The Editor Zambia
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published a damning assessment of Zambia’s post-election security operations, alleging enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention and physical abuse of opposition members, election monitors, lawyers, journalists and government critics.
Its report, published on 1 November 2026, cites 14 apparent enforced disappearances, 61 cases of alleged abuse in custody and 71 arrests it considers potentially politically motivated. It has also called for an independent investigation into the death of opposition figure Mutotwe Kafwaya. 
These are serious allegations. They deserve serious examination. But serious allegations must not become established facts merely because an internationally recognised organisation has published them.
The central question is not whether Human Rights Watch has the right to investigate Zambia. It does. Nor is the question whether the police and military should be held accountable for unlawful conduct. They must be. The question is whether the evidence presented, the conclusions drawn and the broader context have been subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny that HRW demands of the Zambian authorities.
Evidence must come before conclusions
HRW’s figures are striking, but numbers alone do not establish institutional guilt, political motivation, or the culpability of particular officials.
Fourteen reported disappearances, 61 allegations of abuse, and 71 arrests are three distinct categories. They must be examined individually, with attention to the circumstances of each incident, the identities and responsibilities of those involved, the applicable law, and any subsequent judicial findings.
The organisation says it reviewed court documents and interviewed victims, relatives, and lawyers. That is a legitimate basis for human rights investigations.
However, readers also need to understand which claims have been independently corroborated, which remain disputed and which have yet to be tested in court.
An allegation may be credible without being conclusively established. Equally, a government denial does not automatically disprove an allegation.
This distinction matters because public confidence in human rights reporting depends not only on the seriousness of the claims but also on the transparency of the methods used to reach its conclusions.
Political affiliation is not immunity from the law
No opposition political politician, activist, election monitor, or government critic should be arrested simply for expressing an unpopular opinion, supporting a rival political party, or questioning election results.
But the reverse is equally important: political affiliation does not confer immunity from criminal investigation.
Where the authorities have credible evidence of an offence, they are entitled to investigate it in accordance with the law. Where an individual is suspected of treason, violence, or another serious crime, the proper response is a lawful investigation, access to legal representation, timely appearance before a competent court, and a fair trial.
The crucial distinction is between prosecuting criminal conduct and suppressing political opposition.
The existence of an arrest does not, by itself, prove political persecution.
Equally, the existence of a criminal charge does not establish guilt or prove that the prosecution is legitimate.
Every case must stand on its evidence.
HRW, therefore, has a responsibility to explain carefully why particular arrests appear politically motivated, rather than allowing the public to assume that every person detained in the aftermath of an election is necessarily a political prisoner.
The security establishment must answer legitimate questions
There is no credible defence for enforced disappearance, torture, or the deliberate concealment of a detainee’s whereabouts. If officers detained individuals and denied their families or lawyers information about their location, the allegations demands a prompt and independent investigation.
Security agencies cannot invoke national security as a blanket justification for conduct that violates the law.
However, accountability must be based on evidence and due process, not on the presumption that every disputed security operation was politically directed.
The authorities should publish a verifiable account of election-related arrests, identify the legal basis for each continuing detention, disclose the charges brought against detainees, and facilitate access to lawyers and medical care. Any credible allegation of physical abuse should be investigated by a body independent of the officers implicated.
Such measures would serve two purposes: protecting the rights of affected individuals and protecting the reputation of security personnel who may have acted lawfully.
A professional security service should welcome a process capable of distinguishing misconduct from legitimate policing.
Mutotwe Kafwaya’s death requires an independent investigation
The death of Mutotwe Kafwaya is particularly sensitive because competing accounts have emerged about the security operation at the home of opposition leader Brian Mundubile.
HRW says official statements about the operation were contradictory and argue that the circumstances of Kafwaya’s death have not been credibly explained. It has called for an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation.
That demand should be assessed on its merits.
A death involving state security personnel cannot be resolved satisfactorily through political statements, speculation, or competing narratives. The public deserves an evidence-based account of what happened, who was involved, whether the use of force was lawful, and whether any individual bears criminal responsibility.
The investigation must be independent in practice, not merely in name. Relevant evidence should be preserved, witnesses protected, and findings made public to the extent permitted by law.
If an officer acted unlawfully, the law must take its course. If the evidence establishes that the use of force was lawful, that conclusion should also be reached transparently.
Justice is not served by protecting the guilty nor by condemning the innocent before the evidence has been tested.
Human rights advocacy must be even-handed
International organisations perform a valuable function when domestic institutions fail to protect fundamental freedoms. Their reports can expose abuses that might otherwise remain hidden and help victims obtain justice.
But international standing should never place an organisation beyond legitimate scrutiny.
The same standards of impartiality, verification, and fairness that apply to governments should inform the work of those assessing them. A credible assessment must distinguish between verified facts, witness allegations, reasonable inferences, and conclusions that require further investigation.
It should also engage meaningfully with relevant government responses, court records, and other available evidence, particularly where the allegations involve criminal proceedings or disputed security operations.
The point is not to discredit HRW because its findings are uncomfortable. It is to insist that the public debate be governed by evidence rather than the authority of the institution making the claims.
Nor should the government dismiss criticism simply because it originates from abroad. Such a response would be as unhelpful as accepting every allegation without examination.
Zambia must defend both security and liberty
Zambia’s democratic institutions will be judged not by the strength of official denials or the volume of international criticism but by their ability to uphold the law impartially.
The government must protect citizens from violence and threats to national security. It must also protect their right to speak, organise, participate in elections, and challenge official decisions through lawful channels.
These obligations are complementary, not contradictory.
A government confident in its conduct should be willing to facilitate credible investigations. A professional police service should be able to explain its actions. An independent judiciary should be capable of testing the legality of detention and the credibility of evidence without political interference.
At the same time, opposition leaders and their supporters must recognise that democratic participation carries responsibilities as well as rights. Political competition cannot excuse violence, and allegations of persecution cannot substitute for evidence in criminal proceedings.
The same principle applies to everyone: no one should be above the law, and no one should be beneath its protection.
The verdict must follow the evidence
Human Rights Watch has raised questions that the Zambian authorities cannot responsibly ignore. But, the publication of a report is not the end of the evidential process; it is an invitation to investigate, verify, and establish accountability.
The appropriate response is neither reflexive condemnation of the government nor reflexive dismissal of its critics. It is a transparent process in which allegations are tested, the accused are afforded due process, victims receive justice, and those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.
Zambia does not strengthen its democracy by treating every criticism as hostile. Neither does it strengthen democracy by treating every allegation as proven.
Human rights demand more than compelling headlines. They demand evidence, impartiality, and justice. That standard must apply to the government, the security services, the political opposition, and the organisations that scrutinise them.
That is how public trust is earned. And, that is how the rule of law is defended.
