The Editor Zambia
It is surprising to note from the statement coming from the United Nations that the international organisation is abetting and supporting the militia that was recently uncovered to overthrow a dully elected government.
It is then doubly surprising that instead of ending at doing this, the UN has chosen to rush to condemn the government while appearing unwilling to seriously interrogate organised militia activities and attempts to destabilise the country’s constitutional order. 
The information concerning the security operation that recovered high grade military weapons and equipment, including five AK-47 rifles, 60 rounds of ammunition, Uzi machine gun weapons, a Zastava pistol, a bulletproof vest and other items at a Kabulonga residence, is in the public domain and the UN knows all about this.
These are not ordinary household objects that can simply be dismissed as political memorabilia or explained away by repeatedly shouting that the government fabricated a militia story.
These are weapons and equipment that raise legitimate national-security questions. At scene, several special forces soldier, commonly known commandos, snipers and anti robbery special former police officers were among those arrested at the scene.
That is the point the United Nations appears to deliberately miss and has instead chosen to support the militia, probably waiting for a full-fledged tragedy that would then justify the UN’s ‘intervention.’
The UN for sure knows that Zambia’s security institutions cannot simply be expected to sit back and watch when there is solid evidence of armed organisation, militia activity, and preparations for unconstitutional action.
The State has an obligation to protect citizens and defend the constitutional order. That obligation does not disappear simply because those accused are politically connected.
This is precisely why the government is justified in challenging the statements attributed to the UN Special Rapporteur. International human-rights officials possess enormous influence.
The statement is outrightly supporting the militia and plans to destabilise the country, something that is highly disturbing, especially coming from the UN.
The United Nations must also understand that Zambia has a responsibility to protect its citizens from violence and unconstitutional attempts to seize power.
Why has the UN then chosen to support political entities bent on destabilising the peace of a sovereign nation?
Political freedoms are fundamental, but political freedom cannot be interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to organise violence, acquire military equipment, or overthrow an elected government.
The UN should, therefore, be extremely careful not to send a message that clearly makes it partisan in supporting the militia to overthrow a legitimate government.
However, we have seen how the UN operates from examples in other countries like Rwanda and Sudan.
The tragedy of Rwanda should remain permanently etched into the conscience of the international community, like the UN.
While in Rwanda, the UN was largely a passive actor – in Zambia, the international organisation is an active player supporting the militia.
The world watched a horrifying genocide unfold in 1994 and failed to act decisively enough to prevent the slaughter. The international community subsequently mobilised to assist survivors and confront the consequences of the catastrophe.
Zambia does not need a United Nations that waits for tragedy before it becomes interested and, worse still, one that is part of the problem by supporting wrongdoers.
The UN must act before innocent Zambians are killed, not after bodies begin accumulating in the streets.
There is also a disturbing issue of factual accuracy surrounding the Special Rapporteur’s reported description of treason as a capital offence in Zambia.
The government has pointed out that Zambia abolished the death penalty in 2022 and subsequently strengthened its international commitment to abolition.
Such an error is important because it demonstrates why international officials must thoroughly familiarise themselves with the laws of the countries they publicly condemn.
The contrast between direct engagement and distant condemnation is therefore significant. Where UN representatives engage directly with government, opposition figures, churches, and other stakeholders, they are in a stronger position to understand the complexity of events.
Where conclusions are reached from afar, there is a greater danger of relying on incomplete information or politically motivated narratives.
The question of the guns cannot simply disappear because it is politically inconvenient. Five AK-47 rifles, ammunition, Uzi weapons, a Zastava pistol, body armour, and other reported military equipment are serious matters.
Zambia needs a United Nations that prevents conflict rather than one that merely comments on it after the damage has been done.
The message to the United Nations should, therefore, be unmistakable: do not take sides in Zambia’s political confrontation. Do not legitimise violence by ignoring evidence against those accused of organising it.
Do not wait for innocent Zambians to die before recognising the seriousness of a potential security threat.
