By EditorZambia
For years, the Oasis Forum has projected itself as one of Zambia’s most respected civil society coalitions, an institution supposedly anchored in neutrality, moral authority, and civic responsibility.
Its mandate has always been clear: defend constitutionalism, promote citizen rights, and safeguard democratic processes without aligning with any political force. 
But the recent Prime TV interview featuring Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe, who also serves in the NGOCC leadership, has raised fresh and unsettling questions.
Her direct call for opposition parties to reduce the number of presidential candidates in order to avoid “splitting votes” has triggered significant public debate.
Her words were not interpreted as civic guidance—but as a partisan strategy dressed in civil society language.
For many Zambians, this interview was the moment when the mask finally slipped.
A CIVIL SOCIETY LEADER OR AN OPPOSITION STRATEGIST?
Katebe’s interview was anything but ambiguous. She criticised what she called “internal confusion” among opposition political parties and urged them to unite behind one contender. She warned that having multiple aspirants from the same political blocs undermines the opposition’s effectiveness.
This is not a civic education message.This is not about governance. This is not about accountability. This is electoral strategy, the kind of language normally reserved for political consultants hired to help dethrone an incumbent.
Her comments prompted strong reactions from governance experts and political observers, who questioned whether the Oasis Forum—and by extension NGOCC—has quietly drifted away from the impartiality that defines credible civil society work.
If civil society begins openly advising political parties on how to win elections, then the boundary between NGO and political actor has been erased.
NEUTRALITY IS NOT OPTIONAL—IT IS THE FOUNDATION
The NGOCC, where Katebe holds senior influence, has a crystal-clear mandate. It exists to promote women’s empowerment, gender equity, and the removal of systemic barriers that prevent women from participating fully in the political, economic, and social life of Zambia.
NGOCC is a respected voice precisely because it is expected to rise above partisan interests.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) operate under strict norms: They must not endorse political parties.
They must not advise groups on electoral tactics. They must not campaign openly or subtly for any political faction.
They must serve the public, not political groups. Their credibility hinges on political neutrality. Without it, their legitimacy collapses.
By stepping into the political ring with advice tailored specifically for opposition parties, Katebe risked dragging NGOCC and Oasis Forum into a political corner they are not permitted to occupy.
THE DANGERS OF “CIVIL SOCIETY PARTISANSHIP.”
Civil society plays a critical role in strengthening democracy—but only when it acts independently.
When CSOs appear to champion political parties, several dangers emerge:
- Public Trust ErodesOnce citizens begin to suspect that NGOs are political actors disguised as advocacy groups, their moral authority evaporates. Every statement becomes suspect.
- Policy Advocacy Loses Weight. Government institutions will begin to question whether advocacy positions are driven by public interest or political agendas.3. Internal DemoralisationMembers who joined the organisation believing it to be non-partisan feel betrayed, which compromises internal cohesion.
- Donor Relationships Become Jeopardised. Most donors strictly prohibit their funds from being used for partisan activity. Perceptions alone can damage funding streams.This is why Katebe’s remarks have sparked national controversy.
THE REAL ISSUE: A CIVIL SOCIETY COALITION DRIFTING OFF COURSE
The uproar surrounding Katebe is not simply about her personal opinion. It speaks to a larger, deeper question: Has the Oasis Forum lost its founding identity?
The Oasis Forum was established to defend civil liberties and constitutional order—especially during moments when Zambia faced political turbulence.
Its moral standing came from the fact that it was not beholden to any party, any region, or any political ideology.
That is what gave its voice weight.
If the Oasis Forum becomes just another actor in the political arena, then it will be judged like one—scrutinised, criticised, and distrusted.
IS THERE AN AGENDA? THE PUBLIC DEMANDS CLARITY
Zambians are asking a legitimate question: Why would a civil society leader advise political parties on how to defeat the incumbent government?
There are only two plausible explanations: She personally supports a particular political outcome.
The Oasis Forum, knowingly or unknowingly, has drifted into partisan advocacy. None of these explanations is healthy for democracy.
The Oasis Forum owes Zambians answers. Clear ones.
NGOCC AND THE COST OF POLITICAL MISSTEPS
NGOCC has been one of Zambia’s most trusted civil society bodies. Its work on gender-based violence, women’s political participation, and policy reform has transformed lives. But trust is delicate. It can be lost in a single moment of political miscalculation.
If NGO leaders are going to weigh in on electoral strategies, how can the public distinguish them from party spokespersons?
How can the organisation claim neutrality?
How can it demand accountability from government when it appears to be aligned with opposition interests?
NGOCC must confront these questions urgently to protect its credibility.
THE BIGGER LESSON FOR CIVIL SOCIETY
This incident should serve as a wake-up call to the wider civil society community.
Civil society’s power lies in its neutrality.Its influence lies in its independence.Its moral authority lies in its impartiality.
The moment a CSO begins to play political chess, advising who should unite with whom and how to defeat a sitting President, it steps outside its mandate.
Once outside, returning is difficult.
A CALL FOR INTROSPECTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Beauty Katebe’s comments have ignited a national debate—rightly so.
They force the country to examine whether some civil society actors are crossing lines that should never be crossed.
Zambia needs strong, impartial civil society organisations that speak truth to power without bending toward any political faction.
If Oasis Forum and NGOCC wish to uphold the respect they have earned over the years, they must provide clarity, reaffirm neutrality, and draw firm boundaries between genuine civic advocacy and partisan political strategy.
Civil society must remain the referee—not a player. The moment it enters the match, it loses all authority to officiate.
