The Editor Zambia
There is nothing inherently extraordinary about a sovereign State taking exceptional measures to protect itself when credible national security threats arise.
Citizenship is an important legal status, but it is not a licence to endanger the security, stability, and constitutional order of a country. 
The furious reaction that often follows the cancellation of citizenship or withdrawal of passports in security-related cases therefore deserves a dose of perspective.
Britain and the United States, among the world’s most established democracies, have long maintained extensive powers to deal with individuals considered serious national-security threats.
The British system provides for deprivation of citizenship in specified circumstances, including where it is considered conducive to the public good and where national security or counter-terrorism considerations arise.
Britain also has powers to withdraw or refuse passports in national-security cases.
This is not some practice invented by authoritarian regimes. It exists within one of the world’s oldest parliamentary democracies.
The British Parliament’s own research shows that more than 1,500 citizenship deprivation orders were made between 2010 and 2024, although most involved fraud and a smaller number concerned public-good grounds, including national security.
The United States, meanwhile, maintains formidable national-security powers covering citizenship, passports, immigration status, and travel restrictions.
American law also provides circumstances in which citizenship can be lost or revoked, particularly where nationality was obtained fraudulently or where legally defined acts of expatriation occur.
The lesson is obvious: national security is a legitimate responsibility of government, not an optional exercise.
A government that possesses credible intelligence indicating that an individual presents a serious threat cannot simply fold its arms and say that a passport makes that person untouchable.
Citizenship comes with fundamental rights, but the state also has an obligation to protect millions of other citizens who expect the government to prevent terrorism, espionage, violent extremism, organised crime, and other serious threats.
Of course, citizenship deprivation cannot become an arbitrary political weapon. There must be evidence, lawful authority, and appropriate avenues for challenge. That is precisely why mature democracies provide courts, tribunals, and judicial reviews to scrutinise government decisions.
That is the important distinction between legitimate national-security action and political persecution.
The same principle applies to Zambia.
If the Zambian state possesses credible evidence that particular individuals have become involved in activities that threaten national security, constitutional order or the safety of the public, it cannot be expected to surrender its protective responsibilities simply because those individuals possess Zambian passports.
Nor should political activists, commentators, or opposition figures automatically assume that citizenship provides absolute immunity from national-security laws.
At the same time, national security must never become a convenient slogan for suppressing legitimate criticism. A democracy must distinguish between dissent, journalism and peaceful political opposition on one hand, and genuine threats to national security on the other.
If Britain and the United States can maintain legal mechanisms for dealing with serious national-security threats, Zambia cannot be expected to apologise for defending its own sovereignty.
A passport is a document of nationality. It is not a shield against accountability, and citizenship should never become a licence to threaten the nation.
