By EditorZambia
Government’s response to the latest corruption perception findings has demonstrated a rare blend of accountability, confidence and critical reflection.
By openly acknowledging public concern while also interrogating the criteria used to assess governance performance, the administration has signaled that it is neither dismissive of criticism nor blindly accepting of external judgment. 
Speaking during a press briefing in Lusaka, Information and Media Minister Cornelius Mweetwa made it clear that the reported drop in Zambia’s corruption perception score from 39 to 37 is not being ignored. Instead, it is being treated as a reminder that the fight against corruption is continuous and demands sustained effort. At the same time, the minister firmly pointed out that significant structural reforms introduced since 2021 must be factored into any fair assessment of progress.
It is this balance that deserves recognition. In many jurisdictions, governments confronted with unfavourable ratings often retreat into denial or hostility. Others rush to embrace every external metric without question, even when those metrics may not fully capture domestic realities. Zambia’s approach, as articulated in the briefing, charts a more mature path. It acknowledges shortcomings while defending tangible reforms already underway.
Among the reforms highlighted was the establishment of the Financial and Economic Crimes Court (FIC), a specialised institution designed to accelerate the handling of corruption related cases.
For years, protracted investigations and delayed trials weakened public confidence in accountability mechanisms. The creation of a dedicated court has helped reduce delays that previously allowed cases to linger indefinitely. The fact that both convictions and acquittals have been recorded under this system underscores its credibility. Justice, after all, is not measured solely by convictions but by fairness and due process.
The government also pointed to asset forfeitures and prosecutions involving public officials as evidence that enforcement agencies are functioning without political shielding. In a political environment where accusations of selective justice are common, visible action against individuals in positions of influence reinforces the message that accountability applies across the board. The UPND administration’s emphasis on institutional independence rather than personal targeting reflects a commitment to building systems that outlast political cycles.
Equally significant was the minister’s willingness to question aspects of the perception index itself. Corruption perception indices, by their very nature, rely heavily on opinion-based surveys and expert assessments. While such tools offer useful comparative benchmarks, they are not immune to methodological limitations. Public sentiment can be influenced by high profile scandals, media narratives or economic hardship, even when reforms are being implemented simultaneously.
Minister Mweetwa’s query about the empirical tools used to sustain lower scores despite visible legal changes is, therefore, not an attempt to evade responsibility. Rather, it is a legitimate call for transparency in how global governance ratings are compiled. Different international institutions often produce contrasting assessments of the same country. This divergence raises reasonable questions about weighting criteria, sampling methods, and the balance between perception and measurable institutional change.
The government’s openness to dialogue with civil society organisations contributing to the index is particularly commendable. Constructive engagement can clarify how ratings are determined and ensure that reforms undertaken domestically are accurately understood. If Zambia is to improve its standing, collaboration between state institutions and watchdog organisations will be essential.
Importantly, the minister also addressed issues that may have shaped public perception during the reporting period. Revelations from forensic audits into procurement practices in the health sector and concerns about misuse of constituency development funds undoubtedly influenced public discourse. However, the exposure of wrongdoing through audits and investigations should not automatically be interpreted as deterioration. On the contrary, systems that uncover and publicise irregularities demonstrate a level of transparency and self-correction that is absent in more opaque environments.
There is a crucial distinction between the existence of corruption and the willingness to confront it. Countries that suppress investigative findings may appear stable in perception surveys for a time, but such stability is often superficial. Zambia’s current trajectory, characterised by public audits and legal proceedings, suggests a governance culture that is increasingly intolerant of abuse.
The government’s rejection of suggestions that oversight institutions operate under political pressure also merits careful consideration. Independence must ultimately be judged by outcomes. If courts are hearing cases without interference and enforcement agencies are pursuing investigations across political lines, then institutional credibility is strengthened. Financial constraints faced by oversight bodies are part of broader economic challenges and should not automatically be interpreted as deliberate weakening.
The administration’s call for citizens to resist narratives portraying legal proceedings as persecution is another important element of the response. Anti-corruption efforts can only succeed if the public maintains confidence in lawful processes. Constitutional provisions provide the framework for immunity, and beyond those limits, accountability must apply uniformly. Reinforcing this principle strengthens democratic norms.
While defending its record, the government has not claimed perfection. The target of reaching a corruption perception score of 40 by 2026 indicates an acknowledgement that further work remains. Strengthening institutional capacity, expanding oversight mechanisms, and deepening collaboration with civic organisations are steps that align with this ambition.
Ultimately, the minister’s media engagement reflected a government willing to engage with criticism without surrendering its narrative of reform. It defended measurable progress, questioned methodological ambiguities, and reaffirmed its commitment to transparency. Such a posture reflects political maturity and an understanding that governance ratings, while influential, must be interpreted with nuance.
Zambia’s journey toward stronger accountability will not be defined by a single score. It will be measured by the durability of institutions, the fairness of courts, and the consistency of enforcement. By acknowledging concerns while scrutinizing the tools used to assess them, the government has signalled that it intends to shape that journey rather than be defined by perception alone.
