ANATOMY OF STATE DEFLECTION: WHY THE UPND GOVERNMENT CANNOT DISOWN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON POST-ELECTION REPRESSION
By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma
When a motion passes an international assembly by an overwhelming vote of 562 to 1, a government genuinely committed to democratic reform does not issue procedural complaints—it conducts an immediate, transparent investigation. Yet, the official press statement released on 19 September 2026 by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Mulambo Haimbe S.C. in response to European Parliament Resolution P10_TA(2026)0311 offers neither self-reflection nor accountability. Instead, it serves up a textbook exercise in bureaucratic evasiveness: hiding behind legalistic posturing, diplomatic protocol, and sovereign defenses while completely side-stepping the grave human rights abuses occurring on the ground.
By prioritizing diplomatic optics over human life, the UPND administration is betraying its own foundational promises of constitutionalism, freedom of expression, and fundamental human rights.
1. Weaponizing “Urgency” Procedures to Hide State Violence
The Ministry spends the opening paragraphs of its statement complaining bitterly that the European Parliament utilized urgency procedures under Rules 150(5) and 136(4) without first engaging Lusaka. This argument intentionally misses the point. Emergency mechanisms exist globally for one reason: when human lives, physical safety, and fundamental rights are actively under threat, time is not a luxury.
The government claims the Resolution was “premature.” Yet look at the state’s own timeline regarding the death of former Cabinet Minister Mutotwe Kafwaya:
14 August 2026: Mr. Kafwaya dies during a joint state security operation in Kabulonga, Lusaka.
19 August 2026: Official confirmation of his death is finally acknowledged by state authorities—after five days of agonizing silence for his family and the public.
17 September 2026: European Parliament passes Resolution P10_TA(2026)0311.
19 September 2026: The Foreign Ministry issues a press release labeling international concern as “premature.”
When a government takes nearly a week just to admit a former lawmaker died under state custody, complaining that international observers acted too quickly is pure hypocrisy. Urgency is not an insult to sovereignty; it is the natural response to state-sanctioned opacity.
2. “Active Investigations” as a Black Hole for Accountability
The Ministry attempts to reassure the nation and the international community by noting that Mr. Kafwaya’s death is under “active investigation by the Zambia Police Service” with independent oversight from the Zambia Human Rights Commission. Expecting citizens or international partners to accept this at face value ignores a glaring conflict of interest: the police cannot independently investigate the police, the Army and or DEC.
Asking the Zambia Police Service to hold itself accountable for a fatal shooting during a joint security operation defies basic principles of justice. Allowing a family pathologist to watch a post-mortem examination is a standard procedural step, not a comprehensive investigation into state excess. True accountability demands an unfettered, specialized Judicial Commission of Inquiry—backed by independent civil society oversight—with the full power to subpoena high-ranking officials and law enforcement command.
3. Judicial Independence as a Screen for Political Intimidation
The Ministry repeatedly invokes Article 122 of the Constitution to highlight the independence of the Judiciary. But citing judicial independence rings hollow when state security agencies leverage heavy-handed, capital offenses like treason against political opponents, civic activists, and protesters.
Arbitrary Arrests as Political Control: Following the August 2026 elections, opposition leaders, campaign personnel, artists, and political figures (including Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, George Chisanga, Bishop Trevor Mwamba, and Patrick Mwansa and many more others ) were swept into custody.
Process as Punishment: Charging political figures with non-bailable offenses removes their access to bail and forces extended pre-trial detentions. When court dates are dragged out while suspects remain in high-security facilities, the judicial process itself is transformed into a mechanism of political intimidation. Hiding behind court independence while political opponents rot in prison without speedy trial is transparent cover-up logic.
4. Dispute Over Figures Instead of Public Disclosure
In responding to allegations of arbitrary detentions, the government simply asserts that official state records “do not corroborate” the numbers cited in the EU Resolution.
If civil society groups, legal defense teams, and international observers are wrong, the solution is straightforward: open the books. Dismissing figures in a press release while keeping lockup registries closed proves nothing. If the state has nothing to hide, it should immediately publish a complete, verifiable roster detailing:
1. Every citizen detained during post-election operations.
2. The specific statutory charges filed against each individual.
3. The exact facility where each person is currently held.
4. Documented proof of access to legal counsel, family visits, and medical care.
Until that registry is public, flat denials remain empty assertions.
5. Selective Reading of the Samoa Agreement
The Ministry relies heavily on Articles 3 and 5 of the Samoa Agreement to demand “partnership dialogue” and “mutual respect.” Yet it conspicuously skips Article 9—the very core of the treaty framework.
The Government’s position, as reflected in Articles 3 and 5, focuses primarily on diplomatic protocol, consultation, and respect for national sovereignty. It emphasises the need for dialogue and consultation before international criticism and appears to treat sovereignty as a protective shield against external scrutiny. By contrast, the Treaty’s foundation, particularly Article 9, establishes broader obligations that extend beyond diplomatic courtesy. It mandates strict respect for human rights and democratic principles and explicitly links economic and strategic partnerships to adherence to the rule of law. Under this framework, human rights are not treated merely as matters of domestic jurisdiction but as shared obligations arising from the commitments undertaken by the parties to the Treaty.
Mutual respect between sovereign partners cannot be reduced to mutual silence in the face of state violence. True partnership requires holding one another accountable to the agreements we sign.
WHEN WILL THE UPND GOVERNMENT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY?
A government’s commitment to democracy is not measured by the rhetoric it uses when in opposition, but by how it handles power when challenged. By treating state violence as a diplomatic PR problem to be managed rather than a national crisis to be fixed, the UPND administration is treading a dangerous path.
The UPND government will only take responsibility when:
1. It stops treating state violence as a public relations problem to be smoothed over with diplomatic statements, and starts treating it as a national emergency.
2. It allows independent oversight into state security agencies, ending the culture of impunity where law enforcement operates with excessive force without public accountability.
3. It ends the abuse of national security and treason laws used to muzzle the political opposition, journalists, and civic voices.
4. It acknowledges that sovereignty is not a shield against state brutality. Sovereignty belongs to the citizens of Zambia—not to state institutions that fail to protect them.
Zambia’s democracy cannot survive on promises of “due process” while citizens and political figures die in state operations. It is time for the government to stop blaming international partners for holding up a mirror, and start fixing the dangerous abuses reflected in it.