🇿🇲 VIEWPOINT | Church, Law & the False Absolutes Risk
The summoning of Lusaka Archbishop Alick Banda by the Drug Enforcement Commission has triggered an emotional reaction across opposition platforms, with claims of “persecution,” “war against the Catholic Church,” and political suppression dominating the discourse. This framing, however, collapses under scrutiny once facts, law, and historical precedent are placed side by side.
First, the facts. The DEC summons is issued under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. It relates to motor vehicles seized during investigations into illegally disposed Zambia Revenue Authority assets, some of which were later found in Archbishop Banda’s possession. DEC Director General Nason Banda has been explicit: this is not a charge, not a finding of guilt, and not an attack on the Church.
It is a routine call-out to allow an individual named in official records to explain their side before conclusions are drawn. As he put it, “It was not me who mentioned his name. He was mentioned in court.”
Second, the core error in the opposition narrative is the deliberate conflation of a cleric with an institution. Archbishop Banda is being summoned as an individual citizen, not as “the Catholic Church.” Treating him as inseparable from the Church is both legally wrong and historically dishonest.
Around the world, Catholic priests, bishops, and even cardinals have faced investigation, prosecution, and conviction without this being framed as persecution of the faith itself. The Vatican itself convicted Cardinal Angelo Becciu for financial crimes in 2023. The Church did not collapse. Faith was not criminalised. Accountability was enforced.
Third, the political framing ignores context. Archbishop Banda is not a neutral cleric operating in isolation. He has been an outspoken critic of the government, openly opposed Bill 7, maintained visible proximity to PF figures, officiated politically sensitive events, and previously forfeited a Toyota Hilux linked to irregular ZRA disposals. None of this proves wrongdoing, but it does explain why investigators may reasonably seek clarification.
Scrutiny is not persecution.
Fourth, the claim that this is an election-year plot to “silence the Church” overstates both motive and effect. Zambia is entering a high-stakes electoral cycle with expanded constituencies, rising campaign costs, and intensified monitoring of illicit financial flows. Law enforcement scrutiny of money, assets, and transfers will increase across the board. This reality applies to politicians, business figures, NGOs, and yes, religious leaders who appear in financial records.
Equality before the law is not selective morality.
Fifth, the public reaction itself is divided, a fact often omitted by those shouting suppression. Online commentary shows three clear camps: those who see political victimisation, those who insist no one is above the law, and those demanding facts before judgment. This division alone undermines claims of a unified Catholic or national outrage.
Finally, DEC’s conduct matters. The Commission has stated it expected the Archbishop to appear quietly and alone, that the summons was never meant for social media, and that many such cases are resolved once explanations are given. This is not the language of a political hit squad. It is the language of procedure.
The danger in the current rhetoric is not to government, but to public reasoning. When accountability is branded persecution, when investigation is equated with oppression, and when institutions are shielded by moral absolutism, society loses its ability to separate faith from facts.
At The People’s Brief, our position is simple and consistent:
– The Church must retain its prophetic voice.
– The State must enforce the law without fear or favour.
– Individuals, regardless of robe or rank, must answer lawful questions.
Truth is not anti-faith. Accountability is not anti-church. And justice does not collapse because a bishop is summoned.
History shows this clearly. Facts confirm it now.
© The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu
Valid point