The Editor Zambia
Calls by politicians, traditional leaders, ecclesiastical authorities and sections of the international community for President Hakainde Hichilema to release people facing treason charges should be dismissed for both not respecting the President’s office and the judiciary.
This is because there is an equally important question that those making these demands must answer: on what grounds should the President release suspects facing such grave allegations before the courts have determined their fate? 
The appropriate place to establish whether they are guilty or innocent is a court of law, not a political meeting, a church pulpit, a traditional ceremony, or an international conference.
Treason is not an ordinary political offence that can simply be dismissed as another consequence of a heated election campaign.
It goes to the heart of national security and the constitutional order because attempts to undermine or overthrow the constitutional government are extremely serious.
They must never be trivialised because the accused happen to be prominent opposition figures.
Those calling for the immediate release of the suspects should, therefore, explain what evidence they have examined to conclude that the charges are politically motivated or baseless.
Have they seen the investigation files? Have they examined the evidence gathered by investigators? Have they heard the prosecution’s case?
Have they considered the possibility that the charges, regardless of the political identities of the accused, could warrant judicial scrutiny?
There is a dangerous tendency in African politics to confuse the presumption of innocence with automatic innocence. Yes, every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That principle must be protected without compromise. But the presumption of innocence does not mean that serious criminal allegations should be withdrawn simply because political leaders, chiefs, churches, or foreign institutions demand it.
The same people asking President Hichilema to release the suspects should instead demand that the suspects receive a fair, transparent, and speedy trial.
That would be a far stronger defence of democracy than asking the President to make a political decision over a matter already before the justice system.
President Hichilema should also resist the temptation to allow his constitutional powers to be turned into a political bargaining chip.
If he releases the suspects merely because pressure is mounting, tomorrow’s politicians will expect the same treatment whenever their members face serious criminal charges.
That would create a dangerous precedent in which the loudest political campaign determines who faces justice and who escapes it.
National reconciliation is important. So is forgiveness. But reconciliation cannot mean abandoning accountability.
Peace cannot be built by sacrificing the rule of law.
And, political unity cannot be achieved by sending a message that powerful people can escape serious allegations simply because influential voices rally behind them.
If Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu are innocent, let the courts establish that. If the prosecution cannot prove its case, they should walk free.
If the evidence does not meet the required legal threshold, the law provides remedies. But if there is credible evidence requiring judicial examination, Zambia must allow the process to proceed without intimidation or political interference.
Chiefs should respect the courts. Churches should defend justice rather than prescribe verdicts. Politicians should stop treating criminal proceedings as extensions of political competition.
And, the international community should respect Zambia’s sovereign institutions while encouraging due process rather than demanding predetermined outcomes.
The question is, therefore, not whether Zambia should show mercy. The question is whether Zambia is prepared to allow the law to work.
Let the courts do their job. Let the evidence speak. Let justice take its course. Treason is too serious to become a political bargaining chip.
