ABOUT THE SUMMONING OF ARCHBISHOP ALICK BANDA BY DEC: A ROUTINE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR PERSECUTION?- Sean Tembo

ABOUT THE SUMMONING OF ARCHBISHOP ALICK BANDA BY DEC: A ROUTINE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY OR PERSECUTION?

By Sean Tembo – PeP President

1. I have heard and digested both arguments in relation to today’s summoning of Archbishop Alick Banda by the Drug Enforcement Commission. According to the DEC Director General, Mr Nason Banda, he says the Archbishop needs to explain how a government property under ZRA, being Toyota Hilux Reg ALF 7734 ended up being registered in his name, and in his possession. And further that the Archbishop is not above the law.

Those in support of the Archbishop say that documentation about the purchase of the vehicle at an auction, is in the public domain, and that this is mere persecution of the Archbishop by the UPND administration, because the Archbishop often speaks strongly against the current Government.

2. From where I stand, I paid very close attention to the press statements from DEC, both from the Spokesperson Mr Allan Tamba, as well as the Director General. Whereas I found the statement from the Spokesperson to be professional, I found the statement by the DG to be malicious. Especially the part where the DG said the Archbishop needs to explain how a government property ended up in his name. I say so because the DG is fully aware that the vehicle in question was sold by ZRA at an auction, and also that the Archbishop did not acquire the vehicle from the auction, but from the person that bought it from the auction.

3. My question to the DG is simple; what is the suspected wrongdoing or criminal offense on the part of the Archbishop? If the vehicle was sold below it’s market price, then that is an issue of the auctioneers and ZRA management at the time and not the Archbishop. If the disposal procedures were not followed, then that is an issue of the ZRA management and not the Archbishop. If the full auction purchase price was not paid, then that is an issue with the person that initially bought the vehicle at auction and not the Archbishop.

4. The DEC Director General’s statement that the Archbishop needs to explain how a government property ended up in his name appears to have been designed to create a public narrative that the vehicle just suddenly disappeared from government books and appeared in the Archbishop’s possession and name. I find this statement by the DG to be malicious because DEC is aware that there was a ZRA auction where the vehicle in question was disposed of. The documents relating to this disposal are in the public domain, including a copy of the Gate Pass for the final release of the vehicle after auction. By deliberately omitting these details when publicly commenting on the case, the DG was biased and malicious against the Archbishop.

5. Additionally, if indeed DEC merely wanted an explanation from the Archbishop, regarding this motor vehicle, then why issue a Call Out, knowing fully well that a Call Out for such a prominent person can easily leak to the media? I also take issue with the DG’s insinuations that the Call Out was leaked by the Archbishop in order to seek public sympathy, because there is no evidence to that effect. It is possible that the Call Out was leaked by DEC itself in order to scandalize the Archbishop. If this case was not tainted by malice on the part of DEC, and that DEC just genuinely needed some clarifications from the Archbishop, my expectation is that DEC should have just sent some officers to discreetly interview the Archbishop at his office, and that’s it.

6. A Call Out is ordinarily issued to a suspect. And when I look at this case, there is no evidence, even the remotest evidence, to suggest any type of wrongdoing on the part of the Archbishop, to justify why he should have been issued with a Call Out. None whatsoever. So the question that Mr Nason Banda, the DEC Director General should answer, is why he saw it necessary to issue a Call Out instead of just sending officers to interview the Archbishop at his office?

7. Looking at the vehicle in question itself, the registration number is ALF 7734. What this registration number tells you is that the vehicle was first registered sometime in 2010 or early 2011. Looking at the auction documents that are in public domain, the vehicle was auctioned by ZRA in 2020, after about 10 years in service. The average depreciation rate for motor vehicles is 25% on a straight line basis, although others prefer to depreciate at 20%, meaning that in 5 years time, the vehicle would have been fully depreciated and written off in the books of ZRA. In this case, it appears that after the vehicle was fully depreciated, ZRA decided to revalue it and amortized it over an additional 5 years. What this means is that by the time ZRA was auctioning this vehicle, it was a total wreck, because it should have been auctioned in 2015.

8. I agree with the Director General that no one is above the law. Not even the Archbishop himself. However, the law should not be weaponized and used to harass innocent citizens. In this particular case, the Archbishop is too divorced from any potential wrongdoing, and the DG owes the Zambian people an explanation as to why he saw it fit to issue a Call Out against the Archbishop.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Archbishop’s reputation and good standing in society has been irreparably damaged, as a direct result of the malicious actions of the Director General of the Drug Enforcement Commission. I also have no doubt that in this whole debacle, the DG harbored malice towards the Archbishop. At this point, the question that we should perhaps ask the DG’s appointing authority; President Hakainde Hichilema, is whether this is the caliber of individuals that should head our law enforcement agencies?

///END

SET 05.01.2026