By EditorZambia
ZAMBIA is entering a critical era—one in which citizens are finally refusing to sit quietly as national institutions are steered away from their mandates and into the hands of individuals pursuing personal, political, or factional agendas.
The ongoing petition within the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has not just shaken the legal fraternity; it has ignited a broader, long-overdue national conversation about the urgent need to reclaim institutions from those attempting to use them as tools in partisan battles. 
The petition against LAZ’s recent conduct is not a trivial uprising nor the work of a disgruntled minority.
It is a principled and courageous action by members who recognise that the credibility of any professional body rests on neutrality, integrity, and fidelity to its founding laws.
When an institution entrusted with safeguarding legal professionalism begins to appear politically aligned—or worse, captured—the alarm bells can not be ignored.
LAZ Must Be Bigger Than Any Individual
For decades, LAZ has been a bastion of legal credibility in Zambia. Yet recent behaviour attributed to its leadership has raised serious concerns.
Members have argued, with justification, that LAZ has wandered into partisan territory by aligning its public positions with the Oasis Forum without adequate consultation from its own membership.
To be clear: civil society has a right to advocate.
The Oasis Forum can speak, lobby, and organise.
But the pressing issue is whether LAZ, through selective statements and associations, has begun acting not as an independent legal body but as an amplifier of political opinion.
The petitioners’ demands are not unreasonable; they are fundamental.
They want transparency. They want clarity on who authorised public statements.
They want assurance that LAZ’s voice is the product of its members—not the personal commentary of its president, one Lungisani Zulu, nor the influence of external alliances.
This is not rebellion; it is accountability. It is how institutions remain institutions, not personal podiums.
A Warning to All Civil Society Bodies: Neutrality Is Not Optional
The situation with LAZ is not isolated. Citizens are now noticing similar trends in other civil society organisations, including those meant to represent broad, diverse national interests.
Take the case of the Non-Governmental Organisations Coordinating Council (NGOCC) under self-styled iron lady, Beauty Katebe.
Many Zambians are increasingly uneasy with signs that Katebe is repositioning her organisations into bases for personal political advancement.
When individuals speak as institutions—using the authority of thousands of members to air, what are essentially political opinions—trust erodes.
The cornerstone of civil society’s power is public confidence. When that confidence is broken, when organisations appear to serve political alliances rather than national interests, their voices become compromised and their legitimacy declines.
The petition against LAZ should therefore serve as a wake-up call to every organisation in Zambia.
Your mandate belongs to the people you represent, not to the personal ambitions or ideological preferences of your leaders.
The Catholic Church Issue: Criticism Is Not an Attack on Faith
The Catholic Church remains one of the most respected institutions in Zambia, with a rich history of moral guidance, humanitarian service, and social advocacy.
But even the most established institutions must confront the actions of individual leaders when those actions blur the line between pastoral duty and political activism.
The concern many Catholics are now expressing is simple: when clerics like our two good holy archbishops, Alick Banda and Ignatius Chama enter political disputes under the banner of the Church, they risk compromising the spiritual neutrality the faith demands.
No priest or bishop—no matter how senior—should presume to speak politically as the Church when they are, in reality, expressing personal opinions.
Criticising conduct is not an attack on the Church. It is a defence of the Church. It is an appeal for clergy to remain above political partisanship, to unify rather than divide, and to keep sacred institutions from becoming battlegrounds for political contestation.
Zambia’s democracy works best when faith leaders provide moral clarity—not political alignment.
Citizens Must Draw a Line: Institutions Are Not Personal Property
The common thread running through LAZ, NGOCC, and the concerned clergy is unmistakable: institutions are being judged not by their mandates but by the conduct of individuals who temporarily occupy leadership positions.
This confusion must end. Zambians must insist on a clear separation: Institutions must remain neutral, professional, and guided by their constitutions.
Individuals are free to hold political views—but must not project those views as the official institutional position.
When leaders use institutional platforms to promote personal agendas, they undermine the organisation’s reputation, weaken public trust, and invite internal fragmentation.
The petitioners within LAZ are not troublemakers; they are protectors of institutional integrity.
Their example should inspire other members of civil society, religious communities, and professional bodies to do the same.
Democracy is strengthened when citizens intervene to correct institutions that begin to drift.
A National Crusade for Institutional Purity
Zambia is entering a new chapter—one in which citizens are wiser, more assertive, and unwilling to be manipulated by individuals hiding behind institutional titles.
The petition against LAZ should not be dismissed or politicised. It is part of a broader, necessary movement demanding that every national institution return to its rightful foundation: fairness, neutrality, and service to all Zambians.
We must protect LAZ.
We must protect NGOCC.
We must protect the Church.
