The Editor Zambia
The growing campaign of allegations against Examination Council of Zambia (ECZ) Chief Executive Officer Dr. Michael Mayumbwayila Chilala raises an important question about the standards of fairness, responsibility, and professionalism expected in public discourse.
While accountability is essential in public institutions, it must never become an excuse for character assassination, particularly when allegations remain unproven.
Dr. Chilala appears to have become the target of a damaging campaign on an online platform called Zambia Freedom News whose reporting, as presented in the material circulating publicly, raises questions about whether the principles of responsible journalism are being observed. 
The allegations concerning employment opportunities, money allegedly collected from job seekers, and questions about academic qualifications are serious. However, their seriousness does not make them established facts.
There is a fundamental difference between investigating suspected wrongdoing and using sensational headlines to create an impression of guilt before the evidence has been tested.
In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, every individual deserves the presumption of innocence, regardless of their position, public profile, or political associations.
The Zambian public should be concerned whenever job seekers are allegedly exploited by individuals promising employment in exchange for money.
Unemployment places enormous pressure on families, particularly young people struggling to establish themselves. Anyone who takes advantage of their desperation must be held accountable if the allegations are substantiated.
But the pursuit of justice requires evidence, not insinuation. Investigators must establish who allegedly made the promises, whether money changed hands, who received it, and what connection, if any, the transactions have to Dr. Chilala.
Financial records, credible witness statements, and other verifiable evidence must determine the outcome of any investigation.
It would be fundamentally wrong to attribute alleged conduct to the ECZ chief executive merely because his name has been placed at the centre of an online controversy.
Personal responsibility must be established through facts rather than association, speculation, or repetition of accusations.
The same standard applies to questions surrounding academic qualifications. If there are genuine concerns about the qualifications of any public official, the appropriate response is to examine authentic academic records and obtain clarification from the relevant institutions.
A headline suggesting that qualifications were improperly obtained cannot substitute for documentary proof.
The public also needs to distinguish between an investigation that is genuinely seeking the truth and a campaign that may be damaging an individual’s reputation before reaching a verifiable conclusion.
The publication of repeated notices declaring that someone is on an investigative platform’s radar does not, by itself, demonstrate wrongdoing.
Indeed, the language used in reporting can shape public perceptions long before evidence is presented. Once a person’s reputation has been damaged, even a subsequent finding that clears them may not fully repair the harm.
This is why responsible journalism requires restraint, balance and an opportunity for the person concerned to respond.
Mr Chilala, like any other citizen, is entitled to dignity and a fair hearing. He should be given a meaningful opportunity to address the allegations, and his responses should receive fair consideration.
If credible evidence emerges implicating him in misconduct, the relevant authorities should investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. If the claims cannot be substantiated, the public should be told that clearly.
It is equally important that the public does not confuse criticism of a government institution with proof of misconduct by an individual working within it.
Platforms are entitled to scrutinise public officials, including those serving under the current administration. However, political hostility, where it exists, cannot justify abandoning basic standards of verification and fairness.
The ECZ is an important public institution whose credibility depends on professionalism, transparency and public confidence.
Its leadership should be assessed on verifiable conduct and performance, not on the volume or intensity of allegations circulating online.
Zambia needs journalism that exposes genuine wrongdoing, protects vulnerable citizens and demands accountability from those who abuse public trust.
It does not need a culture in which accusations become verdicts and reputations are sacrificed to sensationalism.
Defending Dr Chilala’s right to fair treatment does not mean declaring him beyond scrutiny. It means insisting that scrutiny must be evidence-based, impartial and conducted without prejudging the outcome.
The principle is straightforward: investigate the allegations, establish the facts and hold anyone responsible accountable. Until then, Mr Chilala deserves the same fairness that every Zambian would expect when faced with potentially damaging accusations.
Justice must be guided by evidence, not online campaigns. Accountability matters, but so does the right to be treated fairly.
