THE PENALTY OF VAGUE DEFENSES: HOW THE ZAMBIA ARMY’S PUBLIC RELATIONS BLIND SPOT FUELS LEGAL IMPUNITY
Public relations is often a shield for institutional reputation. However, when applied to grave human rights violations, a poorly calculated statement can transform into an indictment of the state itself.
The Zambia Army’s recent response to a viral videos of soldiers flogging civilians such as the incident involving illegal miners in the North Western Province perfectly illustrates this danger.
By treating acts of torture and criminal assault as mere public relations crises or isolated disciplinary infractions, the military Zambia Army Command exposes an alarming disconnect from the constitutional and legal frameworks it is sworn to protect.
To the legal observer, the Zambia Army’s standard communications strategy is a masterclass in unintended admissions of liability.
When a public relations officer confirms that the individuals captured on camera are “positively identified as serving soldiers,” the institutional intent is to project transparency and control. In the eyes of the law, however, this statement establishes a foundational element of vicarious liability. It firmly links the brutal act to state agents acting under the colour of authority, handing victims the exact ammunition needed to sue the Attorney General for massive constitutional damages.
Furthermore, the routine deployment of the “old video” defence to de-escalate public anger reveals a profound misunderstanding of criminal accountability.
A crime does not expire because the video capturing it took time to surface. Relying on chronology as a shield signals to the public that justice has an expiration date dictated by media cycles.
Command at Zambia Army and its Public Relations Director should understand that flogging civilians violate Article 15 of the Constitution of Zambia, which guarantees freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment
It is an absolute right; its violation can not be softened by PR contextualization or dismissed as a past event.The core of the problem lies in the Army’s insistence on treating criminal behaviour as an internal administrative matter.
Announcing that an errant soldier has been charged under the Defence Act or that a platoon commander has been dismissed may satisfy internal military codes, but it does not satisfy the penal code.
Zambia Army Soldiers who torture civilians are not just “undisciplined employees” they are suspected criminals. By attempting to manage these atrocities entirely within the military hierarchy, the Army inadvertently fosters a culture of insularity. This approach sidelines the Zambia Police Service and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA), which hold the proper jurisdiction over crimes committed against civilian populations.
When a public relations officer speaks vaguely in the face of brutal state sanctioned violence, they do more than mismanage a crisis. They signal to both the troops and the citizenry that the rule of law is flexible. True accountability requires more than a carefully worded press release or internal military administration martial. It demands that the Zambia Army hand its rogue actors over to the civilian justice system openly, convene a courts martial and transparently.
Until command at Zambia Army aligns its public communications with constitutional law, its PR strategies will continue to undermine public trust and strengthen the case against the state.
To build public trust, army communications must shift from defensive reactions to proactive legal compliance. The Spokesperson for Zambia Army Colonel Sydney Mwewa should learn to bridge this gap, military communication frameworks generally require a strict separation between operational security and public accountability, ensuring all outputs reinforce the rule of law rather than institutional self preservation.
Fred M’membe President of the Socialist Party