What happened? What is the role of journalists in such debates?
On May 8, the United States of America (USA) Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales announced that his government would cut $50 million in annual aid to Zambia’s health sector due to the government’s failure to stop “systemic theft” of donated medicines and medical supplies.
Addressing the media at a press briefing in Lusaka, the ambassador further stated that from 2021 to 2023, about 
2,000 pharmacies across zambia were allegedly found stocking and selling about 95 per cent medicines donated by the USA government.
Why has the USA decided to cut the medical aid to Zambia?
According to ambassador Gonzales, there was little or no tangible action by the Zambian government to curb this systematic theft of USA donated medicines.
Has the Zambian Government addressed the ambassador’s concerns?
Yes, it has. Here’s how:
On October 4, 2024, the government, in consultation with donors and stakeholders, commissioned a forensic audit to uncover the systematic theft of drugs in the distribution chain.
The Office of the Auditor General, in collaboration with Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), initiated a forensic audit to investigate the thefts.
The decision to conduct a forensic audit stemmed from discrepancies in the report submitted by the American embassy, which lacked crucial data. Specifically, medicines purchased from the alleged pharmacies were only identified by batch numbers, without any additional credible information to trace their source.
Given the absence of critical evidence needed to hold perpetrators accountable, a detailed forensic audit was deemed necessary.
The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security, Jack Mwiimbu, said PwC had completed a forensic audit into the theft of medicines across public institutions, and the findings had been handed over to the security wings for possible prosecution.
In addition, the Minister revealed that 401 facilities across the country had been raided as part of the ongoing investigations. These operations led to the arrest of 75 individuals to answer to the offences under the Medicines and Allied Substances Act and the Penal Code
However, it is disappointing to note that all the journalists that covered ambassador Gonzales’s presser based their coverage on the reported speech as given by the ambassador without carrying out their own investigation into the matter. Both print and electronic media were abuzz with the usual “the Ambassador said this, the Ambassador said that, he said, he said,” without double checking the figures the ambassador gave out, whether they tallied with what was obtaining on the ground! The journalists never even bothered to get the government’s side of the story. What has happened to investigative journalism that yester years scribes used to dig out hidden issues of human interest?
The story of theft of donated medicines would have made a lot of sense had the journalists and health sector stakeholders carried out their own investigations into the sad and necessarily following a one-sided argument.
There was a need for all stakeholders, journalists included, to carefully analyse the data given out by the American ambassador so as to give the public accurate insights. This way, both the USA and Zambian governments would develop practical solutions to address this longstanding problem.
Driving a biased narrative, as the case is now with some section of the media, is misleading the public. Especially the media, not to seen as going against the principles of ethical journalism, should independently verify the facts on the ground and give the public well-balanced information on this matter.
It is no wonder that the Chairman of the Association of Citizen-Owned Pharmaceutical Companies Gallen Sichilima has not only disputed the USA ambassador’s revelations and described it as exaggerated and dangerously flawed.
Mr. Sichilima insists that Zambia has 1,396 pharmacies only. If indeed Zambia has only 1,396 pharmacies, it raises questions on how the investigation by the embassy could have sampled from 2000 pharmacies!
It must be noted that there is no dispute to the fact that the USA embassy conducted the investigation into this matter, but the question that arises is on the figures and levels of pilferage. Did the embassy visit the same pharmacies twice or more?
We need to ask ourselves very pertinent questions
What methodology was used to gather and analyse the data collected? What are the names of the pharmacies visited? Why can’t the USA embassy make this report public for possible scrutiny? Are the conclusions of this investigation supported by evidence?
The lack of convincing evidence makes the so-called report not objective and merely a sensational tale to excite the gallery.
How does the report align with other credible sources on the same topic?
The second aspect of this debate brings important questions about the pharmaceutical distribution chain that needs to be addressed. Specifically, are the USA-donated drugs exclusively manufactured for this purpose? If not, are these drugs procured from the same manufacturers and suppliers accessible to private pharmacies? This is a critical aspect of resolving this matter.
It is important for people to understand whether these drugs are sourced from the open market and then donated to Zambia. We understand that both government and private pharmacies receive stock from the same manufacturers, sometimes even from the same production batch, especially when the government’s order is too small to meet the required batch quantity for exclusive production.
According to Mr. Sichilima, Zambia is a small country, and many of the orders do not meet the manufacturer’s minimum. So, the same batch can end up being split between the public and private sectors. If that is the case, it would mean the medicine was not stolen. Both public and private entities can source from the same source and from the same batch number.
Is the USA ambassador to Zambia playing to the public gallery to benefit some section of political players? His claims that government is not acting seem as though he is not aware that a private firm PricewaterhouseCoopers was engaged to conduct a forensic audit to get to the bottom of this matter?
Journalists, we can do better.
