ANALYSIS | Catholic Priest Voices: Are they politicking?
Two of Zambia’s most powerful Catholic voices have stepped into the political storm at the same time that violence, legal battles and constitutional anxiety are rising ahead of 2026. Archbishop Alick Banda of Lusaka and Archbishop Ignatius Chama of Kasama are speaking from different pulpits and with different styles, but their messages converge on one concern: the country is drifting toward confrontation, and silence from the Church is no longer tenable.
Archbishop Banda’s homily at the Cathedral of the Child Jesus was his sharpest public intervention in years. Reflecting on recent incidents, he warned that if current trends continue, “this may turn our society into strife, blood bath, and destruction of both innocent lives and property.” He linked his warning to what he called “selective application of the rule of law, selective provision of security, and selective administration of justice,” and urged Zambians to “open up our eyes and recognise the signs pointing towards destruction and change the course.”
For Banda, the remedy begins with repentance, truth and reconciliation, not public relations or political spin. “Sin and evil can never bring about peace,” he told the congregation, framing the crisis in moral and spiritual language rather than party terms.
But Banda’s intervention does not land in a vacuum. For years he has been viewed by many UPND supporters as sympathetic to the Patriotic Front, a perception hardened when he presided over former president Edgar Lungu’s funeral service in South Africa. Critics point out that during the height of PF era cadre violence and police shootings, his voice was not as sharp as it is today.
Supporters counter that he spoke against injustice in more guarded tones and that a pastor’s duty is to warn whenever danger becomes visible, regardless of who occupies State House. The result is that his current warnings are heard through a partisan filter, even when his language is directed at broader patterns of violence and selective justice.
The historical record from the PF years is not in dispute. In 2021, Amnesty International described “an increasingly brutal crackdown on human rights” and documented how opposition meetings were blocked, media houses were shut and at least eight (8) people were killed by police between 2016 and 2021, including state prosecutor Nsama Nsama and UPND supporter Joseph Kaunda, both shot outside police headquarters in Lusaka, and student Vesper Shimuzhila, who died after police fired a tear gas canister into her room during a protest.
That PF era normalised impunity around political policing and left a legacy that the current administration has not fully reversed.
Under UPND, the scale of recorded violence has so far been lower than during the peak PF period, but the pattern remains worrying. The stoning of President Hakainde Hichilema in Chingola, the brutal assault on Given Lubinda in Kabwe, and the recent attack at the PF Secretariat have revived fears that cadre politics is resurfacing in new colours.
Senior UPND figures have issued conflicting statements, some acknowledging involvement by party youths, others denying knowledge of key actors. Against that background, Banda’s warning about “selective provision of security” resonates with citizens who feel that both PF and UPND have, at different times, benefited from protection or blind spots in policing, depending on who holds power.
Archbishop Ignatius Chama enters the same debate from a different angle. Speaking on Radio Lutanda, the Kasama prelate and president of the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops urged Christians to join the Oasis Forum’s planned demonstrations on 28 November against perceived erosion of constitutional safeguards.
He framed the march as a “sacred civic responsibility” rather than partisan mobilisation, stressing that the right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution and should be exercised responsibly. For Chama, the issue is not one party against another, but whether governance remains anchored in transparency, fairness and accountability, especially toward the poor and vulnerable.
Chama was explicit that the Church rejects violence and chaos, but he warned equally against indifference. When governance drifts and institutions are used to shield corruption or suppress dissent, he argued, believers have a moral obligation to take a stand through lawful means.
Chama called on police to treat protesters as “the voice of collective conscience, not enemies of the state,” and urged the service to focus on real threats such as corruption and abuse of public institutions, rather than intimidating citizens who act within the law. His appeal placed responsibility on both citizens and law enforcement to keep protest peaceful while safeguarding constitutional space.
The Catholic Church’s interventions carry weight because of its historical role in Zambia. Catholic bishops were central to the moral pressure that opened the way for multiparty democracy in 1991, and their pastoral letters have repeatedly challenged ruling parties over corruption, repression and economic mismanagement in the decades since.
When the Church speaks with one voice on governance questions, governments tend to take notice. When its senior figures appear divided, political actors try to exploit the gap, emphasising the statements that support their preferred narrative and discrediting those that do not.
Today, the Church is not divided on principle but on style and emphasis. Banda speaks as a pastor alarmed by rising anger and the risk of bloodshed. Chama speaks as an institutional leader focused on constitutional safeguards and organised civic action.
Both identify the same underlying concerns: violence around politics, selective policing, and a reform process that many fear is being driven from above rather than from citizens. Their combined voices signals that the Catholic hierarchy sees this as a decisive period for Zambia’s democracy, not a routine moment in the electoral cycle.
The challenge for political leaders is how they respond. If the government treats these warnings as partisan attacks and dismisses them, it risks deepening mistrust with a Church that many citizens still regard as a moral referee.
If opposition parties instrumentalise the bishops to relitigate PF era grievances without acknowledging their own role in violent mobilisation, they will reinforce the cycle of blame that both prelates say must end. A credible response will require consistent policing of all cadres, transparent handling of constitutional reforms, and serious engagement with independent voices rather than rhetorical counter attacks.
As 2026 approaches, the bishops are reminding the country that Zambia has walked this road before. It has seen what happens when impunity is allowed to grow, and it has also seen how public conscience, often shaped from the pulpit, can push politics back within constitutional boundaries.
The question now is whether political actors, security agencies and citizens heed the warning, or allow familiar patterns of violence and selective justice to harden before another election.
© The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu