🇿🇲 VIEWPOINT | Illegal Miners, National Security, and Why the Army Has Entered the Conversation
The statement by the Zambia Army Commander that soldiers will “exterminate” illegal miners has ignited a sharp national debate. Critics have framed the remarks as excessive, arguing that the matter falls within the mandate of the Zambia Police Service and immigration authorities, while others have invoked unemployment and survival as justification for illegal mining. Supporters, however, read the statement through a national security lens rather than a labour or livelihoods argument.
This distinction matters.
Across Africa, conflicts rarely begin with ideology. They begin with resources. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan offer sobering lessons on how loosely regulated extraction evolves into armed groups, territorial control, and eventually militias that challenge the state itself. Illegal mining rarely stays informal. It grows. It arms. It hardens. Once that line is crossed, policing becomes ineffective and the cost of restoring order multiplies.
Zambia has already seen early warning signs. Gold rush zones such as Kasempa have attracted not only Zambians but foreign nationals, including individuals from conflict-prone regions. Many local youths lack mining expertise, while organised groups with capital and technical know-how dominate operations. Entry routes, documentation, and enforcement gaps remain unanswered questions.
What is clear is that the scale and coordination of these operations point beyond casual subsistence activity.
The argument that this is solely a police matter ignores Zambia’s own history. During the Patriotic Front era, illegal Mukula trade overwhelmed civilian enforcement. The response was not rhetorical restraint but deployment of the Zambia National Service to secure timber routes and protect national resources. That decision was justified then on grounds of sovereignty and economic security. The same logic applies now.
Military involvement in internal security is not new. Zambia’s armed forces have previously been deployed to halt politically connected land seizures when civilian institutions faltered. The constitutional mandate of the military extends to internal threats where public order, territorial integrity, or strategic assets are at risk.
Illegal mining also carries a humanitarian cost. Operations often run without safety standards, equipment, or oversight. Collapses and fatalities quickly become national crises, not private misfortunes. Regulation is not only about control but about preventing avoidable loss of life.
The economic argument is equally stark. Illegally mined gold leaves the country untaxed, unrecorded, and unaccounted for. No royalties. No export controls. No benefit to the Treasury. Over time, this erodes state authority and normalises parallel economies that answer to no law.
Political discomfort with the Army’s language has been loud, but it is not neutral. Many of the strongest critics are political actors who indirectly benefit from illegal mining networks, either through mobilisation, financing, or influence. This context cannot be ignored. When Hakainde Hichilema was stoned in Chingola, reports linked the incident to anger from illegal mining groups facing disruption. That was not random unrest. It was resistance to enforcement.
The Army Commander’s statement should therefore be read less as a threat and more as deterrence. The intent, as clarified, is to work alongside the Ministry of Mines to restore order, remove illegal operators, and regularise small-scale mining through licensing that prioritises genuine Zambians. That approach separates survival-driven artisanal mining from organised illegality that threatens national stability.
Preventive action is always cheaper than crisis response. Waiting until illegal miners morph into armed groups, gangs, or regional militias would be strategic negligence. Zambia has watched that movie elsewhere on the continent. The ending is never good.
This moment is not about militarising poverty. It is about drawing a firm line before disorder becomes permanent. On that score, the security argument is not only valid. It is overdue.
© The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu