The Editor Zambia
With just weeks remaining before the August 13 general election, a familiar script has once again emerged from sections of the opposition.
Faced with mounting evidence of the ruling UPND’s continued popularity and President Hakainde Hichilema’s commanding electoral position, some opposition leaders have resorted to alleging electoral manipulation long before a single vote has been cast. 
It is a strategy designed less to protect democracy than to prepare excuses for a possible electoral defeat.
The latest allegations by the Tonse Alliance that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) is secretly printing extra presidential ballot papers have now been comprehensively dismantled by facts presented directly from the ballot printing facility in Dubai.
ECZ Vice-Chairperson Major General Vincent Mukanda (Rtd) has patiently explained what election officials have consistently done since 2006: ballot papers are printed in serialised booklets of 50, making slight numerical surpluses unavoidable when allocating ballots to polling stations with different voter populations.
The explanation is straightforward. A polling station with 502 registered voters cannot receive exactly 502 ballot papers because ballot papers are packaged in booklets of 50.
That station must receive 550 ballot papers, leaving 48 unused ballots that are fully reconciled after voting.
This is not evidence of rigging; it is basic electoral logistics that have existed across multiple elections under different governments.
Even more telling is that opposition representatives themselves are physically present in Dubai, observing every stage of the printing process.
If there were a conspiracy to produce secret ballot papers, it would have to occur in full view of the very people making the accusations. That proposition simply does not withstand serious scrutiny.
The ECZ has also made it clear why it cannot publicly reveal the security features embedded in ballot papers. Every secure document in the world, from passports to banknotes, contains confidential anti-counterfeiting measures.
Revealing those protections would defeat the very purpose for which they exist. Demanding that the Commission disclose them publicly is neither practical nor responsible.
The Commission has further outlined multiple safeguards, including unique serial numbers, continuous monitoring by accredited party agents, multi-stage verification procedures, and comprehensive reconciliation of every issued, used, spoiled and unused ballot paper. These are precisely the measures expected of a credible electoral body determined to protect the integrity of the vote.
The real question, therefore, is why these allegations continue despite such transparent explanations. The answer may lie not in the conduct of the ECZ but in the political realities confronting the opposition. President Hakainde Hichilema enters this election with the considerable advantage of incumbency, administration that continues implementing economic reforms, major infrastructure investments, and a recovering mining sector that has begun attracting renewed investor confidence.
Whether one agrees with every government policy or not, these developments have given the UPND a political platform that cannot simply be wished away.
By contrast, some opposition figures like the Mundubiles and Makebi Zulus of this world appear to be drawing sweeping conclusions from isolated campaign rallies. Crowds at political meetings are often poor predictors of election outcomes.
Zambia’s electoral history has repeatedly shown that enthusiastic rallies do not necessarily translate into votes on polling day.
Elections are decided by millions of citizens quietly casting ballots, not by the loudest cheers at campaign venues.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that as opinion increasingly points to a competitive but favourable race for the ruling party, claims of impending rigging have grown louder.
Such narratives risk becoming a convenient insurance policy against defeat rather than genuine evidence of electoral malpractice.
None of this means electoral institutions should escape scrutiny. Healthy democracies require vigilant observers, transparent processes, and accountability.
Political parties have every right to question procedures and seek clarification where necessary.
But there is an important distinction between legitimate oversight and the repeated circulation of allegations unsupported by verifiable evidence.
Zambians deserve an election contested on policies, leadership, and competing visions for the country’s future—not one overshadowed by premature conspiracy theories intended to delegitimise the outcome before ballots are even cast.
Confidence in elections is built on evidence, not speculation. Thus far, the facts presented by the Electoral Commission overwhelmingly contradict the opposition’s claims.
If political parties truly believe in democracy, they should invest their energy in persuading voters instead of manufacturing doubt about an electoral process that is unfolding under extensive observation and internationally recognised safeguards.
