By EditorZambia
When a priest steps forward with allegations as serious as “decomposed bodies coming from a government mortuary,” the country is expected to pause, listen, and investigate.
But when that priest has an unmistakable political scent about him, the pause must be followed by one more step: critical thinking. 
Father Andrew Mukosa, OFM Conv, is not an unknown figure. In Luapula’s political theatre, he has long been whispered about as a cleric who comfortably straddles the border between the sanctuary and opposition politics, particularly the Patriotic Front (PF)’s Orbit.
That does not automatically invalidate his concerns, but it does demand that we interrogate his motivations with clarity.
Let’s break this down with the calm, piercing lens of critical reasoning. What do we actually know?
Fr. Mukosa insists he has been presiding over funeral masses of “decomposed bodies” allegedly from the Mansa General Hospital mortuary. He attributes this to load-shedding and faulty refrigeration.
Luapula Province Permanent Secretary Prudence Chinama has categorically denied this, calling it a “blatant lie.”
She has offered the simplest counterclaim: stable power, reliable backup generators, and a functioning, though old facility.
Two sides. One sworn to pastoral truth, another bound to administrative accountability. But truth is not determined by collars or titles. It is verified by evidence.
What evidence has been tabled by the Catholic Church priest?
Fr. Mukosa offers anecdotes. Strong ones, emotionally compelling, but still anecdotes. Fr. Mukosa has not provided dates, no documented complaints, no mortuary logs, no medical reports, no photographs, no corroboration from hospital staff, or bereaved families willing to go public.
When someone says, “I do not want to argue with anyone. My statement is the same,” it sounds virtuous until you recognise that refusal to engage can also be a refusal to substantiate.
Critical thinking asks: Are we being given facts or is this pastoral theatre with a political undertone?
What alternative explanations exist? Let us play out the priest’s logic: If a body decomposes within 48–72 hours inside a mortuary, the most plausible causes are: Total refrigeration failure; Extended power outage without backup; Gross negligence in handling bodies.
But the mortuary serves hundreds of families. If systemic failure were ongoing, why is only one priest speaking? Why aren’t families complaining? Why aren’t funeral homes raising alarms? Why is this not a province-wide crisis?
A Socratic question follows naturally: Is it more likely that a single mortuary is secretly failing in silence or that a politically-inclined priest is amplifying isolated cases into a narrative?
What is the political payoff?
This is where the priest’s history matters not to tarnish him but to understand incentive structures.
A religious figure aligned with an opposition faction gains political mileage by:
- Painting government services as collapsing;
- Positioning himself as the fearless truth-teller;
- Stirring public outrage without needing hard evidence;
- Leveraging the moral authority of the Church to frame political criticism as pastoral concern.
It’s a classic strategy: moral robe on the outside, partisan engine underneath.
Could the priest be right? Absolutely, no responsible thinker dismisses concerns about public health infrastructure. If the mortuary has problems, they must be exposed, fixed, and not politicised.
But the burden of proof lies where the allegation originates.
The provincial administration has invited scrutiny by going on record. That is accountability.
Fr. Mukosa has invited sympathy while refusing scrutiny, that is evasion.
The uncomfortable but necessary question is if the priest had no political leanings at all, would he present these concerns differently?
With documentation? With witnesses?
With willingness to engage the hospital and government openly instead of issuing media soundbites?
The Socratic method forces us to strip emotion away until only credibility remains.
Right now, the priest’s story has holes large enough to let politics pass through effortlessly.
The conclusion nobody wants to state aloud is that the decomposed bodies debate is not about the mortuary fridges. It’s more about a deeper national problem, which is the use of religious platforms to wage political battles.
When the clergy become political actors, truth becomes collateral damage.
If Fr. Mukosa has evidence, let him present it. If he does not, then he must stop using the pulpit as a loudspeaker for partisan narratives wrapped in religious concern.
Zambia deserves honest institutional critique, not political sermons masquerading as truth.
