After Chawama, Evidence Must Replace Accusation

 VIEWPOINT | After Chawama, Evidence Must Replace Accusation

With the Chawama parliamentary by-election now concluded, the national conversation is shifting from ballots to behaviour.

The Electoral Commission of Zambia has formally demanded an apology from Miles Sampa over claims that a “fake polling station” had been set up along Lilayi Road during the poll. The Commission has warned that failure to retract and apologise may trigger legal action. At the centre of the dispute are allegations circulated on social media, and reportedly reported to police, suggesting electoral manipulation in Chawama.

ECZ’s response was direct and detailed. Chief Electoral Officer Brown Kasaro clarified that Chawama had 111 gazetted polling stations, all of which opened and closed within legally prescribed hours. Two stations along Lilayi Road, he explained, were operating in tents at Mutason Shopping Centre and were properly gazetted. There was nothing clandestine about them.

The Commission described the allegations as “false, misleading and unfounded,” and questioned how a sitting Member of Parliament could make such claims without basic verification.

This episode matters not because of who won or lost Chawama, but because of what it says about the health of Zambia’s democratic culture.

Elections are not sustained by outcomes alone. They are sustained by trust in process. When public figures allege rigging or “ghost polling stations” without evidence, they do more than criticise an institution. They inject doubt into the system itself. That doubt lingers long after votes are counted, regardless of who occupies the seat.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Chawama produced an opposition victory. The ruling party lost. But the electoral process remained peaceful, transparent, and orderly. President Hakainde Hichilema accepted the outcome publicly and congratulated the winning candidate. The UPND candidate conceded. The streets did not burn. Institutions held.

That is precisely why unsubstantiated allegations now ring hollow.

Opposition politics has every right, and indeed a duty, to scrutinise electoral processes. Vigilance is not subversion. But scrutiny demands evidence. Where there are irregularities, they must be documented, reported through lawful channels, and tested against facts.

Social media declarations and dramatic claims may mobilise supporters in the short term, but they weaken the very institutions that opposition parties rely on when they themselves win.

There is also a broader risk. Normalising accusations without proof trains the public to distrust outcomes selectively. If victory is celebrated as democratic but defeat is automatically framed as fraud, democracy becomes conditional, not principled. That is a dangerous precedent for any republic.

The Chawama by-election offered Zambia something rare in recent political memory: a competitive contest, high tension, strong emotions, and yet no systemic breakdown. Law enforcement acted with restraint. ECZ operated transparently. Observers confirmed the process. The outcome displeased one side and energised the other, but the system stood.

This is not something to casually undermine.

If those who alleged rigging possess evidence, now is the moment to present it. Not through innuendo. Not through viral posts. Through formal mechanisms that strengthen, rather than corrode, public confidence. If no such evidence exists, then retraction is not humiliation. It is responsibility.

Democracy is not tested only when we win. It is tested more sharply when we lose. Respect for institutions, especially after an unfavourable outcome, is what separates serious political leadership from reckless mobilisation.

Chawama is behind us. What remains is a choice. Zambia can either move forward with a strengthened democratic culture, or slide back into a cycle where every election is pre-emptively discredited. The path chosen in moments like this will matter far beyond one constituency.

Evidence must now replace accusation.

© The People’s Brief | Editors