Makebi Zulu says he was blocked from leaving Zambia at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, describing the incident as a breach of constitutional rights and a sign of tightening political space ahead of the August 13 general election.
The episode, which he says occurred as he attempted to travel for engagements outside the country, raises questions about whether political participation now carries informal restrictions imposed by those in office. His position is clear: contesting leadership does not suspend a citizen’s right to movement.
The incident comes at a time when political activity is intensifying across the country, with multiple actors positioning themselves ahead of the polls. Zambia’s Constitution guarantees freedom of movement, and no statute requires political figures to seek clearance from government officials before travelling. Zulu argues that any deviation from this principle shifts authority from law into discretionary control.
He frames the experience as part of a broader pattern. In his account, the line between governance and control is narrowing, with state power extending into areas traditionally protected by constitutional safeguards. Once movement becomes conditional, he argues, the foundation of political participation begins to weaken.
Zulu links the moment directly to the electoral calendar. With August 13 approaching, he suggests that such incidents carry weight beyond personal inconvenience, shaping perceptions of how freely political actors can operate. He casts the restriction as a form of political pressure, describing it as reliance on limitation rather than open contest.
His remarks also highlight the tension between institutional authority and political neutrality. When actions affecting opposition figures occur without transparent legal grounding, scrutiny shifts toward the institutions involved and the conditions under which they operate.
The argument rests on a central premise: rights must apply uniformly, regardless of political alignment. Any inconsistency, he says, turns isolated incidents into matters of national concern, particularly in an election year where credibility depends on equal treatment.
Zulu’s closing message — “Makebi For President – 2026” — places the incident within a campaign framework, signalling that the issue will form part of his political narrative in the months leading to the vote.
This should serve as a warning to those in government today. When people’s movements were restricted under PF government people who were then benefiting didn’t see the wrong in it. They never defended the human rights. Now that they are on the receiving side, they can champion human rights. Do you remember that even going to church was restricted under PF?