Archbishop Banda, the State, & the PF Money Trail

🇿🇲 VIEWPOINT | Archbishop Banda, the State, & the PF Money Trail

The Drug Enforcement Commission’s decision to summon Archbishop Alick Banda to appear before its Anti-Money Laundering Investigations Unit has landed like a thunderclap at the start of 2026. The notice, dated 31 December 2025 and issued under Section 26(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act No. 14 of 2001, requires the Archbishop of Lusaka to report to DEC offices on 5 January. It is not a charge. It is not a conviction. It is a summons to explain.

This distinction matters. But so does the context.

First, the facts.
DEC has confirmed that the summons is part of ongoing anti-money laundering inquiries. Archbishop Banda has previously been linked, in open court and official records, to vehicles that investigators say were irregularly acquired. In December 2023, DEC seized a Toyota Hilux (registration ALF 7734) that had been gifted to him. In September 2024, he was named in the Economic and Financial Crimes Court as one of the beneficiaries of vehicles irregularly disposed of by senior Zambia Revenue Authority officials.

Evidence before court showed that the beneficiaries did not pay for those vehicles. The Archbishop later forfeited the Hilux to the State. These are not rumours. They are matters of public record.

Against this background, a summons under the Anti-Money Laundering Act is procedurally unsurprising. When investigators believe there are issues requiring clarification, they call people in. Clergy are not exempt from the law. Nor should they be.

Second, the sensitivity.
The Catholic Church in Zambia is not an ordinary institution. It has perceived powerful moral voice, historically vocal on governance, corruption, and social justice. Archbishop Banda himself has been among the most outspoken clerics in recent years, sharply critical of the UPND regime and strongly opposed to constitutional reforms such as Bill 7. He also played a visible role in the Edgar Lungu burial saga in South Africa, aligning closely with the Lungu family and PF figures at a time of intense political tension.

This history explains why this summons is being read politically, whether DEC likes it or not.

Within PF circles, the narrative is already forming. Party supporters argue that the State is “targeting the Church” to weaken a perceived ally of the opposition. Some PF figures privately describe the summons as part of a broader strategy to “dry up opposition money” ahead of the 2026 elections, which will be fought across an expanded parliamentary map. Others claim the Catholic Church is being intimidated because it is seen as a platform capable of mobilising public sentiment against government.

These claims, however, remain claims. No evidence has been presented that the summons itself is politically directed. What exists, instead, is a documented trail of questions around assets and benefits that investigators are duty-bound to examine.
Third, the wider political moment.
Zambia is entering an election year.

Historically, election cycles attract intensified scrutiny of money flows. Campaigns cost money. By-elections have already exposed how cash-strapped opposition parties are. PF figures themselves have publicly admitted that party finances are strained and that individuals are self-funding operations. At the same time, there is growing public awareness of how political actors in the past used shell accounts, proxies, and gifts to move or conceal resources.

Against this backdrop, a more aggressive enforcement posture by DEC is not unexpected. Our sources within enforcement agencies say investigators are “leaving no blind spots” as 2026 approaches. This includes politicians, business figures, NGOs, and religious institutions where financial flows intersect with politics. These sources insist the objective is prevention, not persecution.

Fourth, the uncomfortable question.
If there is nothing improper, transparency should resolve the matter. A summons is an opportunity to explain, not a verdict. Yet the intensity of the reaction from PF-aligned voices raises its own questions. Why frame a routine AML process as an existential attack? Why mobilise outrage before facts are tested?
Equally, the State must tread carefully.

Zambia’s history offers painful lessons about how heavy-handed action against the Church can backfire, eroding trust and feeding narratives of repression. If this process is to command legitimacy, it must be strictly lawful, professional, and insulated from political theatrics. Any hint of selective enforcement would damage not only DEC but the broader anti-corruption agenda.

Finally, the principle.
This moment is bigger than Archbishop Banda. It is about whether Zambia can hold two ideas at once: that the Church has a vital moral role in national life, and that no individual or institution is above financial scrutiny. Accountability does not negate faith. Faith does not confer immunity.

At The People’s Brief, our position is simple and consistent. Facts matter. Process matters. History matters. The Archbishop is entitled to dignity, due process, and the presumption of innocence. The State is entitled to ask hard questions where public records and evidence justify them.

The coming days will test all sides. How DEC conducts itself. How the Church responds. How politicians exploit or restrain themselves.

© The People’s Brief | Editors