Zambia Rocked by Treason Allegations: Calls for Dialogue Amidst High-Stakes Legal Battle

Recent political and legal developments in Zambia highlight ongoing debates surrounding national dialogue, reconciliation, and the rule of law following the August 13 general election. Key figures have voiced differing perspectives on the role of institutions, particularly the Church, and the appropriate path forward concerning high-profile detentions and treason charges.

Dr. Zimba from Zambian Watch News emphasized that meaningful dialogue in the country is contingent upon all sides acknowledging the authority of the sitting Head of State, President Hichilema. He argued that recognizing President Hichilema, who was declared the winner of the August 13 election by the Electoral Commission of Zambia with 60 percent of the vote, is essential for fostering a conducive environment for political engagement and national healing. Dr. Zimba noted that Mr. Mundubile, who came second with 38 percent, along with his running mate Makebi Zulu and 16 others, are currently detained and facing treason charges. He questioned how President Hichilema could be motivated to engage in dialogue with individuals who do not recognize his legitimacy as President. Dr. Zimba suggested that the quickest way to gain President Hichilema’s attention would be for Mr. Mundubile to publicly acknowledge him as the sitting President and respectfully appeal for dialogue, rather than demanding it. He further stated that attacking, insulting, or denouncing President Hichilema would not resolve the problem for Mr. Mundubile and Mr. Zulu, but rather, accepting him as the declared winner could accelerate dialogue, national unity, and reconciliation.

Conversely, Njobvu, in an interview with The Mast, criticized the Church’s conduct following the August 13 presidential election, likening it to the betrayal of Jesus Christ. Njobvu asserted that the Church failed to act as an impartial mediator, particularly in its handling of the Mundubile and Zulu treason case. He stated that the Church’s role was compromised, as they merely handed over individuals who were seeking safety, a function he believed lawyers should have undertaken. Njobvu argued that the Church should have strived to ease political tension, promote dialogue, and facilitate reconciliation, rather than what he perceived as a betrayal of Mundubile and Zulu. He expressed disappointment, having expected the Church to go further in bargaining for a resolution and alleviating the prevailing silence and tension in the country.

The severity of charges such as treason has also been a central point of discussion, with commentators stressing that it is not an ordinary political offense to be dismissed lightly. Such charges strike at the core of national security and the constitutional order, making any attempts to undermine or overthrow the government extremely serious. It has been argued that these charges must not be trivialized simply because the accused are prominent opposition figures. Those demanding the immediate release of suspects are urged to provide evidence for their claims of politically motivated or baseless charges, questioning if they have examined investigation files, evidence, or the prosecution’s case. The principle of presumption of innocence is affirmed, but it is distinctly separated from automatic innocence; serious criminal allegations, therefore, should not be withdrawn merely due to pressure from political leaders, chiefs, churches, or foreign institutions. Instead, calls for fair, transparent, and speedy trials are seen as a stronger defense of democracy than requesting presidential intervention in matters already before the justice system. It is advised that President Hichilema resist using his constitutional powers as a political bargaining chip, as doing so could establish a dangerous precedent where political campaigns dictate who faces justice. National reconciliation and forgiveness are important, but they cannot come at the expense of accountability, the rule of law, or by sending a message that powerful individuals can escape serious allegations due to influential backing. The emphasis remains on allowing the courts to establish guilt or innocence and for the legal process to proceed without intimidation or political interference, highlighting that treason is too serious to become a political bargaining chip.

In a separate but related legal development, the Lusaka High Court recently dismissed business executive Harry Valden Findlay’s application for habeas corpus. Findlay had been detained since August 4 on suspicion of terrorism offenses and remains at Mwembeshi Correctional Facility. High Court Judge Kelvin Limbani ruled that the State had reasonable and lawful grounds for his custody. Findlay was initially detained at Ibex Hill Police Station, then transferred to Westwood Police Station where he was warned and cautioned before being jointly charged with others for Prohibition of Terrorism, contrary to Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism and Non-Proliferation Act. He was subsequently moved to Mwembeshi Correctional Facility. While dismissing the application, Justice Limbani directed the State to ensure Findlay is brought before a competent court for trial, underscoring that an accused person cannot be held indefinitely without trial or appropriate remedy. The court considered an affidavit outlining Findlay’s arrest and detention, finding sufficient reasons, and noting that the matter had been referred to the National Prosecution Authority. The ruling affirmed that lawful detention pending trial does not permit indefinite custody, reinforcing the principle of timely judicial process for serious allegations.