The Editor Zambia
Sishuwa Sishuwa’s lengthy, disrespectful, and insulting open letter to President Hakainde Hichilema is shameful.
In his letter, Sishuwa Sishuwa attempts to project an image of fearless intellectual independence. Yet beneath his written language is a narrative built more on personal assertions, speculation, and insults than on verifiable evidence. 
Our export don to South Africa should know that public debate, particularly one involving matters of governance and democracy, deserves facts rather than rhetoric.
To begin with, the serial critic of President Hichilema and the UPND government, Sishuwa Sishuwa, has every right to deny ownership of any alleged fake social media accounts.
If he does not operate such accounts, that position should be respected unless credible evidence proves otherwise.
However, his denial does not automatically validate the sweeping accusations he proceeds to make against named State House officials.
Serious allegations that specific individuals administer anonymous Facebook pages or websites require equally serious evidence, isn’t this what they teach in academia because public confidence is not strengthened by replacing one unverified claim with several others.
Equally troubling is the extensive use of personal insults directed at President Hichilema. Calling the Head of State a “coward,” “liar,” “tribal,” or other derogatory names contributes little to democratic discourse. How can a cultured Zambian be so disrespectful to the Head of State?
Democracy thrives when citizens challenge policies, decisions, and actions through evidence and reasoned arguments rather than personal abuse. Sishuwa Sishuwa is brutally abusing President Hichilema. Zambians should take note of Sishuwa Sishuwa’s abusive language directed at the Head of State. The quality of public debate is diminished when insults substitute facts.
Sishuwa Sishuwa also paints a picture of Zambia as a nation where criticism is impossible. Is this true, bo Sishuwa Sishuwa?
Yet the very existence of his letter and many other barbs against the President and the UPND leaders raises an obvious contradiction. He has authored numerous articles, opinion pieces, and social media posts over several years, criticising President Hichilema and his administration in some of the strongest possible language using the podium of a know-it-all academician above reproach.
These writings continue to circulate widely in newspapers, online publications, and on social media pages. If Zambia had indeed become the completely repressive State he describes, it is difficult to explain how such persistent and highly critical, abusive commentary continues to be published and shared widely.
His claim that the administration has institutionalised fear similarly deserves greater nuance because every democracy faces tensions between protecting freedom of expression and enforcing laws against defamation, hate speech, incitement, or other criminal conduct.
Whether specific arrests were justified should be determined through the courts based on evidence, not through blanket political declarations by armchair critics like Sishuwa Sishuwa, speaking from foreign land.
To attribute every legal prosecution involving government critics solely to political persecution oversimplifies complex legal matters.
Sishuwa Sishuwa’s letter also contains sweeping accusations regarding tribalism, corruption, mining mismanagement, and the collapse of democracy without providing supporting evidence. Such claims are serious and deserve careful documentation.
Public discourse is best served when allegations are accompanied by verifiable facts, official reports, court findings, or credible investigations rather than broad generalisations.
Moreover, the assertion that President Hichilema refuses to listen to criticism overlooks numerous examples where government policies have evolved following consultations with stakeholders, civil society organisations, business associations, churches, and traditional leaders.
One may disagree with the pace or outcome of those consultations, but it is inaccurate to suggest that dialogue does not occur at all.
Perhaps the greatest irony in Sishuwa Sishuwa’s letter is that while championing tolerance, he repeatedly denies good faith to those who disagree with him.
He presents himself as uniquely courageous while portraying everyone on the opposite side as dishonest or cowardly. What intellectual arrogance?
Genuine defenders of free expression recognise that freedom belongs equally to supporters and critics of government. It includes the right of others to question Sishuwa Sishuwa’s own opinions just as vigorously as he questions those of the President and those he sees as supporting the UPND.
His letter ultimately becomes less about defending freedom of expression than about elevating one individual’s moral authority above everyone else’s.
Democracy does not require citizens to believe that one commentator alone possesses courage or integrity. Rather, it depends on recognising that people with different political views can all participate in national debate without being caricatured or demonised.
Freedom of expression is indeed a cornerstone of democracy, and every Zambian should defend it. But that same freedom carries a corresponding responsibility to distinguish between verified facts and personal opinion, between evidence and accusation, and between principled criticism and personal vilification.
The strength of any democracy is not in who shouts the loudest or claims the greatest courage, but in the willingness of all participants to engage honestly, respectfully, and with fidelity to the facts.
Zambia deserves robust debate, but it also deserves debate anchored in evidence rather than emotion.
