The Editor Zambia
Human Rights activist Brebner Changala’s suggestion that Zambia could be operating under an undeclared state of emergency is a serious allegation that deserves to be challenged for what it is: an exaggerated political narrative that risks misleading the public and unnecessarily creating fear about the state of the country’s democracy.
It is difficult to understand how the detention of individuals facing criminal investigations can suddenly become evidence that Zambia is under emergency rule. 
Is Changala suggesting that whenever the police arrest someone, the country must be presumed to have abandoned its Constitution? That is a rather simplistic and dangerous interpretation of law enforcement.
Zambia is a constitutional democracy governed by established laws, and furthermore, the existence of criminal investigations, arrests, and prosecutions does not suspend democracy.
Neither does it automatically suggest that constitutional rights have been abolished because every responsible government has a responsibility to maintain law and order, protect citizens, and investigate suspected criminal conduct.
That responsibility does not disappear simply because some suspects happen to be politically connected, or their cases attract public attention, especially from their fellow tribesmen like Changala himself.
Changala must appreciate the distinction between an individual complaint about detention and the much broader constitutional question of whether a country is under a state of emergency.
These are two entirely different matters. A habeas corpus application is a legitimate legal remedy available to anyone who believes that their detention is unlawful.
It is precisely why Zambia has courts and an independent Judiciary. If Emmanuel Jay Jay Banda or any other detainee believes that the State has violated their rights, the appropriate course is to pursue the legal remedies available rather than invite the public to speculate that the country is under undeclared emergency rule.
Indeed, the very existence of habeas corpus proceedings demonstrates that constitutional mechanisms remain available to challenge the exercise of State power.
The courts must be allowed to examine the facts and make their determinations without political activists like Changala prematurely converting individual cases into evidence of a national constitutional crisis.
Changala should also understand that the presumption of innocence does not mean immunity from investigation, arrest, or prosecution.
It means that every accused person is entitled to a fair trial and that guilt must be established before a competent court.
Nobody is above the law, whether they are ordinary citizens, politicians, or former members of Parliament.
Of course, the government and law enforcement agencies must respect constitutional safeguards. Detention must have a lawful basis, suspects must be afforded their rights, and the courts must intervene where those rights are violated.
There should be no argument about that. But demanding accountability is one thing; suggesting that Zambia is secretly governed through emergency powers without presenting evidence is quite another.
What exactly does Changala want the public to believe? That is because certain individuals are facing sedition charges, the country has somehow descended into authoritarianism?
Sedition is a criminal offence under the law, and allegations of its commission must be investigated and tested in court. Whether the charges are sustainable is for the Judiciary to determine.
Changala is entitled to his opinions and questions, but he must also appreciate the responsibility that comes with making public pronouncements on matters of national importance.
Constitutional democracy cannot be defended by deliberately blurring the distinction between ordinary criminal justice processes and emergency government.
If there is evidence of unlawful detention, let it be presented before the courts. If constitutional rights have been violated, let the institutions mandated to protect those rights do their work.
But Zambia should not be casually branded a country under a state of emergency simply because the police are investigating individuals suspected of breaking the law.
The rule of law means that nobody is above the law, not that anybody facing criminal allegations is automatically a political detainee.
