Justice for Zambia: Governance Under the UPND—A Comprehensive Review of Democracy and Governance
Introduction
I am Mr. Matafwali Inambao Libati, a nonpartisan, independent observer and researcher on governance and democracy. In this article, I offer a critical but constructive review of Zambia’s governance under the United Party for National Development (UPND), examining its effects on democracy, justice, and the rule of law. This analysis is presented in two parts: the first part highlights the challenges and failures of the UPND administration, focusing on governance, political dynamics, and controversies. The second part will delve into the party’s notable achievements, the implications of upcoming elections, judicial challenges, and the precedents being set for Zambia’s democratic future.
While my observations may not be entirely comprehensive, I believe it is crucial to foster discussion and engage in meaningful dialogue to help our country navigate its democratic journey.
I would also like to acknowledge the unbiased editors at Lusaka Times, whose difficult job is to provide respected news despite the challenges they face. Often, we criticize the messenger, but their dedication deserves recognition.
Through this analysis, I aim to foster thoughtful discussion on Zambia’s democratic path, encouraging reflection among citizens, political analysts, and civil society.
Since ascending to power on August 12, 2021 (3 years, 4 months, and 16 days), Zambia’s United Party for National Development (UPND) has faced mounting scrutiny over its governance practices and delivery on campaign promises. Initially celebrated for championing transparency, reform, and democracy, the party has encountered accusations of selective justice, suppression of dissent, and corruption. This comprehensive review examines the key controversies, governance challenges, and political dynamics that have shaped the UPND’s tenure as of December 25, 2024.
Curtailing Freedoms and Targeting Opposition
The UPND’s administration has been marked by actions perceived as suppressing dissent and opposition voices. A notable example involves high-profile arrests and detentions of prominent figures such as Ronald Chitotela, Nickson Chilangwa, Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba (GBM), Bowman Lusambo, and Dr. Katele Kalumba. These individuals have faced charges, often tied to corruption or abuse of office, yet critics argue the motives behind these actions are more political than judicial.
Former President Edgar Lungu’s family and close allies have also found themselves under investigation. Figures like Joseph Malanji and members of Lungu’s household have been subjected to ongoing legal scrutiny. This selective targeting has fueled public sentiment that the UPND is weaponizing the judiciary to weaken opposition parties rather than pursuing genuine justice.
Double Standards in Justice
While opposition leaders face swift and decisive actions from law enforcement and the judiciary, UPND officials implicated in various scandals appear to operate with impunity. Finance Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane, Former Foreign Affairs Minister Stanley Kakubo, former Information and Media Minister Chushi Kasanda, and Health Minister Sylvia Masebo have all been linked to controversies, yet investigations into their conduct have stalled or are non-existent.
From misuse of public funds to questionable dealings, these scandals highlight the selective justice that critics argue is becoming a hallmark of the UPND regime. For instance, the procurement scandals in the health sector under Sylvia Masebo remain unaddressed. Similarly, Stanley Kakubo’s business dealings that raised eyebrows have seen no formal investigations.
The perceived disparity highlights a judicial system increasingly influenced by political allegiances, undermining public confidence in the impartiality of Zambia’s legal framework. This selective justice risks eroding the rule of law, a cornerstone of any functioning democracy.
The Transformation of Political Figures
Zambia’s political landscape has experienced significant changes, with some former critics of President Hakainde Hichilema now aligning themselves closely with his administration. Figures like Nevers Mumba and Wynter Kabimba, who once vehemently opposed the UPND, have now become vocal supporters. However, this shift has raised questions, with many Zambians wondering if their newfound allegiance is driven by genuine belief in the UPND’s vision or motivated by political and economic interests.
A similar trend can be observed with other figures, such as Hamududu, who has joined the UPND seemingly for economic reasons, with critics claiming that such moves are driven more by personal gain than political conviction. Many believe that these figures are merely ‘blowing it for the sake of the belly’, opportunistically aligning with whoever holds power to further their own agendas.
I myself once followed Simon Mwewa, who is exceptionally skilled in his Vlogging craft. However, I have observed that, like with the PF, his alignment with the UPND appears more motivated by personal benefit than by genuine commitment to the party’s values. While Simon is undeniably talented, his sometimes over-the-top behavior risks damaging his credibility and, by extension, reflects poorly on the UPND.
This pattern of political transformation and realignment raises concerns about the integrity of political actors in Zambia. The public is left questioning whether these shifts are rooted in principle or opportunism, and how such moves impact the political climate and the credibility of the UPND.
Democracy at a Crossroads
Zambia’s democracy is at a crossroads under the leadership of the UPND, with significant concerns about the erosion of fundamental democratic freedoms. The government’s actions, such as disrupting opposition meetings and intimidating media outlets, have raised alarms about the state of freedoms of assembly and expression. These freedoms, which once formed the bedrock of Zambia’s democratic system, now appear to be under siege, with critics accusing the administration of suppressing dissent.
Media outlets that challenge the government’s narrative face harassment, and activists who speak out against the government’s policies are often silenced or threatened. This creates a climate of fear, where the free exchange of ideas and information is stifled. The situation has led to growing disillusionment, as many citizens feel that the promises of inclusivity and reform made by President Hichilema have not materialized.
KBF, a prominent political figure, highlighted this sentiment by suggesting that President Hichilema has “forgotten the people,” a phrase that resonates with many Zambians who feel alienated by the government’s actions. Once viewed as a champion of change, the UPND’s government is now seen by some as more focused on consolidating power than fulfilling its initial promises. This sense of betrayal is evident in the public’s frustration over the government’s treatment of opposition voices and its failure to address their concerns.
The government’s increasing focus on political control raises questions about its commitment to democratic ideals, such as pluralism and open dialogue. The UPND’s actions suggest a shift away from the inclusivity it promised, leaving citizens to wonder whether the government will return to its reformist agenda. The future of Zambia’s democracy depends on whether the UPND can reassert its commitment to democratic principles, ensuring that all citizens have the freedom to participate in governance without fear of reprisal.
Electoral Integrity
The credibility of Zambia’s electoral system has come under increasing scrutiny, particularly in the context of how the UPND has handled elections and the frequent by-elections that have followed. Many critics argue that the UPND’s strategy for securing seats in Parliament has involved using unorthodox and questionable methods to engineer results, with the aim of weakening the opposition and consolidating their power. This approach has raised concerns that the government is intentionally causing by-elections, not for the sake of democratic representation, but as a means of reducing opposition numbers and making it easier to pass legislation that may be detrimental to the nation.
Some observers view this as part of a broader agenda to maintain power at all costs, even if it means undermining the principles of democratic integrity. There are growing fears that this strategy is not just about winning elections, but about ensuring a long-term grip on power, possibly to extend the UPND’s tenure through questionable means or to secure legal advantages, including immunity from prosecution for the former President. The tactics employed could be seen as a calculated move to create a parliamentary majority that would allow the UPND to push through laws that would favor them, potentially at the expense of Zambia’s democratic health.
Research into public sentiment shows that many Zambians are concerned about the increasing number of by-elections and the allegations of manipulation. Instances such as the disqualification of opposition candidates like Joseph Malanji and Bowman Lusambo have led to widespread accusations of electoral bias and unfairness. The disqualifications, coupled with reports of voter intimidation and other undemocratic practices during the Kawambwa by-election, have further eroded public confidence in the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ). Many believe that the ECZ is compromised, with allegations that some of its members may have sympathies toward the UPND, thus casting doubt on the neutrality of the electoral process.
These issues of electoral integrity are not just isolated events but part of a growing concern about the future of Zambia’s democracy. If the UPND continues to manipulate the system to its advantage, it could lead to long-term consequences for the country, potentially triggering a cycle of political instability and disenchantment among the electorate. The desire to cling to power, even at the expense of democratic norms, could haunt the party later, as the very actions taken to secure power could undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Biased Presiding of Parliamentary Debates: Speaker Nelly Mutti
The role of the Speaker of the National Assembly is to maintain impartiality and ensure that all parliamentary debates are conducted fairly, giving equal opportunities for all Members of Parliament (MPs) to express their views. However, Speaker Nelly Mutti’s tenure has drawn criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups for favoring the UPND government while sidelining opposition MPs.
Opposition lawmakers frequently accuse Speaker Mutti of dismissing their motions and points of order without due consideration, creating a perception of bias. For instance, critical motions aimed at addressing governance issues, corruption allegations, or cadre violence are often ruled out of order or not allowed for debate. This trend has led to frustration among opposition MPs, who feel their voices and constituencies are systematically silenced.
Moreover, the Speaker has been accused of selectively applying parliamentary rules to protect the ruling party from scrutiny. In contrast, opposition MPs are frequently reprimanded, suspended, or expelled from debates for minor infractions. This approach undermines the principle of a level playing field in parliamentary deliberations, reducing the institution’s credibility as a democratic forum.
Specific incidents have highlighted these concerns, such as when opposition MPs were forcefully removed from the chamber for protesting perceived electoral injustices. Observers argue that the Speaker’s handling of such matters reflects a partisan approach, further polarizing Zambia’s political environment. This alleged bias also extends to debates on critical national issues, where ruling party MPs are given more time and priority to articulate their positions, while opposition voices are limited or entirely excluded. Such practices erode public trust in the National Assembly’s ability to function as an independent and representative body.
For Zambia’s democracy to thrive, the Speaker’s role must be impartial, fostering constructive debate and holding the executive accountable regardless of political affiliations. Speaker Nelly Mutti’s leadership, however, has raised questions about the National Assembly’s effectiveness in upholding these democratic ideals.
Judiciary and Executive Interference
Zambia’s judiciary is facing increasing scrutiny over allegations of political interference, particularly concerning its recent decisions and the broader political landscape. There are growing concerns that the independence of the judiciary is being compromised, with some decisions appearing to reflect political motivations rather than an objective adherence to the law. A significant case in point is the eligibility issue surrounding former President Edgar Lungu, whose political future has been the subject of intense debate.
The recent judgment on Lungu’s eligibility for the 2021 election, which allowed him to run, has now been overshadowed by a new stance that seeks to disqualify him from the 2026 race. While the court’s decision on Lungu’s eligibility for 2021 has sparked public debate, many argue that the timing and reasoning behind the recent ruling are clearly crafted to prevent his candidacy in 2026. Critics claim that this move serves to protect President Hichilema’s hold on power by eliminating potential challengers. The judgment appears carefully worded to avoid declaring Lungu ineligible for 2021, thereby safeguarding the integrity of Hichilema’s election victory, while simultaneously closing the door on Lungu’s future political ambitions.
The treatment of this case, alongside other judicial decisions, has fueled suspicions that the judiciary is not entirely independent, but rather influenced by political pressures from the executive branch. This perception is further reinforced by the dismissal of previous judges and the appointment of new ones whose qualifications and neutrality have come under question. Critics have raised concerns that some of these newly appointed judges may not meet the required standards, with some arguing that their appointments serve more as political patronage than merit-based selections.
The role of the Attorney General has also been a point of contention. Critics claim that the Attorney General’s office has been complicit in defending actions that favor the executive and undermine the independence of the judiciary. From legal interpretations to the handling of sensitive cases, there are accusations that the Attorney General has been increasingly involved in a manner that prioritizes political stability over legal principles.
These developments have led many to question whether Zambia’s judiciary is truly an impartial institution or whether it is being used as a tool to solidify the ruling party’s power. If the judiciary continues to be seen as compromised, it risks eroding public trust in the legal system, undermining Zambia’s democratic processes, and ultimately making it more difficult to hold the government accountable.
Such interference with judicial independence poses a significant threat to Zambia’s democracy. A judiciary that is swayed by political interests cannot be expected to uphold the rule of law impartially. This jeopardizes the system of checks and balances that are essential to ensuring that power is not abused and that the rights of ordinary Zambians are protected.
Scandals and Governance Concerns
The UPND administration has faced a series of scandals that have raised significant concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability. One of the most contentious issues is the Lusaka-Ndola dual carriageway project. While Zambia is indirectly funding the $577 million project, the contractor has been allowed to collect tolls on the road, which many view as an exploitation of public funds for private benefit.
The cost of the project has been a point of contention. Initially, the Lusaka-Ndola dual carriageway was estimated at $1.2 billion under the previous administration. After the removal of Minister Ronald Chitotela, the cost was revised to around $650 million. However, under the UPND, the cost has risen again, raising concerns over financial management and transparency. Critics argue that these cost revisions reflect changes in the scope of the project rather than genuine cost reduction, further fueling doubts about the true value of the project.
Beyond infrastructure, the UPND administration has been embroiled in several scandals within key sectors. The Ministry of Health, for instance, has been plagued by corruption allegations, particularly regarding the mismanagement of funds for medical supplies. The infamous “Sugulite” scandal, involving the controversial sale of minerals under questionable circumstances, has raised further concerns about the government’s handling of Zambia’s natural resources.
In the agriculture sector, the government has also faced criticism over the dubious fertiliser supply deals. Allegations have surfaced regarding questionable suppliers and irregularities in the distribution of fertiliser, which has resulted in poor-quality products reaching farmers. This scandal has contributed to growing distrust among the farming community, which relies on government-supplied fertiliser for successful crop production.
In the mining sector, concerns over the sale of mines and lack of transparency in these transactions continue to dominate political discourse. Many fear that the sale of Zambia’s strategic national assets to foreign entities could undermine the country’s economic sovereignty and reduce control over valuable natural resources.
ZESCO, Zambia’s state-owned energy utility, has also been embroiled in corruption allegations, including an $80 million payment to China Exim Bank under questionable circumstances. This has been compounded by fears that the government is planning to privatize ZESCO, raising concerns about national sovereignty and the potential loss of control over the country’s energy supply.
These ongoing scandals across multiple sectors have eroded public trust in the UPND administration. While the government has made progress in certain areas, these persistent governance issues cast doubt on its commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsible management of Zambia’s resources.
Cadre Violence and Social Unrest
Violence perpetrated by political cadres remains a persistent issue, with UPND supporters accused of intimidating opponents and disrupting public order. Despite these concerns, the government has yet to take decisive action to address cadre violence. The lack of accountability emboldens perpetrators and diminishes the public’s trust in the administration’s ability to maintain law and order.
The Path Forward
As Zambia approaches the 2025 election cycle, the nation stands at a critical juncture. The imperative for genuine democratic practices, equitable justice, and transparent governance cannot be overstated. The electorate must demand accountability from leaders and resist any efforts to undermine the democratic principles that underpin the nation.
In the words of the late Harry Mwanga Nkumbula, “Democracy is not a gift; it is a task.” Zambians must actively engage in shaping their future, ensuring that governance structures reflect the will and aspirations of the people.
The past 3 years, 4 months, and 20 days under the UPND have been marked by significant challenges and controversies. Allegations of suppression of dissent, selective justice, and corruption have marred the administration’s tenure, raising serious questions about its commitment to democratic ideals. As the nation prepares for the next phase of its political journey, the call for a more transparent, inclusive, and accountable government grows louder.
Zambia’s democracy is at a crossroads. The decisions made today will shape the nation’s trajectory for generations to come.
Part 2 coming soon…
