The Editor Zambia
The latest statement by a coalition of civil society organisations declaring that Zambia is experiencing a “constitutional crisis” is a dramatic political intervention dressed up as a legal conclusion.
Its language is sweeping, accusatory, and deeply alarming, yet much of its argument rests on allegations, pending court proceedings and interpretations that have not been finally determined by the courts. 
In a constitutional democracy, serious allegations must be investigated, but they should not automatically be converted into verdicts against the State.
There is an important distinction between questioning government action and declaring that the country has descended into lawlessness.
The first is a legitimate function of civil society. The second requires considerably stronger evidence than a collection of disputed cases, allegations, and political assertions.
The organisations invoke Article 1 of the Constitution as though the government has somehow suspended the Constitution. But the same Constitution they cite provides institutions for resolving precisely the disputes they have raised.
Zambia has courts, lawyers, judicial reviews, parliamentary mechanisms, and statutory procedures. If the cancellation of passports is unlawful, affected citizens have the right to challenge those decisions in court.
If arrests or detention are unlawful, the courts can order remedies. If allegations of torture are substantiated, those responsible can and should face the consequences.
That is precisely why it is premature to announce a constitutional crisis before the judicial process has run its course.
The passport issue illustrates the problem. National security is not an abstract concept. Governments everywhere, including democratic governments like Britain and the USA, have responsibilities to protect national security and public order.
The fact that a Gazette notice does not publish every detail of the intelligence or security considerations behind a decision does not, by itself, establish that the decision is unlawful.
Security decisions inevitably involve information that cannot simply be published in the interests of protecting the country.
This does not mean executive power should be unlimited. It means that legality must ultimately be tested through the appropriate constitutional and judicial mechanisms rather than through political declarations.
The same principle applies to the treason and sedition cases involving Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, and their co-accused.
These are exceptionally serious charges. They deserve scrutiny, but they also deserve due process. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Equally, however, the State must be allowed to investigate allegations involving national security without civil society effectively deciding beforehand that the charges are politically motivated.
If there has been unlawful delay in bringing suspects before court, the appropriate response is a court application and judicial determination.
Indeed, the fact that legal challenges are being made demonstrates that Zambia’s constitutional institutions are functioning. A constitutional crisis is not established merely because politically controversial people have been arrested.
The statement’s treatment of allegations of torture and enforced disappearance is based on sandy foundation bordering more on hearsay and falsehoods.
Further, allegations of waterboarding, beatings, denial of medication, and secret detention are false belonging to the realm of fiction rather than fact.
The arrest of Faith Munthali similarly requires due process, but describing an arrest as an “abduction” before the facts and circumstances have been judicially established risks inflaming an already sensitive political environment.
It also undermines the very principle of presumption of innocence that the statement invokes in relation to criminal suspects.
There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in the statement. It calls upon Zambians to defend the Constitution peacefully and to avoid unlawful conduct, yet its rhetoric portrays Zambia as already descending into “lawlessness” and suffering an “unprecedented assault” on democracy.
Such language may mobilise political passions rather than encourage the calm constitutional engagement the country needs after a contested election.
Civil society has an indispensable role in democracy. It should scrutinise government, defend citizens, and speak fearlessly when rights are violated.
But credibility depends upon applying the same standards to everyone.
Opposition politicians are not automatically victims because they are opposition politicians, just as government officials are not automatically guilty because they exercise executive authority.
What Zambia does not need is the premature declaration of a constitutional crisis based on allegations that are still being contested or adjudicated.
What the country needs is restraint, evidence, due process, and confidence in the institutions established by the Constitution itself.
The Constitution is indeed supreme. That is precisely why neither government nor civil society should be permitted to substitute political rhetoric for judicial determination.
