judicial proceedings are made independently by the courts, free from executive direction. Yet, this invocation of judicial independence rings hollow to critics when state security agencies leverage heavy-handed, capital offenses like treason against political opponents, civic activists, and protesters. Following the August 2026 elections, numerous opposition leaders, campaign personnel, artists, and political figures, including Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, George Chisanga, Bishop Trevor Mwamba, and Patrick Mwansa, were reportedly swept into custody. Charging political figures with non-bailable offenses removes their access to bail and forces extended pre-trial detentions, effectively transforming the judicial process into a mechanism of political intimidation. International legal organizations have also raised concerns over the rule of law in Zambia, citing alleged restrictions on access to justice, security-force conduct, and pressure on lawyers handling election-related cases.

In response to allegations of arbitrary detentions, the government asserted that official state records “do not corroborate” the numbers cited in the EU Resolution. However, critics argue that if civil society groups, legal defense teams, and international observers are incorrect, the solution is to open the books. Dismissing figures in a press release while keeping lockup registries closed proves nothing. They demand the immediate publication of a complete, verifiable roster detailing every citizen detained during post-election operations, their specific statutory charges, the exact facility where each person is held, and documented proof of access to legal counsel, family visits, and medical care. Until such a registry is public, flat denials remain empty assertions.

The Zambian Ministry's reliance on Articles 3 and 5 of the Samoa Agreement, which focus on diplomatic protocol, consultation, and mutual respect for national sovereignty, is also seen as a selective reading of the treaty. Critics highlight that the Ministry conspicuously skips Article 9, which forms the core of the treaty framework. Article 9 mandates strict respect for human rights and democratic principles, explicitly linking economic and strategic partnerships to adherence to the rule of law. This framework posits human rights not merely as matters of domestic jurisdiction but as shared obligations. True partnership, it is argued, requires holding one another accountable to signed agreements, not mutual silence in the face of state violence.

The UPND administration is currently treading a dangerous path by treating state violence as a diplomatic public relations problem to be managed rather than a national crisis to be fixed. Critics argue that a government’s commitment to democracy is measured by how it handles power when challenged, not by the rhetoric it uses in opposition. They assert that the UPND government will only take responsibility when it stops treating state violence as a PR problem and starts treating it as a national emergency, allows independent oversight into state security agencies to end the culture of impunity, ceases the abuse of national security and treason laws used to muzzle political opposition and civic voices, and acknowledges that sovereignty belongs to the citizens of Zambia, not to state institutions that fail to protect them. Zambia’s democracy, they warn, cannot survive on promises of “due process” while citizens and political figures die in state operations, urging the government to address the abuses reflected by international scrutiny rather than blaming external partners for holding up a mirror.