The Editor Zambia
State House Chief Communications Specialist Clayson Hamasaka has raised important questions about the consistency and credibility of human rights advocacy following the apprehension of former Petauke Central Member of Parliament Emmanuel Jay Jay Banda.
His response to the joint statement issued by civil society organisations on October 18, 2026, provides a timely reminder that the defence of human rights must be guided by facts, fairness and universal principles rather than political convenience. 
At the heart of Hamasaka’s argument is a contradiction that deserves serious consideration. The organisations reportedly stopped short of declaring Jay Jay Banda’s apprehension unlawful but proceeded to condemn what they described as acts of lawlessness.
Such language risks passing judgment before all the relevant facts have been established.
Civil society organisations have every right to demand transparency and accountability from the government. Indeed, their role in a democracy is indispensable.
However, that responsibility also requires them to exercise restraint, verify information, and avoid conclusions that may undermine public confidence in the very principles they seek to defend.
Human rights are universal. They cannot be invoked selectively to protect one individual while overlooking the rights and dignity of others who may have suffered alleged abuses.
Hamasaka has specifically drawn attention to charges involving Jay Jay Banda, including the mistreatment of a journalist and an incident involving police officers at a police station.
These charges, like those surrounding his apprehension, deserve condemnation and appropriate legal action.
The important question is why public statements about human rights sometimes concentrate on the circumstances of a politically prominent suspect while giving comparatively little attention to the alleged victims of that person’s conduct.
A journalist performing professional duties is entitled to dignity, safety, and protection under the law. Police officers are equally entitled to protection from unlawful violence.
Defending their rights should not be considered less important simply because they are not the subjects of an international campaign or a widely publicised controversy.
Hamasaka is also right to distinguish between offensive political language and alleged incitement to violence.
If recordings attributed to Banda Jay Jay contain authenticated calls for the assassination of a democratically elected President or the destruction of an ethnic community, such statements would raise grave concerns extending beyond ordinary political disagreement.
Democracy protects freedom of expression, but that freedom does not automatically excuse threats against human life. Any such allegations must be investigated impartially, with the evidence tested according to the law.
The question of how Jay Jay Banda was apprehended and returned to Zambia also requires careful examination. International cooperation in bringing suspects to justice is legitimate, provided it complies with applicable domestic law, international obligations, and the rights of the individual concerned.
The civil society organisations should distinguish between legitimate demands for information and premature declarations of wrongdoing.
Hamasaka has assured the public that Banda will be presented before a competent court and afforded medical care, access to legal representation, and other constitutional protections. These assurances must be honoured.
Hamasaka’s central message is therefore worth supporting: human rights advocacy must be principled, consistent, and evidence-based.
A credible defender of human rights should be prepared to condemn abuses regardless of who commits them, who suffers them, or which political interests may be affected.
