The Editor Zambia
Amnesty International’s concern over the arrest and transfer of former Petauke Central Member of Parliament Emmanuel “Jay Jay” Banda from Mozambique to Zambia raises an important question about the organisation’s understanding of human rights: does defending human rights mean scrutinising only the actions of the State, or does it also require holding individuals accountable for conduct that undermines the rights, dignity and peaceful coexistence of other citizens?
While every individual is entitled to due process, access to legal representation, and protection against unlawful detention, those fundamental rights must not be confused with immunity from accountability. 
If Amnesty International is genuinely concerned about human rights violations, it must be equally prepared to examine the conduct and public utterances of individuals whose words may threaten the rights, dignity, and security of others.
Jay Jay Banda should not be elevated to the status of a human rights victim merely because he is a government critic or because his arrest has attracted international attention.
The circumstances of his arrest and transfer must certainly be examined in accordance with the law. However, the allegations surrounding his own public conduct deserve scrutiny as well.
Human rights are universal, and they cannot be selectively invoked to protect political figures while the consequences of their own conduct are ignored.
Jay Jay Banda’s social media postings have been seditious in tone, tribal in their undertones, personal in their attacks, divisive in their effect, and inflammatory in their language.
Such conduct, where substantiated, cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary political criticism. Zambia is a country whose unity has been built on the recognition that political differences must never be allowed to degenerate into tribal hostility, personal vilification, or language that inflames tensions among citizens.
Political freedom is essential in a democracy, but freedom of expression does not automatically absolve anyone of responsibility for unlawful conduct.
Nor should a public figure be permitted to exploit the language of democracy while disregarding the obligations that come with exercising that freedom.
Criticism of the government is legitimate and necessary, but it must be distinguished from speech that incites hostility, promotes tribal divisions, or deliberately inflames public tensions.
Amnesty International must, therefore, be careful not to present Jay Jay Banda’s case in a manner that creates the impression that a government critic is necessarily innocent of wrongdoing simply because the state has taken action against him.
That would be a dangerous and misleading interpretation of human rights protection. The law must protect the rights of suspects, but it must also provide a framework within which credible allegations of wrongdoing can be investigated fairly and impartially.
If Amnesty International is demanding clarity over Jay Jay Banda’s arrest and transfer, it is entitled to ask whether the authorities followed the applicable laws and procedures.
But its advocacy should not end there. It should also recognise that the protection of human rights involves responsibilities on the part of individuals, including politicians and public figures who wield considerable influence over their followers.
The organisation is right to insist that no person should be subjected to torture, unlawful detention, or other prohibited treatment. It is also right to demand access to legal counsel, appropriate medical attention, and a fair judicial process.
These safeguards are not privileges reserved for the politically connected; they are protections owed to every person under the law.
However, the same commitment to universal rights should encourage a broader conversation about the harm caused by political intolerance, tribal rhetoric, and inflammatory public communication.
Citizens who are targeted, demeaned, or encouraged to view one another through the prism of tribe and political hostility also have rights that deserve recognition and protection.
What must be rejected, however, is the suggestion that international concern should automatically translate into political exoneration.
A person can be entitled to human rights protections and still be required to answer for alleged wrongdoing. Those two principles are not contradictory; they are the foundation of justice.
Amnesty International should apply its principles consistently. It must defend Jay Jay Banda’s right to due process without overlooking the rights of citizens who may have been affected by his public utterances.
