FAITH MUSONDA’S CHARGE COCKTAIL IS TELLING US OF A BIGGER PROBLEM

FAITH MUSONDA’S CHARGE COCKTAIL IS TELLING US OF A BIGGER PROBLEM

By Dingindaba Jonah Buyoya

The back and forth over what offence Faith Musonda actually committed tells a story we have now seen too many times. Police first told the media that she would face a minor count, criminal trespass, after an incident at President Hakainde Hichilema’s Community House on July 2, 2025. Days later, other police communications spoke of criminal trespass and even espionage, one of the most serious national security offences on our books. When she finally appeared in court, the case that stuck was the small one: idle and disorderly, which we normally refer to as “shishita”.

From the onset, we must state that this episode is deeply embarrassing for the UPND government and the Zambia Police because it strikes at the heart of the reforms the ruling party promised and the President personally championed. The UPND came into power on a platform of restoring the rule of law, ending arbitrary arrests, and professionalising law enforcement. President Hakainde Hichilema has repeatedly assured citizens that under his leadership, the era of politically motivated or careless policing was over.

Yet, when an incident occurs near Community House, where the President lives, and the response is a chaotic cocktail of charges, starting with espionage, one of the gravest crimes in our statutes, only to downgrade to “shishita”, it sends the opposite signal. It suggests either that the reforms have not taken root or that the political will to uphold them falters under pressure.

For the Zambia Police, this is a credibility crisis, honestly. If they cannot demonstrate basic investigative discipline on such a high-profile case, why should the public trust them to apply the law fairly and competently?

This lurch from disorderly conduct, to criminal trespass to espionage and back again is not a harmless mix‑up. Severe charges change everything: how long someone may sit in custody, how the public sees them, and how much fear is injected into the national conversation.

In Musonda’s matter, a police spokesperson was quoted early on saying she was yet to be charged even as rumours of espionage spread; another statement days later framed her as facing both trespass and espionage; the court record ultimately reflected the lesser offence. That kind of chaos invites the public to wonder who is really making the call and on what evidence. In fact, what on earth is going on in those offices?

Granted, this whole episode of her attempting to enter the President’s residence is bizarre, but when police over charge or float grand offences they cannot sustain, ordinary legal rights are put at risk. The Human Rights Commission has had to remind the Police Service that suspects must be admitted to bond or taken before court within the time the law allows; delays and over‑holding breach the right to liberty. In Musonda’s early detention, her lawyers struggled to secure bond while the nature of the charge kept shifting, exactly the sort of situation that feeds public concern about rights being sidelined.

This is not an isolated worry. The Police Public Complaints Commission (PPCC) has repeatedly logged rising numbers of grievances against police conduct, from unlawful arrests and over‑detention to abuse of authority. Government itself launched a Service Delivery Charter to strengthen oversight after the Commission received hundreds of complaints. This is definitely an indicator that public trust is fragile, but if you have lived in Zambia, you know this is a no brainer.

In just the second quarter of 2024, the PPCC recorded 68 complaints across the country, including 14 cases of unlawful arrest and over‑detention.

Our own law recognises the harm that comes from sloppy or excessive policing. The Zambia Police Act lists “unlawful or unnecessary arrest” and “discreditable conduct” as disciplinary offences for officers. That language exists for a reason: arrests carry costs to liberty, reputation, and faith in the rule of law, and must never be used casually or for show.
It is embarrassing for both the police and indeed the UPND government to see such a circus in a year like 2025. One wonders if we will ever “get out of the hood.”

Things just need to change! First, charge only what you can back with evidence. This is supposed to be a no brainer. If investigators do not yet have facts to support a national security case, do not float it in the media. Do not even charge someone with something so outrageous. Surely, must the citizens think better than the “experts”?

Second, speak with one voice. Before going public, police should settle on the exact offence being alleged and put it in writing; contradictions, as we can see, erode credibility. Further, move quickly on bond where the law allows, and explain clearly when you will not. Fourth, give the PPCC teeth by acting on its findings; the complaints are already telling you where the problems lie. These are basic steps, not expensive reforms. If anything, these things must be commonplace. This is the ideal situation!

The perception that an invisible hand might be directing arrests grows in the silence left by unclear evidence and shifting stories. The best antidote is professionalism: clear facts, proportionate charges, timely court appearances, open communication, and respect for the limits of police power set out in our own laws. It is 2025. Zambians expect modern, accountable policing that protects rights while enforcing the law.

The Musonda case should be the last time we watch charges balloon and collapse in full public view. Don’t get me wrong. It SHOULD be the last time, but it probably WON’T be the last time.

Editorial
[Picture: Faith Musonda/Google]