By Editor Zambia
Fugitive Patriotic Front Member Emmanuel Mwamba has written a letter to the regional body Southern African Development Community (SADC) reporting what he terms as national crisis.
According to the letter, Mwamba accuses President Hakainde Hichilema of “killing democracy” and “engineering the 2026 elections.” 
Before we treat these claims as gospel, let’s carefully examine the logic, the motives, and the facts with clear eyes, rather than political theatrics.
“He who comes into equity must come with clean hands” further the bible in Psalms 24 vs 4 says and we quote “He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully”.
Mwamba fled the country after sensing that his assault case on a police officer was serious and would land him in jail.
Mwamba is charged with one count of assault on a law enforcement officer. It is alleged that on June 14, 2023, in Lusaka, Mwamba assaulted Detective Inspector Steven Simwenda, a police officer with badge number 14598, while he was executing his official duties.
Has Mwamba informed SADC that he assaulted a police officer on duty?
When a political party writes to SADC alleging a national crisis, the first question any rational observer should ask is simple: Where is the evidence? And more importantly: Who benefits from painting the country as collapsing when ordinary Zambians can clearly see otherwise?
If Zambia is under “dictatorship,” why are opposition leaders campaigning freely across the country?
The PF claims that campaigns and political activities have been “banned.” Yet every week, their leaders hold press conferences, issue statements, tour provinces, and feature on radio shows often attacking the President with zero consequence.
If dissent is criminalized, how are these statements being delivered daily?
If the Public Order Act is being “weaponized,” why does the same PF refuse to support efforts to replace it with a modern, balanced law?
If law enforcement actions are “persecution,” should criminal allegations be ignored simply because the accused is a politician?
PF argues that arrests involving its members prove political interference.
But ask yourself:
Should criminal investigations be suspended for anyone who joins the opposition?
Is the rule of law strengthened by shielding political actors from accountability?
Under the previous PF administration, arrests of critics were routine. Under HH, the justice system is granting more bail, conducting more transparent court processes, and operating under far less political pressure. Accountability is not persecution unless one believes politicians should be above the law.
If civil service reforms are “ethnic cleansing,” why did the Auditor General repeatedly highlight massive politicization under PF?
Every credible governance audit between 2016 and 2021 flagged politically-aligned recruitment, tribal hiring, and systemic patronage under PF.
Now that a new administration is cleaning up the system replacing cadres with professionals PF calls it discrimination.
But the fair Socratic question is this:
Were those appointments legitimate in the first place?
And if not, should a government preserve political patronage for fear of being called names?
If ECZ appointments are “interference,” does Zambia not have constitutional procedures that every President follows?
Every head of state Kenneth Kaunda to Edgar Lungu appointed ECZ commissioners. It is normal, lawful, and constitutional.
The PF’s real grievance is not procedure, but power: they want commissioners who answer to them, not ones who work independently.
So here’s the Careful question:
If an independent ECZ was truly the goal, why did PF fight every reform that aimed to strengthen its autonomy?
If PF has internal disputes, how does that become evidence of state interference?
Factional fights have consumed PF since its loss in 2021. Court rulings, internal elections, parallel structures all of them are well-documented and self-inflicted.
So we must ask:
How does a party that cannot govern itself suddenly accuse the state of choosing its leaders?
If evidence exists, why hasn’t it been produced in court?
If the new constitution review process is broadly consultative, why is PF the only major group unwilling to participate constructively?
The Church, civil society, and experts have all raised concerns but they’re at the table, providing input and PF is not.
Instead, it writes letters to foreign bodies.
So the Careful question becomes:
How does one influence a process they refuse to engage in?
If the imprisonment of Hon. Raphael Nakacinda is “political,” should courts ignore contempt, defamation, or incitement simply because the offender is a politician?
Judicial independence means the courts decide based on law not political pressure.
If PF believes the courts have erred, the appeal process exists.
What PF actually seeks is immunity, not justice.
If Zambia is supposedly “sliding into chaos,” why are economic reforms, investor confidence, and regional diplomacy improving?
Authoritarian states do not attract increasing FDI.
They do not host transparent debt restructuring talks.
They do not open up procurement, digitize systems, or expand civic freedoms online.
So we must ask: Is the PF describing Zambia as it actually is or Zambia as it wishes to portray it for political survival?
Final Question: Who benefits from portraying Zambia as unstable?
Certainly not the citizens.
Not the investors.
Not the region.
Only the political actors who fear fair competition in 2026.
PF’s letter to SADC is not a warning it is a campaign message disguised as diplomacy. And the region has seen this script before: a party struggling internally, losing public trust, and attempting to outsource its political battles to foreign institutions.
Zambia remains stable.
Its democracy is functioning.
Its institutions are being rebuilt after years of erosion.
And 2026 will be decided not by foreign letters, but by the Zambian people.
