The Editor Zambia
Dr. Lawrence Mwelwa’s recent commentary on the alleged K146 billion lost through illicit financial flows presents a dramatic and emotionally charged argument, but one that ultimately falls short of balance, context, and fairness.
While his concerns about financial leakages are valid in principle, his conclusions ignore both historical realities and the tangible progress currently being made under President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration. 
To begin with, Dr. Mwelwa’s framing of the issue suggests that these financial irregularities are a recent phenomenon or, worse still, a failure unique to the current government.
This is simply not accurate because illicit financial flows are deeply entrenched structural challenges that have evolved over decades, with roots traceable to previous administrations, including the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) and the Patriotic Front (PF).
These systemic weaknesses—ranging from weak enforcement mechanisms to porous financial oversight frameworks—cannot be dismantled overnight.
What is notably absent in Dr. Mwelwa’s analysis is any acknowledgement of the deliberate and sustained efforts being undertaken to address these very loopholes.
Under the stewardship of Finance Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane, the government has introduced a series of fiscal and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening transparency, enhancing revenue collection, and tightening controls within public financial management systems.
These are not theoretical interventions—they are practical measures already yielding results.
For instance, improved domestic revenue mobilisation, increased digitalisation of tax systems, and enhanced oversight in key sectors such as mining have begun to plug long-standing leakages.
The strengthening of institutions like the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and law enforcement agencies has also led to more robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms.
While Dr. Mwelwa demands immediate arrests and recoveries – he overlooks the fact that building watertight cases for prosecution requires due process, evidence gathering, and institutional coordination—processes that are already underway.
It is, therefore, misleading to suggest that government is merely “reporting” corruption without acting on it.
The reality is that action is being taken, albeit in a structured and sustainable manner rather than through reactionary measures designed for headlines.
Equally problematic is Dr. Mwelwa’s attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the current administration and its predecessors.
By any objective measure, the United Party for National Development (UPND) has demonstrated a stronger commitment to fighting graft than both the MMD and PF regimes.
The difference lies not only in rhetoric but in policy direction, institutional strengthening, and political will.
Under previous governments, corruption often thrived in an environment of weak accountability and, at times, political protection.
In contrast, the current administration has consistently emphasised transparency, fiscal discipline, and zero tolerance for misuse of public resources.
This is evident in the ongoing audits, reforms in procurement systems, and collaboration with international partners to curb illicit financial activities.
Dr. Mwelwa is correct in stating that illicit financial flows represent a serious threat to Zambia’s development.
However, his failure to contextualise the issue risks misleading the public into believing that no progress is being made. Such a narrative not only undermines ongoing reforms but also erodes public confidence in institutions that are, in fact, being strengthened.
It is also important to recognise that governance is not about instant fixes but about building resilient systems that prevent abuse in the long term.
The current administration’s focus on sealing loopholes—many of which were inherited—should be seen as a step in the right direction, not as evidence of failure.
Constructive criticism is essential in any democracy, but it must be grounded in fairness and completeness.
By selectively highlighting the problem while ignoring the solutions already in motion, Dr. Mwelwa’s analysis falls into the trap of sensationalism rather than constructive engagement.
Zambia indeed deserves better—but “better” must include honest discourse that recognises both challenges and progress.
The fight against illicit financial flows is not a one-off event; it is a continuous process. And under President Hichilema and Minister Musokotwane, that process is firmly underway.
