The Editor Zambia
The statement issued by the Bemba Royal Establishment on October 17, 2026, concerning reports of armed individuals allegedly searching for the grave of the late Mutotwe Kafwaya raises questions about the role of traditional institutions in politically sensitive national matters.
While the preservation of cultural values and the dignity of burial places deserve respect, the intervention by Chitimukulu Palace risks giving an unverified allegation the weight of an established fact. 
The Bemba Royal Establishment, through its Secretary, Richard Mukuka, says Senior Chief Shibwalya Kapila informed Paramount Chief Chitimukulu Kanyanta-manga II that heavily armed people travelling in six vehicles were allegedly threatening villagers in Lunte District to force them to identify Kafwaya’s grave.
The statement describes the reported conduct as highly provocative to the establishment.
But a fundamental question must be asked: Why should a traditional institution elevate an allegation into a matter of collective ethnic sensitivity before the identities, intentions, and legal status of the alleged visitors have been independently established?
The statement relies on information reportedly supplied by a traditional leader. That may be a legitimate reason to seek clarification from the relevant authorities, but it is not, by itself, proof that the alleged conduct occurred as described.
The distinction between receiving a report and establishing the truth is essential, particularly when the language used can heighten public emotions around a politically sensitive death.
By invoking UbuBemba, the sacredness of burial places and the authority of the Chitimukulu, the statement moves beyond reporting a concern. It frames the alleged search for Kafwaya’s grave as an affront to the Bemba Royal Establishment and its subjects. Such language risks transforming a matter that should be examined on its facts into a confrontation involving traditional authority, cultural identity, and political suspicion.
Traditional leadership carries considerable moral influence. That influence should be exercised with restraint, fairness, and a commitment to national unity.
When a traditional institution speaks publicly about an allegation involving a prominent political figure, its words can shape public perceptions long before an investigation establishes what actually happened.
The Chitimukulu is an important custodian of Bemba culture and tradition, but customary authority should not be confused with the authority to determine the facts of a potentially criminal matter.
Those responsibilities belong to the appropriate investigative and judicial institutions, operating within the law. The palace can raise concerns, request explanations, and protect the cultural interests of its subjects without appearing to prejudge the motives of unidentified individuals.
Furthermore, the assertion that burial places are sacred and normally out of bounds when no burial is taking place does not, on its own, resolve every possible legal question concerning a burial site.
Customary traditions deserve respect, but any dispute involving access, investigation, or the preservation of evidence must be considered within the applicable law. No institution should suggest that invoking tradition automatically settles all such questions.
It is equally important to recognise that Kafwaya was not merely a member of one community. He was a former Cabinet minister and Member of Parliament whose death occurred during a security operation at the Lusaka residence of opposition leader Brian Mundubile on August 14, 2026.
His death has generated public interest and unanswered questions. Those questions cannot be resolved through ethnic solidarity or the language of provocation.
The Bemba Royal Establishment should, therefore, be careful not to create the impression that anyone seeking information about the circumstances surrounding Kafwaya’s death is necessarily acting against the Bemba people.
There is a significant difference between unlawfully intimidating villagers and undertaking a legitimate inquiry through lawful channels. The former deserves condemnation; the latter must be assessed on its merits.
If the reported threats occurred, the people responsible should be identified and dealt with according to the law. But if the circumstances remain unclear, the palace should avoid language that could inflame tensions or encourage people to interpret the matter as an attack on an entire ethnic community.
Zambia’s traditional institutions have an important role in preserving culture, promoting peace, and protecting the dignity of their communities.
That responsibility requires them to rise above partisan interpretations and avoid turning sensitive national issues into tests of ethnic loyalty.
The Chitimukulu Palace deserves to be heard, but its pronouncements must also withstand reasonable scrutiny. Cultural authority is strengthened, not diminished, when it demonstrates caution, fairness, and respect for due process.
The duty of traditional leadership is to calm tensions, encourage lawful conduct, and unite communities.
In this matter, the Bemba Royal Establishment should exercise that responsibility by demanding verified facts rather than allowing an unconfirmed report to become a source of political and ethnic confrontation.
