By EditorZambia
Political commentary in Zambia has once again taken a dramatic turn, this time over events at the Ndola Archdiocese involving Archbishop Benjamin Phiri and President Hakainde Hichilema.
Historian and commentator Sishuwa Sishuwa has expressed surprise that the Archbishop permitted a politician to address congregants from the pulpit, less than a month after the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter discouraging the use of church pulpits for partisan political purposes. 
Yet a closer examination suggests that the outrage may be misplaced and selectively applied.
The Catholic Church in Zambia has long played a visible role in national life. From advocating for multiparty democracy in the early 1990s to speaking out on governance and social justice issues, the Church has never confined itself to purely spiritual matters. It has maintained that its mission includes guiding the moral conscience of the nation. In that context, the presence of political leaders at church events is neither new nor extraordinary.
The recent pastoral letter by the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops urged caution against turning pulpits into campaign platforms. However, interpreting every appearance by an elected official as a violation risks oversimplifying the matter. Presidents and opposition leaders alike regularly attend church services across denominations. When invited or accorded protocol recognition, they may greet congregants or offer remarks. Such gestures do not automatically amount to partisan campaigning.
It is, therefore, worth asking whether Archbishop Benjamin Phiri’s decision truly contradicted the collective position of the bishops or whether it has been amplified to score political points. Churches are not hermetically sealed from society. They are living institutions operating within political communities. If a Head of State attends Mass and is acknowledged, that does not necessarily convert the sanctuary into a rally ground.
Sishuwa Sishuwa’s assertion that the Archbishop has created a dangerous template also invites scrutiny. The argument presumes that similar requests from opposition leaders would be denied. Yet no evidence has been presented to demonstrate such selective treatment. The Catholic Church’s reputation in Zambia has been built over decades on impartiality and consistency. It has criticized governments of different political persuasions when it is deemed necessary, including the current administration and its predecessors.
Historical memory is important here. During the tenure of former President Edgar Lungu, critics often accused segments of the clergy like archbishop Alick Banda of being too close to the Patriotic Front (PF) administration. At the same time, other church leaders were among the most vocal critics of government excesses. The Church is not monolithic. Individual bishops may exercise pastoral discretion while remaining within the broader doctrinal and institutional framework.
To single-out Archbishop Phiri as uniquely compromising the Church’s standing may, therefore, overlook the complexity of Church- State relations.
The Catholic Church operates under canon law but also within Zambia’s constitutional order. It balances its prophetic voice with the pastoral duty to minister to all, including political leaders. If the president attends church, he remains a member of the faithful as well as a public office holder.
Calls for the Vatican City to intervene risk inflating what may be a routine matter of protocol into an international controversy. The Holy See traditionally allows local bishops considerable autonomy in managing their dioceses unless there is a clear doctrinal breach. No such breach has been demonstrated in this case.
The deeper issue may be consistency in commentary. If the principle is that pulpits should not be used for partisan agendas, then that standard must apply across political cycles and personalities. Outrage can not be situational. What was tolerated or defended in one era cannot suddenly become intolerable in another simply because the political actors have changed.
Ultimately, the Church’s credibility rests not on denying political leaders access to worship spaces but on ensuring that those spaces are not exploited for explicit campaigning. Without clear evidence that a campaign message was delivered, accusations of defiance and compromise may be premature.
In a polarised environment, measured analysis is essential. Surprise and indignation may generate attention, but they do little to clarify the boundary between faith and politics. Zambia’s democratic maturity will depend not only on how politicians behave in church but also on how commentators apply standards consistently, regardless of who occupies State House.
