The Editor Zambia
The pastoral statement issued by the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 30, 2026 deserves sober scrutiny, not because the Church has no right to speak on national affairs, but because of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding its release.
The statement comes barely days after Lusaka Archbishop Alick Banda was arrested by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) and charged with possession of property reasonably believed to have been unlawfully obtained, contrary to Section 319 of the Penal Code. 
The allegation concerns a Toyota Hilux – registration number ALF 7734, which the authorities say was reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained from the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA).
Archbishop Banda pleaded not guilty and was granted K80,000 bail by the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court.
This means that Archbishop Banda has a case to answer before a court of law, and his ecclesiastical position cannot confer immunity from investigation or prosecution.
This is the crucial context missing from much of the rhetoric surrounding the bishops’ statement.
The bishops say their purpose is not to take sides in partisan struggles and that they seek to defend truth, justice, peace, and national unity.
Those are worthy objectives. But if the Church is going to speak about justice and the rule of law, then it must apply those principles consistently, including when one of its most senior clerics is the subject of a criminal prosecution.
ON ALLEGED ARBITRARY ARRESTS
The bishops express concern about reports of arbitrary arrests and detention.
Nobody should support arbitrary arrest. But, the arrest of Archbishop Banda cannot automatically be placed in that category merely because he is a bishop or because his political critics interpret the prosecution as persecution.
The DEC has publicly identified the charge, the alleged property, the relevant period, and the statutory provision under which he was charged. The Commission has also stated that the vehicle forms part of a wider investigation involving approximately 22 ZRA vehicles allegedly improperly disposed of.
Furthermore, the matter did not begin with his arrest on September 28. It was reported that Banda had already recorded a warn-and-caution statement with the DEC on January 5, 2026, in connection with the investigation.
Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that the arrest suddenly emerged as a response to the archbishop’s criticism of government.
If the evidence fails in court, he will be acquitted. If the prosecution establishes the charge beyond the required legal standard, the court will determine the appropriate consequences. That is precisely what the rule of law means.
ON THE PRESENCE OF THE MILITARY
The bishops raise concerns about the presence of military personnel in civilian spaces.
This is a serious matter whenever it occurs and deserves evidence-based discussion.
But a pastoral statement cannot simply invoke the spectre of military involvement without identifying specific incidents, dates, locations, and evidence establishing unlawful conduct. A responsible national conversation requires facts rather than generalised apprehension.
The same principle applies to allegations of excessive or unlawful force. If specific officers or institutions have used unlawful force, those cases should be investigated and prosecuted. But the existence of an allegation is not itself proof of systemic state abuse.
ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND CADREISM
The bishops say intimidation, political violence, and cadreism discourage citizens from participating freely in public life.
Again, political violence and intimidation have no place in Zambia. But the statement would have been stronger had it identified specific contemporary cases and assigned responsibility based on evidence rather than presenting broad concerns that can easily be interpreted as an indictment of the government as a whole.
Political violence should be condemned whoever commits it. The Church cannot afford a selective morality in which violence is condemned when allegedly committed by one political camp but explained, ignored, or forgotten when committed by another.
ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The bishops complain about the narrowing of space for freedom of expression and concerns regarding independent media, civil society, and dissenting voices.
But, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from accountability.
A citizen, journalist, political leader, or clergyman has the right to criticise the government. Equally, the State has the right to investigate alleged criminal conduct.
The distinction is particularly important in the Banda case. His public criticism of government may be protected expression, but that does not automatically invalidate an entirely separate investigation concerning a motor vehicle allegedly connected to improperly disposed of ZRA property.
Indeed, treating the arrest as proof that criticism of government is being punished risks undermining the very principle of freedom of expression that the bishops seek to defend.
ON THE 2026 ELECTION
The bishops express concern about the credibility and transparency of the 2026 elections and say concerns have been raised regarding their conduct and management.
This is perhaps the most serious political assertion in the statement, and, therefore, it requires the greatest precision.
If there were specific irregularities, they should be identified, documented, and pursued through the appropriate electoral and judicial mechanisms.
It is not sufficient simply to say that “concerns” exist. In every election, losing parties and dissatisfied individuals can raise allegations. The proper question is whether those allegations are supported by evidence and whether competent institutions have adjudicated them.
The Church should encourage citizens to use established legal mechanisms rather than allowing broad doubts about elections to become a permanent source of political instability.
ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS
The bishops say they are concerned about restrictions affecting access to justice and perceptions that institutional independence and the rule of law are being weakened.
But, here the Banda case presents an uncomfortable question.
If the State were genuinely denying him access to justice, he would not have been brought before a magistrate, allowed to plead not guilty, granted bail, and given an opportunity to contest the allegation in court.
According to the report, Banda pleaded not guilty and was granted bail in his own recognisance, with three sureties. He subsequently met the conditions and was released while the case proceeds.
That is not a perfect justice system, but it is evidence of a judicial process operating.
The proper test of institutional independence is whether Banda receives a fair trial, not whether the State withdraws the prosecution because the accused happens to be an Archbishop.
ON THE OPPOSITION
The bishops express concern about difficulties faced by opposition parties and political actors, including alleged harassment, restrictions, and arrests.
Opposition politicians are entitled to constitutional protection. But opposition status is not a licence to break the law.
The same principle applies to government supporters.
The Catholic Church should, therefore, insist on equal accountability: no political opponent should be arrested merely for opposing government, but neither should political opponents be protected from legitimate prosecution where credible evidence of an offence exists.
ON PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS
The bishops refer to anxiety surrounding constitutional provisions relating to presidential terms.
This is a legitimate subject for national discussion. But anxiety is not evidence of an impending constitutional violation.
If there is a proposed constitutional amendment, it should be debated openly, legally, and transparently. If there is no such proposal, the Church should be careful not to turn speculation into an established political fact.
Zambia’s constitutional safeguards belong to all citizens and should be defended through facts, law, and institutions rather than political alarm.
ON EXCESSIVE FORCE AND LOSS OF LIFE
The bishops rightly say that every human life is sacred and must be protected.
That principle is beyond dispute.
But it must apply universally. The Church should condemn unlawful killing regardless of the identity of the victim, perpetrator, or political affiliation involved.
Where evidence establishes that State agents used unlawful force, those responsible should face the law. Where allegations are unsubstantiated, however, responsible institutions should not pronounce judgment before investigations are complete.
ON POLARISATION AND TRIBALISM
Interestingly, the statement itself warns against ethnic identities and tribal sentiments being manipulated for political purposes.
That warning should be taken seriously. It is precisely because Zambia is a diverse country that political disagreements should not be converted into regional or ethnic contests. A legal case involving one individual must remain a legal case involving that individual. It should not be transformed into a confrontation between the Catholic Church and the State, nor between one region and another.
THE CENTRAL CONTRADICTION
The bishops call for due process and an end to arbitrary arrests. That is entirely legitimate.
But, due process also means allowing the State to investigate alleged offences and allowing courts to determine guilt or innocence.
One cannot demand the rule of law while simultaneously suggesting that a prosecution involving a prominent cleric should be viewed primarily through the prism of his political disagreements with government.
Archbishop Banda has his day in court. His lawyers have the opportunity to challenge the evidence. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove its case. The magistrate will determine the matter according to law.
That is the system Zambia should defend.
The Catholic Church has every right to pray for Archbishop Banda, support him pastorally, and ensure that he receives competent legal representation. But the Church should be extremely careful not to turn his personal legal case into a referendum on the entire Zambian State.
The bishops’ own statement says that “power is service” and that those entrusted with authority must be answerable to the people and the law. That principle must apply to everyone, including politicians, businessmen, journalists, and religious leaders.
The Catholic Church is an important institution in Zambia. It should remain a voice for conscience, peace, reconciliation, and justice. But precisely because of its moral authority, it must avoid allowing itself to become a political shield for an individual facing a criminal charge.
The question before the court is not whether Alick Banda is an Archbishop.
The question is whether the prosecution can prove the charge against Alick Banda.
Those are two very different questions.
Zambia must resist the temptation to turn every prosecution of a prominent person into a political war. If Archbishop Banda is innocent, the courts provide the mechanism through which that innocence can be established. If the prosecution cannot prove its case, the law provides for his acquittal.
That is what due process means.
And if the Catholic bishops genuinely want to strengthen the rule of law, they should be among the first to allow that process to run its course.
