The summoning of Lusaka Archbishop Alick Banda by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) has ignited a significant public debate in Zambia, raising profound questions about fairness, legal principles, and perceived political motivations. Critics, such as Fred M'membe, a member of the Catholic Men’s League, argue for equal treatment, invoking the principle that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” This adage, which underlines universal fairness and is often used to expose hypocrisy, suggests that rules, treatment, and benefits should apply equally to all, irrespective of social standing or individual differences. M'membe draws a parallel to past instances where political figures, such as Hichilema, were accompanied by large numbers of supporters during law enforcement summons, questioning why Archbishop Banda should not similarly be supported by his flock. He further references the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, which emphasizes treating others with the same kindness and respect one desires for oneself, forming the bedrock of ethical conduct. M'membe strongly criticizes DEC Director General Nason Banda’s reference to the Archbishop’s faithful as “cadres,” deeming it an insult, and makes a clarion call for all Catholics and Zambians of goodwill to turn out in huge numbers to accompany the Archbishop to the Drug Enforcement Commission.

While the principle that “no one is above the law” is universally recognized as a moral imperative, its practical application in Zambia has frequently been perceived as inconsistent and influenced by political considerations. Kellys Kaunda asserts that this claim rings hollow in the Zambian experience, spanning from colonial days to the present. He contends that despite lofty claims of upholding the rule of law, no single government in Zambia has played fair, with records replete with instances where individuals’ rights were trampled upon with impunity. Kaunda highlights the open confession by those in power regarding the use of “imingalato” to desecrate democratic space, effectively daring any voice of protest to risk losing freedom. This historical context has fostered a climate of fear among citizens, largely confining their expressions of dissent to social media and interactive radio/television programs, while those who physically protest are swiftly apprehended. Against this backdrop, Kaunda finds the DEC’s statement—that Bishop Alick Banda’s summoning demonstrates that no one is above the law—to be highly incredulous. He attributes public skepticism to a history of double standards and clear favoritism driven by political considerations, concluding that claims of professionalism will not be accepted by the public, especially when the case involves a high-profile individual publicly perceived to be at odds with those in power.

Echoing these sentiments, Opposition Democratic Progressive Party President Antonio Mwanza has questioned the timing and manner of the DEC’s summons, stating that the move raises serious public concern. Speaking on Phoenix FM, Mr. Mwanza pointed out that the issue concerning the alleged vehicle gift had already been addressed by the courts nearly two years prior, with other individuals having faced prosecution. He argues that the renewed action against the Archbishop appears poorly timed, particularly given the strained relations between the Catholic Church and the government. Mwanza suggests that the prolonged delay in summoning the Catholic leader has contributed to a perception of political motivation. He emphasized the critical need for law enforcement agencies to be mindful of context, history, and public trust when handling sensitive matters involving respected national figures. Ultimately, as Kaunda suggests, until the UPND government convincingly levels the playing field, interviews or interrogations of known government critics will inevitably be viewed as political, and the public's reaction will align with this perception.