The Editor Zambia
Zambia’s election to the United Nations Human Rights Council should serve as a powerful rebuttal to those who have spent months attempting to portray the country as a State in which human rights are under siege.
It is a diplomatic achievement that should encourage national pride and prompt the opposition to reconsider its relentless campaign to discredit President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration. 
The whole choir of propagandists like Sishuwa Sishuwa, Emmanuel Mwamba, Emmanuel JJ Banda, Charles Kakula and Given Mutinta, an ordained Catholic priest who abandoned the calling of God to teach the Gospel but has become an armchair critic of President Hakainde Hichilema should be ashamed.
Zambia’s election is significant because it places the country before the international community as a country entrusted with a role in advancing the protection and promotion of human rights.
At a time when some opposition figures have been consistently eager to convince the world that Zambia is abandoning democratic principles, this development provides an opportunity to challenge that narrative.
The opposition has every right to scrutinise government decisions, question public policy, and demand accountability. That is the essence of democracy.
However, there is a fundamental difference between legitimate criticism and a sustained campaign that seeks to portray the country in the worst possible light, regardless of the facts.
Zambia’s international standing cannot be determined solely by the statements of political opponents, no matter how frequently they appear on social media or how loudly they are repeated in public debates.
International institutions have their own procedures, assessments, and diplomatic considerations. Zambia’s election is, therefore, an important moment for those who have presented the country as an international outcast to reflect on their claims.
Against this background, it is time for Sishuwa Sishuwa, fugitive former diplomat Emmanuel Mwamba, Emmanuel JJ Banda, and Charles Kakula to shut up and shut up for good.
Their criticisms of President Hichilema’s administration have contributed to a persistent narrative of democratic decline.
Yet the country’s election to the Human Rights Council challenges any simplistic suggestion that Zambia has lost all international credibility on human rights.
The same applies to Given Mutinta, whose public interventions have increasingly focused on political criticism of President Hichilema. For someone associated with the Christian calling to preach the Gospel, it is fair to ask whether the language and substance of political engagement reflect the values of reconciliation, truth, humility, and service that Christianity teaches.
Religious leaders and commentators have every right to participate in public affairs. However, when political criticism becomes the dominant feature of a religious figure’s public identity, questions naturally arise about the balance between spiritual responsibility and partisan engagement.
The pulpit should inspire moral reflection, not become an extension of the political battlefield.
Zambia’s victory should remind the opposition that international opinion cannot be manufactured through propaganda alone.
A country’s reputation is shaped by its institutions, diplomacy, conduct, and the credibility of the evidence presented about it.
Political opponents who genuinely care about Zambia should be equally concerned about the consequences of exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims.
Zambia has earned an important opportunity to demonstrate that the country is more than the negative image painted by its fiercest critics.
The opposition should take note. Those who have made a career of portraying Zambia as a democratic failure must now confront a simple reality: their claims do not automatically become the truth merely because they are politically convenient.
