…why didn’t the metropolitan archbishop of Lusaka call for solidarity marches, rosary citations, and ‘church under attack pastoral letters…
The Editor Zambia
The absence of solidarity marches, organised prayer processions, and public statements framing the arrest of Fr. Titus Malama Sande, as an attack on the Catholic Church, has raised questions and exposed the apparent inconsistencies in the Church. 
The arrest of Fr. Malama Sande by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) passed without public drama and accusations of government targeting the Church.
Unlike the recent cases involving the arrest of His Grace Most Rev. Dr. Alick Banda, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Lusaka diocese, there are no solidarity marches, no organised prayer processions, and no public statements claiming the arrest as an attack on the Catholic Church as an institution.
According to accounts of the arrest, Fr. Sande presented himself to the law enforcement agencies after lengthy investigations. The arrest process was quiet and the priest was released on bond awaiting court appearance, without any attempt to turn the matter into a public spectacle.
That quiet handling of the matter has become the central point of comparison in public debate.
The absence of calls for solidarity marches, organised prayer processions, and public statements framing the arrest as an attack on the Catholic Church as an institution raises questions and exposes inconsistencies in the Church.
The absence of mobilisation seen in the past: no match-pasts, no recitation of the Rosary on major streets of Lusaka, and no calls for the entire Catholic community to march to the ACC in support of the accused priest has exposed the Church’s double standards.
The Church, at least publicly, has allowed the investigative process to take its course.
The contrast has raised questions about consistency in how the Church responds when its members face the law.
Critics argue that if an arrest of a priest is treated as a personal legal matter in one case, the same principle should apply in all cases, regardless of the rank of the cleric involved.
The questions have also been directed at Archbishop Alick Banda. Why, commentators ask, has the Archbishop not called upon the Catholic faithful to hold Masses in solidarity with Fr. Sande, nor mobilised Church members to march to the ACC in his support?
The silence, to critics, suggests that solidarity is selective rather than principled. Was the church being used as a political tool to champion a specific agenda during the arrest of the Archbishop Banda?
Similar questions have been raised about political commentators and opposition groupings.
Why, the write-up asks, have figures such as Brebner Changala and the Tonse Alliance not cried that the Catholic Church is under attack over Fr. Sande’s arrest, as they have done in other cases?
Why has there been no call for candlelight Masses in solidarity with him?
The analysis in the write-up goes further, arguing that Bishop Banda mishandled his own investigations and subsequent arrest.
Rather than allowing matters arising from his personal circumstances to be dealt with in his individual capacity, he is accused of drawing the entire Church into the controversy, thereby blurring the line between personal accountability and institutional persecution.
That blurring, analysts argue, carries risks for both the Church and the State. When a personal legal matter is framed as an attack on an entire faith community, it raises religious tensions, puts pressure on investigative agencies, and makes it harder for the public to distinguish between prosecution and persecution.
In the case of Fr. Sande, the approach has been different: personal accountability without institutional confrontation.
Whether that approach becomes the new standard or remains an exception will likely shape how future arrests involving the clergy are handled and how the public judges claims of selective justice.
This is not an attack on the church but an attempt to get answers from the church.
