The Editor Zambia
The attempt to portray Zambia as a country in a “post-electoral crisis” requiring SADC intervention is nothing more than a politically loaded narrative designed to cast doubt on an election whose outcome has already been constitutionally determined.
There is nothing wrong with SADC examining Zambia’s elections. That is its mandate. What is dangerous, however, is the attempt to present allegations made by defeated political actors as established facts before investigations and evidence, and the courts have determined their veracity. 
The August 13 election was not a battlefield. Millions of Zambians went to polling stations, cast their votes, and returned home.
The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) counted the ballots and announced the results. President Hakainde Hichilema was declared the winner and subsequently sworn in for a second term.
Indeed, SADC’s own preliminary assessment does not support the apocalyptic description of Zambia being plunged into an electoral crisis.
The regional observers reported that voting was largely peaceful and acknowledged several positive aspects of the electoral process.
They raised concerns and made recommendations, as election observers routinely do, but they did not declare the election fraudulent or call for its annulment.
This distinction is critical. An election can have weaknesses without being stolen. An electoral process can require reforms without its outcome being illegitimate. Those determined to portray every administrative difficulty as evidence of a conspiracy are doing democracy no favour.
The death of a former minister, Mutotwe Kafwaya, is undoubtedly tragic and deserves a transparent investigation. But even this tragedy must not be exploited to manufacture conclusions that have not been established by evidence.
Some journalists critical of President Hichilema have described the minister’s death as having occurred during a “military raid” and then seamlessly connect it to allegations of electoral manipulation.
That is journalism by insinuation. The circumstances surrounding the operation, the identities of those responsible, and the justification for the operation should be established through investigation and due process.
SADC must, therefore, be extremely careful not to become an instrument for legitimising the grievances of politicians who failed to secure the outcome they wanted at the ballot box.
Zambia cannot be placed permanently on trial because politicians have refused to accept an election result.
SADC should investigate with an open mind—not arrive with a verdict already written.
Zambia’s democracy has survived governments, opposition parties, disputed elections, and political transitions before. It will survive this episode, too, provided its institutions are allowed to work.
The country does not need inflammatory international headlines, suggesting that democracy has collapsed. It needs facts, evidence, accountability, and respect for the Constitution.
The real test for SADC is, therefore, simple: Will it investigate Zambia, or will it investigate the allegations being manufactured about Zambia?
There is a profound difference.
Zambians voted. The votes were counted. A winner was declared. A president was sworn in.
Anyone who disputes that outcome has a constitutional avenue to challenge it. What they do not have is the right to replace evidence with propaganda and then demand that the region accept their version of events as gospel.
SADC must stand for democracy—not political convenience.
