The Editor Zambia
The detention of Lusaka businessman Valden Harry Findlay on allegations of espionage has triggered predictable debate, with his legal team questioning procedure and calling for greater transparency.
While the concerns raised by his lawyer, Milner Katolo, deserve acknowledgment within the framework of due process, it is equally important to recognise that matters of national security do not always lend themselves to the ordinary expectations of routine criminal proceedings. 
Espionage, by its very nature, is not a straightforward offence. It is clandestine and complex and often involves networks, intelligence flows, and sensitive State information.
To demand immediate disclosure of evidence or a conventional sequence of interviews before detention is to misunderstand the gravity and secrecy that such cases inherently require.
Law enforcement agencies must, in certain circumstances, act swiftly on intelligence to prevent potential harm to the State.
Police spokesperson Godfrey Chilabi has made it clear that Findlay’s apprehension was based on credible intelligence linked to national security.
This alone places the matter in a category far removed from ordinary criminal allegations because investigations of this magnitude often necessitate a degree of confidentiality, not to undermine justice, but to preserve it. Premature disclosure of information can compromise ongoing inquiries, alert potential collaborators, or even endanger lives.
Zambia is not unique in adopting such an approach. Historically, under the United National Independence Party (UNIP) era, the State possessed sweeping powers to detain individuals deemed a threat to national security without immediate public explanation.
While modern democratic standards have evolved, the underlying principle remains intact: the protection of the State sometimes requires decisive and pre-emptive action.
Globally, even advanced democracies employ similar measures. In the United Kingdom, authorities can freeze bank accounts suspected of being linked to illicit or national security-related activities without prior notice.
These actions are often taken on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than proven guilt, underscoring the preventative nature of such interventions. The burden may even shift to the individual to demonstrate the legitimacy of their activities.
In more stringent jurisdictions, the consequences are far more severe. China, for instance, treats espionage as one of the gravest offences against the State, with penalties that can extend to capital punishment.
While Zambia does not and should not emulate such extreme measures, these examples illustrate a universal truth: no nation treats espionage lightly.
Against this backdrop, the stance of law enforcement agencies is consistent with a broader commitment to safeguarding national interests.
This in line with President Hichilema’s repeated pronouncements on zero tolerance for activities that undermine the country’s stability, including economic sabotage such as the hoarding of fuel.
Espionage, which potentially threatens sovereignty and security, naturally falls within this uncompromising posture.
Critics, such as Nkana Member of Parliament Binwell Mpundu, have questioned why a summon was not issued instead of immediate detention.
While such arguments may hold in cases of lesser offences, they overlook the urgency that often characterises intelligence-led operations.
When there is reasonable suspicion that an individual may be involved in activities detrimental to national security, delay can be costly.
It must also be emphasised that detention does not equate to guilt. It is a procedural step that allows investigators to secure a suspect while establishing the full scope of alleged activities.
The law provides mechanisms for judicial oversight, and it is through these channels that the strength of the case against Findlay will ultimately be tested.
The call for transparency, while valid, must be balanced against the need for operational secrecy. Authorities have already indicated that further details will be provided at appropriate stages of the investigation. This measured approach reflects an attempt to uphold both national security and legal integrity.
In a climate where governance and institutional credibility are under intense public scrutiny, it is tempting to interpret every decisive action as overreach.
However, such a view risks undermining the very institutions tasked with protecting the nation. Trust in law enforcement must include confidence in their ability to act responsibly on intelligence, even when all the details are not immediately available to the public.
Ultimately, the detention of Valden Harry Findlay should be viewed within the broader context of national security imperatives.
Espionage is not an ordinary crime, and it can not be treated as such. Authorities are not only justified but obligated to act firmly when credible threats emerge.
As investigations unfold, the legal process will provide clarity, but until then, prudence demands that the state be allowed to do its work without undue interference or premature judgment.
