“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
• Winston Churchill
By EditorZambia
When the Catholic Church Archdiocese of Lusaka issued a statement accusing President Hakainde Hichilema of “bad governance,” “playing with fire,” and allegedly threatening Zambia’s democracy, many expected a theological reflection or a call to constructive dialogue. 
Instead, what emerged was a deeply political manifesto disguised as pastoral guidance.
When a religious institution ventures into political commentary, the public has every right to scrutinise the arguments with the same rigour applied to any other partisan claim.
What follows is a systematic dismantling of the assertions made in the document’s arguments that, when examined closely, collapse under the weight of exaggeration, selective interpretation, and misrepresentation of constitutional realities.
1. “The Presidency is playing with fire… Zambia’s stability is too important for reckless political experimentation.”
This opening accusation is emotionally charged but substantively hollow.
The Archdiocese provides no concrete evidence of “reckless experimentation” by the President. Instead, vague insinuation is deployed to create fear rather than inform citizens.
If stability is the concern, then clarity is indispensable. Which decisions are destabilising? Which policies constitute “experimentation”? None are specified.
Governance must be judged on measurable actions such as economic reforms, rule-of-law improvements, anti-corruption efforts, and not on metaphoric warnings designed to frame leadership as dangerous without proving why.
2. “Bill 7… will cause severe stress on the nation.”
Again, there is no attempt to explain how or why. Criticising a constitutional amendment is legitimate. But, a constitution is rewritten or amended through legal frameworks, parliamentary processes, public debate, and institutional checks.
Characterising an amendment as a personal conspiracy “championed by Archbishop Alick Banda, for himself” is misleading. No President, Hichilema or any before him, can unilaterally impose a constitutional amendment.
If Archbishop Banda is objecting to specific clauses in Bill 7, he should point to them rather than portray constitutional debate as dictatorial imposition.
Democracy requires public institutions to refine laws, not resist legislative processes simply because the initiator is the sitting President.
3. “The government is unyielding to the voices of wisdom and reason.”
This phrase implies that only the Church possesses wisdom, and dissenting institutions do not. Democracy does not reserve wisdom for clergy; it distributes it among citizens, lawmakers, civil society, and independent bodies.
To assert spiritual authority as political superiority is itself undemocratic.
Moreover, the government has repeatedly engaged civil society, traditional leaders, and parliamentary committees. Zambia’s political system includes debate by design.
Disagreement is not “unyielding.” It is democracy functioning as intended.
4. “We call upon all Catholics to join demonstrations…”
A religious institution urging peaceful demonstration is not inherently problematic.
But doing so on the basis of unsubstantiated claims contradicts the very moral authority it invokes. If the call is to be credible, it must rest on facts, not rhetorical alarmism.
Furthermore, the Church’s historic role is to unite, not mobilise congregants into political blocs. Once a church calls for demonstrations against a democratically elected government, it crosses from moral persuasion into political activism. It is entitled to do so, but it must also be ready to defend its claims with evidence, not emotion.
5. “This gathering is not an act of defiance…”
This statement is contradicted by the entire tone and content of the pastoral letter. It is defiant, explicitly so. It accuses the Head of State of endangering the nation, ignoring wisdom, and undermining democracy. Defiance is not wrong; dishonesty about motives is. If a religious leader wants to oppose government, he should say so clearly instead of cloaking political resistance in theological language.
6. “Our faith calls us to be peacemakers… but silence in the face of oppression is complicity.”
Peacemaking requires impartiality. Yet the statement frames the current administration as oppressive without referencing any oppression:
– Are citizens barred from speech? No.
– Are political opponents imprisoned without trial? No.
– Are journalists silenced by the State? No.
– Is civil society banned? No.
The Archbishop’s language implies conditions that simply do not exist in Zambia today. To equate parliamentary debate with oppression dilutes real historical oppression in Zambia and elsewhere, a disservice to citizens who lived through genuinely repressive eras.
7. “Let our presence be peaceful… pray together… carry yourselves with dignity.”
This is perhaps the only point in the document that is beyond dispute. Peaceful expression is a constitutional right. But it must also be grounded in informed reasoning.
A demonstration based on misinformation is not an exercise of truth; it is the manipulation of public emotion. Dignity requires accuracy. Peace requires honesty.
8. “Zambia belongs to her people, not to oppressive laws.”
This rhetorical flourish attempts to depict the government as imposing “oppressive laws” without identifying a single oppressive clause. The language is strategically vague: it triggers emotional reaction without the burden of supporting detail.
If anything, the current administration has expanded civic space, restored public order laws, promoted judicial independence, intensified anti-corruption prosecutions, and strengthened transparency mechanisms.
Oppressive laws are those that silence the public. Today, citizens, including church leaders, freely criticise the Head of State. That freedom proves the very opposite of what the statement suggests.
9. “The Freedom Statue is a symbol of sacrifice and liberation… fitting for protest.”
Indeed, the Freedom Statue represents liberation. But it also symbolizes responsibility, resistance to colonial rule, not resistance to parliamentary amendments. Invoking its imagery to rally protests against a president elected transparently and legitimately risks trivialising Zambia’s liberation heritage.
Liberation belongs to the people, not any single political or religious institution. Citizens protect that legacy through constitutional processes, not by framing every disagreement as a national crisis.
A Call for Reasoned, Fact-Based Dialogue
The Archdiocese’s statement rests not on factual political analysis but on sweeping metaphors, emotional warnings, and selective interpretation of constitutional processes.
Criticism of government is healthy, even necessary. But criticism must be anchored in truth, evidence, and balanced reasoning.
Zambia deserves a discourse grounded in facts rather than fear, in engagement rather than accusation, in constitutionalism rather than clerical alarmism.
President Hakainde Hichilema, as any President, should be scrutinised. But scrutiny must be fair, clear, and specific.
On this occasion, the Archdiocese’s statement falls short of that standard.
