The Editor Zambia
Muhabi Lungu’s intervention on Crown TV with Alfred Chimba over the cancellation of six Zambian passports becomes difficult to sustain when it treats Zambia’s action as though governments elsewhere never restrict passports in the name of national security.
Lungu’s approach to every controversy involving the opposition and the Tonse Pamodzi Alliance camp from one predetermined direction while demanding intellectual scrutiny from everybody else. 
The passport controversy should not be reduced to whether one likes President Hakainde Hichilema or dislikes his opponents.
Gazette Notice No. 1421 of 2026 formally cancelled the passports of six people, including Mwamba, Emmanuel Jay Banda, Binwell Mpundu, Peter Kaiser Zulu, Sishuwa and Mutambo, stating that the documents were no longer valid for identification, travel or official purposes.
Lungu’s argument that national security cannot, by itself, provide a basis for passport restrictions ignores international practice.
Britain is a particularly inconvenient example for that argument. The House of Commons Library reports that British passports can be withheld or withdrawn under executive powers and that about 100 passports were withdrawn on national-security grounds between 2013 and 2024.
The same briefing notes that citizenship deprivation has also been used for public-good reasons, generally involving national security or counter-terrorism.
The United States is hardly a better example for suggesting that national security and passport restrictions are incompatible.
The US State Department expressly provides for passport denial in circumstances, including valid arrest warrants, court orders, parole or probation conditions, and extradition requests.
Law-enforcement agencies can formally request passport denial under the applicable regulations.
America has also imposed extensive travel and entry restrictions using national-security and public-safety considerations.
In 2026, Washington implemented measures fully or partially suspending entry and visa issuance for nationals of 39 countries, explicitly citing security-focused screening and vetting.
Therefore, the serious question is not whether national security can ever justify restrictions on travel documents. Clearly, democratic States, as well as authoritarian States, have mechanisms for doing so.
Lungu’s defence of Sishuwa Sishuwa is another example of misinforming the nation and publicly sharing ignorance.
An academic title does not make a person immune from scrutiny, especially of someone like Sishuwa, who previously predicted that a Hichilema victory could be followed by a coup.
The same principle applies to Ms. Mutambo.
Lungu himself concedes that he disapproves of some of her language, which is uncouth and vulgar.
In response to a write-up on this platform? Lungu disapproves of the example that was given comparing Zambia and the USA on cancellation of passports for people deemed to be undermining national security.
He argues feebly to defend his point considering numerous other examples that have been given of the Zambian example in comparison with Britain, the USA, and China.
What Zambia needs is neither partisan intellectualism but well argued facts, not defence of one’s position no matter how blatantly flawed it is.
