The Editor Zambia
The article by Sishuwa Sishuwa attempts to shield itself from criticism by repeatedly claiming it is “not advocating violence or a military coup.”
However, a close reading reveals that Sishuwa’s article goes far beyond academic commentary and enters the dangerous territory of normalising, rationalising, and psychologically preparing the public for unconstitutional action against the elected government of President Hakainde Hichilema. 
At its core, Sishuwa’s article constructs a narrative that a military coup or widespread violence after the August elections would be understandable, inevitable, and perhaps even justified.
That is the problem.
Sishuwa spends thousands of words portraying Zambia as a collapsing State allegedly ruled by a “dictatorship,” describing institutions as “captured,” the police as a “partisan militia,” the judiciary as “an extension of the executive,” and the electoral process as fundamentally illegitimate.
Sishuwa repeatedly insists that the country is “waiting to explode,” warns of “rivers of blood and broken skulls,” and invokes military intervention several times throughout his article.
This is not neutral analysis. It is political agitation disguised as a scholarship.
If an individual repeatedly tells citizens and security forces that elections are illegitimate before votes are even cast, that democratic institutions cannot be trusted, and that history shows coups emerge under such circumstances, the effect is to psychologically legitimise unconstitutional outcomes.
One cannot spend an entire article building intellectual justification for instability and then escape responsibility by inserting a final disclaimer, saying, “I do not support coups.”
The contradiction is glaring. Sishuwa’s article also relies heavily on speculation, conspiracy theories, and unverified allegations presented as fact.
Serious accusations are made against the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), the judiciary, the police, the Registrar of Societies, and the government without presenting court judgments or independently verified evidence.
Democratic societies settle electoral disputes through institutions and courts, not through inflammatory narratives forecasting violence and military intervention.
Most dangerously, Sishuwa’s article directly addresses the military and security services, warning that they may refuse to defend the constitutional order if President Hichilema wins.
This crosses a red line. Responsible democratic commentary does not encourage soldiers to question civilian authority before an election has even occurred.
Zambia’s democracy depends on maintaining the constitutional principle that governments are changed through ballots, not bullets.
The repeated references to coups in Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, and Zambia’s own history are not accidental. They serve to plant the idea that military intervention becomes acceptable under certain political conditions. That is why the article is deeply irresponsible.
Sishuwa’s defenders may claim he is merely exercising freedom of expression. But, freedom of expression is not freedom from accountability.
Constitutional rights carry civic responsibility, especially in fragile political environments.
Speech that systematically delegitimises State institutions, predicts bloodshed, frames violence as a natural response, and repeatedly invokes military takeovers can contribute to public disorder and national instability.
Democracies around the world distinguish between legitimate criticism and reckless incitement. One may criticise government policies, question electoral laws, or challenge court decisions.
However, when commentary moves into repeatedly conditioning the public to expect chaos, uprising, or military intervention, authorities have a duty to examine whether such conduct undermines constitutional order and public security.
In his article, Sishuwa is particularly reckless because Zambia has historically prided itself on peaceful democratic transitions. Instead of encouraging calm, confidence in institutions, and lawful participation in elections, Sishuwa’s article amplifies fear, anger, and suspicion.
It seeks to convince citizens that electoral defeat for the opposition could only occur through manipulation. Such rhetoric is dangerous because it primes supporters to reject election outcomes before voting even begins.
Furthermore, the claim that the opposition has been completely excluded from the election is demonstrably misleading. Sishuwa himself acknowledges that 14 presidential candidates were validly nominated.
Zambia remains a multiparty democracy where numerous parties and independent candidates are contesting. Political disagreements over nominations or party leadership disputes do not amount to the collapse of constitutional democracy.
Sishuwa also reveals clear political bias. Throughout Sishuwa’s article, President Hichilema is portrayed in relentlessly hostile language while opposition actors are presented sympathetically.
Terms such as “dictatorship,” “fearful regime,” “authoritarian rule,” and “one-party state” are repeatedly used to inflame emotions rather than promote balanced analysis.
If Sishuwa genuinely wished to promote peace, he would have encouraged all political players to respect institutions, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and accept lawful electoral outcomes.
Instead, Sishuwa repeatedly tells readers that violence may be unavoidable and that citizens could be justified in resisting the State if the election does not go their way. That is why many Zambians view Sishuwa’s article not as academic commentary but as a subtle attempt to incite unrest while maintaining plausible deniability.
As for calls for extradition from South Africa, such matters would depend on the existence of applicable laws, evidence, and legal procedures between Zambia and South Africa. Extradition is a legal process, not a political slogan.
However, what is undeniable is that public figures and commentators must understand the enormous responsibility that comes with their platforms.
In tense electoral environments, reckless rhetoric can have real-world consequences.
Zambia does not need intellectuals forecasting coups and bloodshed. It needs citizens, leaders, scholars, and commentators committed to strengthening democratic institutions, encouraging peaceful participation, and respecting constitutional processes.
The future of the country must be decided through democratic elections — not through fear, intimidation, or narratives that dangerously flirt with unconstitutional change.
