The Editor Zambia
Former Botswana President Ian Khama’s recent attack on President Hakainde Hichilema has a background rooted in his previous business and political dealings with Zambia’s former President, the late Edgar Chagwa Lungu.
Khama’s criticism of the Zambian President raises questions about his own interests and his involvement in business and political arrangements during the previous Patriotic Front (PF) administration. 
The truth on the ground is that Khama recently approached President Hichilema to negotiate over a gold mine whose licence he had obtained during Lungu’s presidency but which was subsequently cancelled after the United Party for National Development (UPND) came into office.
That is why Khama’s anger towards President Hichilema is not about democracy and governance but a consequence of losing privileged access and business opportunities that he enjoyed under the PF regime.
The controversy does not end with mining interests. Khama has also allegedly been financing political activities associated with the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance, especially the alleged funding of a militia to unseat the UPND government.
Evidence on the ground is that Khama had personal interests that could have been served had the PF faction associated with Brian Mundubile prevailed in the August 13, 2026 general elections.
A former head of State should be expected to promote regional peace, stability, and respect for the sovereignty of neighbouring countries.
Association with activities intended to destabilise another country would be fundamentally inconsistent with that responsibility.
It is against this background that political figures such as former Vice-President Enoch Kavindele have rejected Khama’s attacks on Hichilema, urging the former Botswana leader to respect Zambia’s sovereignty and exercise restraint when making serious allegations against a democratically elected head of State.
Kavindele’s intervention raises an important issue: political leaders, particularly those who have occupied the highest offices in their respective countries, must be prepared to have their own records examined with the same scrutiny they apply to others.
The word dictator carries enormous political and historical weight. It should not be casually used whenever former leaders disagree with the policies, decisions, or political direction of neighbouring governments.
Such an accusation requires credible evidence and a careful examination of the institutions, laws, and democratic practices of the country concerned.
The August 13, 2026 general election, which attracted 13 presidential candidates, was also conducted within a multiparty electoral framework, with international observers from organisations including the African Union, SADC, COMESA and the European Union monitoring the process.
President Hichilema’s administration has also presided over several legislative developments, including the abolition of the death penalty, the repeal of criminal defamation of the President, and the enactment of the Access to Information Act in 2023.
These are significant developments in Zambia’s legislative and human rights framework.
Interestingly, Khama’s own presidential record in Botswana has also attracted criticism from scholars and governance commentators.
He governed the country from 2008 to 2018, a period during which concerns were raised about the concentration of executive authority, the growing influence of security institutions, and the increasing involvement of military personnel in civilian governance.
In a 2010 academic paper published in African Affairs, scholar Kenneth Good examined what he described as the militarisation and personalisation of power under Khama’s presidency.
His analysis raised concerns about the expanding authority of Botswana’s Directorate of Intelligence and Security, the presence of military personnel in government, and allegations of extrajudicial killings.
More recently, a 2025 academic study by Kebapetse Lotshwao, published in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, revisited the role of Botswana’s intelligence service during Khama’s presidency.
The study examined questions of institutional accountability and the extent of presidential influence over the security establishment.
These scholarly assessments demonstrate that Khama’s own administration was not immune to questions about democratic accountability, institutional independence, and the protection of civil liberties.
It is therefore important that Khama recognises that the democratic credentials of every political leader, including himself, are open to examination.
He cannot demand accountability from others while expecting his own presidential record to remain beyond criticism.
Ultimately, Zambia’s sovereignty and democratic institutions must be respected.
