The Editor Zambia
People who are calling for national dialogue following Zambia’s August 13, 2026 general election must understand that dialogue cannot become a convenient political refuge from accountability, law, and basic standards of public conduct.
While there is nothing wrong with the Church encouraging reconciliation, religious leaders must understand that reconciliation means moral equivalence between lawful political contestation and intimidation, threats or abusive language directed at the Head of State, public officials or other citizens. 
The starting point must, therefore, be simple: stop the insults, reject threats, and allow the law to take its full course.
President Hakainde Hichilema was declared the winner of the August 13 presidential election by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) after receiving 2,965,326 votes against Brian Mundubile’s 1,856,217.
Consequently, the ECZ declaration gave President Hichilema the constitutional majority required for an outright victory.
There have also been questions raised about the election process, including by opposition parties and the Christian Churches Monitoring Group.
Importantly, however, the CCMG’s own parallel verification found that President Hichilema had received the most presidential votes and had crossed the 50 percent threshold, even while identifying discrepancies that it said required attention. That distinction matters.
Citizens have every right to question an election. Political parties have every right to challenge results through the courts and other lawful mechanisms.
But there is a fundamental difference between challenging an election and launching personal attacks against the President, his family, government officials, and law enforcement officers.
The Church, if it is going to champion dialogue, should be equally forthright about this distinction since it has not.
It cannot be sufficient to demand dialogue while remaining silent when political disagreement degenerates into language that demeans people, attacks women through crude references to their bodies and turns ethnic or regional language into an instrument of political abuse.
Such conduct does not strengthen democracy. It diminishes it.
Nor should Zambia allow social media to become an alternative courtroom where accusations are made, verdicts delivered, and punishment demanded without evidence being tested.
If there are allegations of electoral malpractice, let the evidence be presented. If there are allegations of criminal conduct, let investigators investigate. If suspects have been charged, let the courts determine guilt or innocence. The principle of due process must apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
This is where the Church can make a genuinely valuable contribution.
Rather than merely calling political leaders into a room and asking them to forgive one another, religious leaders could first demand a national ceasefire in political abuse.
They could tell their followers that disagreement is legitimate, but threats and dehumanising language are not. They could insist that election grievances be pursued through constitutional institutions rather than through social media intimidation.
That would give dialogue a meaningful foundation.
Zambia has survived disputed elections, bitter political contests, and allegations of electoral wrongdoing before. Yet the country has repeatedly found ways to move forward.
The 2026 election should not become the moment when political competition permanently poisons national relationships.
There is also a larger issue at stake. Zambia needs investment, jobs, functioning businesses, education, healthcare, energy security, and relief from poverty.
The economy cannot be rebuilt through political insults. Children cannot be educated by online outrage. Farmers cannot produce more food because politicians shout louder at one another.
Zambia has only recently emerged from a prolonged debt crisis, while the government continues to pursue economic stabilisation, debt management, and investment in productive sectors.
The national conversation, therefore, needs to move beyond personalities and political woundedness.
The Church should certainly remain at the table. But its message should be consistent: dialogue must not be a substitute for truth, accountability, or the law.
First, stop the abuse. Second, allow investigations to conclude. Third, allow courts and constitutional institutions to perform their functions. Then, where necessary, dialogue can address reconciliation, forgiveness, and national healing.
That is not refusing dialogue. It is giving dialogue the seriousness it deserves.
