The Editor Zambia
The statement by Mbita Chitala PhD, presented as a contribution to national reconciliation, raises important questions about democracy, elections, justice and political stability.
However, while its stated objective is reconciliation, much of its substance reads less like an impartial national assessment and more like an indictment of President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration based substantially on allegations made by opposition actors of which the author belongs to. 
The first problem is the treatment of allegations as though their repetition gives them the status of facts. The statement itself says it distinguishes between established facts, allegations, government explanations and matters requiring investigation.
Yet, throughout the document, serious allegations are repeatedly presented in emphatic language before any independent investigation or judicial determination has established their truth.
This is particularly evident in the sections dealing with the 2026 election, the alleged murder of Mutotwe Kafwaya, security-force involvement and alleged manipulation of electoral results.
For example, the statement declares that Kafwaya was “assassinated” and immediately calls for a Commission of Inquiry.
If the circumstances surrounding his death remain subject to investigation, it is premature for any purportedly neutral reconciliation document to pronounce the death an assassination.
The appropriate language would be that there are allegations concerning the circumstances of his death and that those circumstances should be investigated. Reconciliation cannot begin by prejudging the outcome of an investigation.
The same problem occurs in relation to the 2026 presidential election. The document advances allegations of electoral manipulation, including a claimed variance of more than 800,000 votes, and cites examples from Solwezi and other constituencies.
Yet the statement itself acknowledges that these matters require an independent audit or court investigation. If that is the case, the alleged 800,000-vote discrepancy cannot simultaneously be presented as a substantive basis for declaring the election illegitimate. An allegation awaiting verification remains an allegation.
Indeed, the election section deserves much greater caution because the declared result involved a substantial margin. The document itself gives a margin of approximately 1.1 million votes.
Therefore, the central question is not simply whether irregularities occurred. Elections of this scale can contain administrative errors, disputes, and isolated irregularities without those irregularities necessarily changing the final outcome.
The critical constitutional question is whether proven irregularities were sufficiently substantial to invalidate the result. That determination belongs to the
appropriate electoral and judicial institutions, not to a political statement.
The document also criticises the use of government platforms during the campaign, including announcements concerning employment, student allowances, social protection, and electricity connections.
But again, political controversy does not automatically establish illegality. A government does not cease functioning because an election campaign is taking place. The proper question is whether particular actions violated specific electoral laws and whether competent institutions have established such violations.
Equally troubling is the sweeping suggestion that opposition prosecutions since 2021 were politically motivated. Zambia is a constitutional democracy in which allegations of criminal conduct must be tested through the courts.
Opposition politicians are not above the law, just as government officials are not. A reconciliation process should therefore demand due process, not automatic acquittals or compensation for every opposition figure who claims political persecution.
The proposal that all politically sensitive cases should be reviewed independently is reasonable. But the statement goes too far when it appears to presume that many prosecutions were politically motivated before such a review has taken place.
That undermines the very principle of evidence-based reconciliation, which the authors themselves advocate.
The proposal for a government of National Unity is also questionable. Zambia held a general election, and a president was declared elected.
A GNU cannot simply become a mechanism for overturning an electoral outcome because one political camp disputes the result. National unity is desirable, but it must be achieved within the constitutional order. Otherwise, reconciliation itself becomes a route for defeating the electorate’s decision.
There is, nevertheless, value in the call for institutional reform, judicial independence, electoral transparency, political tolerance, and equal application of the law. These are principles that should be embraced by government and opposition alike.
But genuine reconciliation must apply one standard to everyone. The
government must be accountable, but opposition leaders must also be accountable.
Electoral allegations must be investigated, but allegations must not be converted into facts before investigation. Security institutions must remain neutral, but they should not be condemned without evidence. Courts must remain independent, but their decisions must also be respected.
Zambia does not need a reconciliation process built around the presumption that one political side is guilty and the other is a victim. It needs a process founded on evidence, constitutionalism, and truth.
The strongest principle in the statement is, therefore, its own concluding formula: truth, justice, reconciliation, and reform. The difficulty is that this principle must be applied consistently.
Truth cannot be determined by political affiliation. Justice cannot mean justice only for opposition politicians.
Reconciliation cannot mean forcing a constitutionally elected government into an arrangement it did not win at the ballot box.
Zambia’s democracy will be strengthened not by repeating unproven accusations but by allowing competent institutions to investigate them, accepting established facts, and respecting constitutional outcomes. That is the route to genuine reconciliation.
