The Editor Zambia
The attack on former Patriotic Front (PF) secretary-general Davies Mwila at the Supreme Court in Lusaka deserves unequivocal condemnation. 
Chief Justice Mumba Malila is right to describe the incident as an assault on the administration of justice, while the United Party for National Development (UPND) has also condemned the violence and called for an impartial investigation.
These positions affirm an essential principle: political differences must never become an excuse for physical attacks, intimidation, or lawlessness.
The courts are institutions of justice and not arenas for settling political scores. Anyone visiting court premises, whether as a litigant, supporter, politician, or ordinary citizen, must respect the dignity of the institution and the rights of others.
The reported attack on Mwila is, therefore, particularly disturbing because it occurred within the precincts of the highest court in the land, where respect for the law should be paramount.
Those responsible must be identified through a professional investigation and held accountable if found guilty. Political affiliation must neither shield offenders from prosecution nor make innocent people targets of suspicion.
The rule of law demands evidence, due process, and equal treatment for everyone.
However, Mwila himself should understand that Zambia’s political environment has changed. The UPND government has repeatedly stated that it does not condone political violence, and President Hakainde Hichilema has been categorical that anyone committing an offence in the name of the ruling party does so on their own and must face the law.
This is an important distinction that should not be lost in the understandable outrage surrounding the incident. An attack allegedly involving individuals associated with a political party does not automatically establish the responsibility of that party or its leadership.
Responsibility must be established through evidence, not political assumptions.
During the PF’s years in power, attacks on opposition members were a recurring feature of Zambia’s political discourse.
Opposition supporters experienced intimidation and violence, while allegations of ruling-party cadres attacking political opponents frequently raised questions about the willingness of those in authority to ensure accountability.
Critics argued that such conduct was sometimes tolerated, encouraged, or defended by senior figures within the PF.
Mwila occupied senior positions in that administration, serving as PF secretary-general and Minister of Home Affairs.
He therefore understands the responsibility that comes with political leadership and the damage that political violence inflicts on democratic institutions.
He should appreciate why the conduct of individuals must be separated from the official position of a party while also recognising that every party has a duty to discipline its members and condemn wrongdoing consistently.
The UPND must, in turn, ensure that its stated opposition to political violence is reflected in practice. President Hichilema’s declaration that offenders acting in the party’s name are on their own must mean that investigations are allowed to proceed without interference, regardless of the political consequences.
Where members are found to have committed offences, appropriate disciplinary and legal action should follow.
The condemnation by Chief Justice Malila and the UPND is welcome. But condemnation alone is not enough. Zambia needs a political culture in which violence is neither celebrated by supporters nor excused by leaders when it benefits their side.
Mwila deserves protection under the law, just like every other citizen. He should not be assaulted because of his political history, his views, or his presence at a court hearing.
Equally, the incident must not be exploited to assign collective guilt to a party before investigations are concluded.
The lesson is clear. Zambia must move beyond the politics of intimidation that characterised much of its past. No political party owns the streets, and no individual is above the law.
The Supreme Court must remain a place where disputes are resolved through legal argument, not physical confrontation.
Democracy cannot flourish where violence determines who speaks, who participates, and who feels safe. Whether the victim is a government supporter or an opposition figure, the principle remains the same: violence has no place in Zambia’s democracy.
