The Editor Zambia
Celestin Mambula Mukandila’s spirited defence of his Zambian citizenship raises a fundamental question that goes beyond constitutional arguments about citizenship by descent: at what point does an individual become responsible for the documents and representations used to establish his identity before the State?
Mukandila says he was born in Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1990 to a Zambian mother and a Congolese father. 
He argues that Article 36 of the Constitution makes him a Zambian citizen by descent and insists that questions surrounding his National Registration Card (NRC) should not be confused with his underlying citizenship.
That constitutional argument can certainly be tested in the courts. But, it does not automatically answer questions about the authenticity of the documentation used to obtain a Zambian NRC.
If, as is alleged, Mukandila knowingly participated in the forging or fraudulent acquisition of a Zambian National Registration Card, then this is not a minor administrative irregularity. It is a matter of potentially serious criminal and national-security significance.
There is an uncomfortable irony in the argument being advanced. Mukandila himself emphasises that he was born in Lubumbashi, grew up with a Zambian mother and Congolese father, and only became eligible for national registration when he was about 16.
His full name, Celestin Mambula Mukandila, is also plainly associated with the wider Congolese naming tradition.
A name, of course, does not determine citizenship. Zambia is a diverse country, and citizens have every right to names reflecting their ancestry and family histories.
But when someone has been born outside Zambia to parents of different nationalities, identity documentation becomes particularly important. Such circumstances demand absolute honesty when dealing with the State.
This is where the comparison with Deogratius Symba becomes instructive.
Historical records show that Symba was described as a Zairean politician and was among those convicted in connection with the 1980 coup attempt against President Kenneth Kaunda.
UPI reported in 1990 that Symba had been sentenced to death in connection with the plot before being released unconditionally under Dr. Kaunda’s amnesty. Amnesty International records also identified Symba among those sentenced to death for treason.
The comparison should not be stretched into an allegation that Mukandila committed any similar offence. There is no basis to equate the two cases.
But Symba’s history demonstrates why the State has historically taken seriously the involvement of non-Zambian political actors in activities alleged to threaten constitutional government.
The more important question today is, therefore, not simply whether Mukandila can trace his maternal ancestry to Luapula. It is whether every document and declaration used to establish his Zambian identity was obtained lawfully and honestly.
The evidence establishes that he knowingly participated in fraud after attaining the age of responsibility. That is an entirely different matter.
More importantly, his subsequent political activities make the issue even more sensitive.
Mukandila has publicly participated in political affairs and, according to published reports, has held senior political responsibilities. His name has also appeared in political and constitutional controversies.
That is why political actors who are accused of seditious or destabilising activities must be approached through evidence and the law rather than political rhetoric.
Mukandila is entitled to due process. He is entitled to challenge the cancellation of his documents. He is entitled to have a court determine whether he is a citizen by descent.
But the State is equally entitled to demand answers.
If a National Registration Card was forged, who forged it? What information was falsely declared? Who submitted the application? What evidence exists? And, crucially, was the person concerned aware of the deception?
These are not questions that can be dismissed simply by invoking Article 36.
Citizenship by descent may be constitutionally protected, but fraudulent documentation cannot be transformed into lawful documentation merely because the person using it may have a legitimate claim to citizenship.
The lesson from the Symba era is that questions involving nationality, political activity, and threats to the constitutional order can have consequences far beyond an individual’s personal circumstances.
