The Editor Zambia
The Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) is right to call on Lusaka Archbishop Alick Banda to temporarily step aside from his pastoral responsibilities until the criminal case he is facing is concluded.
The call is not a declaration of guilt, nor should it be interpreted as an attack on the Catholic Church. Rather, it is a reasonable appeal for accountability, institutional integrity, and the protection of public confidence in one of Zambia’s most influential religious institutions. 
At the centre of the debate is a fundamental question: should a religious leader facing criminal proceedings continue exercising the full responsibilities of his office while the case remains unresolved?
Although the law presumes every accused person innocent until proven guilty, the demands of public leadership extend beyond the strict requirements of criminal law.
They also encompass public trust, moral authority, and the ability to lead without controversy undermining the institution one represents.
Archbishop Banda was arrested by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) on September 28, 2026, and charged with possession of property reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained, contrary to Section 319 of the Penal Code.
He is entitled to defend himself against the allegation, and the courts must be allowed to determine the matter without political interference or public prejudice.
However, the principle of presumption of innocence does not prevent an institution from taking temporary administrative measures to protect its reputation.
Stepping aside, pending the conclusion of proceedings would not mean that the Archbishop had admitted wrongdoing. It would demonstrate a willingness to place the interests of the Church above personal considerations.
ZCTU president Blake Mulala has correctly observed that leaders of religious institutions must maintain high moral standards and public confidence.
This is an important position because churches occupy a special place in Zambian society. They provide spiritual guidance, support vulnerable communities, contribute to education and healthcare, and frequently speak out on national questions of governance and accountability.
Such influence comes with considerable responsibility. When church leaders call on politicians, public officers, and ordinary citizens to act with integrity, they must also demonstrate that accountability applies within their own institutions.
Religious leadership cannot demand high standards from others while appearing reluctant to embrace similar scrutiny when one of its own is involved in legal proceedings.
The position taken by the House of Clergy Zambia reinforces this argument. Its national executive director, Reverend Jimmy Ng’ambi, has emphasised that nobody is above the law and that a legal case involving an individual cleric should not be treated as a battle against the Church.
This distinction is particularly important in Zambia, where public debate can quickly become polarised along political and religious lines.
A case involving a prominent clergyman should not automatically be presented as persecution of Christians, just as an investigation involving a politician should not automatically be dismissed as political victimisation.
Allegations must be tested through established legal procedures, and institutions must be free to uphold their own standards of conduct.
The Anti-Voter Apathy Project has also supported the call for Archbishop Banda to temporarily relinquish his duties while acknowledging that the final decision rests with the Catholic Church and its established procedures.
This is the appropriate approach. Civil society can express its concerns, but the Church must exercise its institutional independence and make a decision consistent with its rules and responsibilities.
Indeed, the Catholic Church has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to justice and accountability is not merely rhetorical.
A voluntary step-aside would help separate the Archbishop’s personal legal difficulties from the daily work of the archdiocese.
It would also allow him to concentrate on preparing his defence without the additional demands and public controversy associated with his office.
Critics of the proposal may argue that asking the Archbishop to step aside before conviction undermines the presumption of innocence.
That concern deserves consideration, but it confuses criminal punishment with temporary administrative restraint.
A step-aside is not a conviction, dismissal, or declaration of guilt. It is a precautionary measure intended to preserve confidence while the judicial process runs its course.
Moreover, the principle should apply consistently, regardless of whether the person concerned is a politician, civil servant, corporate executive, or religious leader.
Public institutions function best when their leaders recognise that the credibility of an office sometimes requires personal sacrifice.
ZCTU’s intervention should, therefore, be understood as a call for responsible leadership, not a verdict against Archbishop Banda.
Temporarily stepping aside would send a powerful message that integrity, accountability, and respect for due process remain important even when those principles become personally uncomfortable.
The Church has nothing to lose by demonstrating that its institutions are bigger than any individual. On the contrary, a carefully considered and voluntary step-aside could strengthen public confidence in its moral authority.
In a country where citizens expect accountability from those entrusted with public responsibility, religious leaders should be prepared to lead by example.
Archbishop Banda should, therefore, consider stepping aside until the case is concluded, allowing justice to take its course while protecting the dignity and credibility of the Church he serves.
