🇿🇲 ANALYSIS | Miles Sampa, the Law, and the Performance of Victimhood
Miles Sampa’s last night appearance on Diamond TV was a good performance. It was shaped for an election season where emotion often outruns evidence. Every line of his claims was calibrated to recast a legal problem into a political grievance, and to turn personal discomfort into national outrage.
At the centre of Sampa’s account is a familiar claim. He insists his arrest followed direct political instruction from President Hakainde Hichilema, arguing that the Inspector General of Police ultimately answers to the Head of State. In his framing, the law did not act on its own. Power did.
He opened by dwelling on detention conditions. Overcrowded cells. Mosquitoes. Cockroaches. Open toilets. He said he refused to eat for two days to avoid using them. The description was vivid and intentional.
“Allow me to thank President HH for sending me to jail… everybody used to tell me your political CV is useless, you don’t have jail. Here I am, the President has gifted me.”
The line drew laughter and sympathy, but it also revealed the strategy. Custody was not presented as an injustice to be corrected. It was presented as political currency. Jail became a credential, not a consequence.
From there, Sampa moved to the Cyber Crimes Act, calling it “draconian” and promising its repeal if he ever leads the country. His position was absolute.
“Let the people talk. Let them say what they want… you cannot gag people.”
He went further.
“Even lies, let the public judge.”
This is where the argument breaks down. Freedom of expression does not exist without responsibility, especially during elections. Every democratic system places limits where speech threatens public order or electoral integrity. By-elections are regulated processes, not open mic sessions.
Sampa was not detained for expressing an opinion. He was detained after announcing the existence of a fake polling station during the Chawama by-election, a claim later rejected by the Electoral Commission. He apologised publicly for that statement. The apology matters. It acknowledges the information was false.
One cannot apologise for spreading false election information and later claim persecution for speaking truth.
two positions cannot coexist.
His criticism of cyber laws also carries selective memory. Restrictive legal frameworks around security and communication did not emerge in a vacuum. Many were enacted or reinforced during periods when opposition figures now crying foul exercised state power themselves. The discomfort today is less about principle and more about position.
Sampa also described Chawama as violent territory. He claimed he was almost killed by “UPND thugs” armed with pangas and said police saved his life.
“Chawama was a difficult campaign… I was almost killed there.”
The allegation is serious, yet no corroborating police statement or case reference was presented during the interview. What remains is narrative escalation, where a by-election becomes proof of systematic repression.
On accusations of betraying Edgar Chagwa Lungu, Sampa leaned on reconciliation. He said the two resolved their differences and that Lungu encouraged opposition unity. This has become a recurring theme across PF-aligned politics. Lungu’s name is invoked as moral authority long after voters rejected his leadership.
Reconciliation, however, does not rewrite history. Electoral defeat does not transform into moral victory simply because time has passed or death has intervened.
What unfolded on Diamond TV was not a legal argument. It was a repositioning exercise. A man facing accountability chose to shift the arena from the courtroom to public emotion. The state became the villain. The law became oppression. Personal discomfort became national crisis.
He apologised for spreading false election information. The law was triggered. The courts will decide.
As campaigns start, this distinction matters. The real question is not whether politicians should speak freely. It is whether falsehoods during elections should carry no consequence at all.
Victimhood can mobilise. Accountability still governs.
© The People’s Brief | Editors
Sampa is prison bound. The orange work suit awaits him.
Who really is behind the People ‘s brief?
Each passing day, as the desperation of the
UPND becomes higher, and chances of retaining power in August becomes slimmer, the People ‘s brief is coming , more daring as a Propaganda Machine to counter the Opposition..to present a narrative that there’s no alternative to Hakainde in Zambia.
They can belittle the Chawama bye Election win, and will do the same even when PFDD wins the Kasama Mayoral Bye Election.
Even when Counsel John Sangwa, a potential Alternative to Hakainde, starts interacting with people, they are still not comfortable..and want him to be in the boardroom and not to adopt the Mass mobilisation Strategies used by the Patriotic Front. Why? They fear that if Counsel John Sangwa some how tapped into the PF’s strengths, Hakainde will be up against a formidable force.
These People ‘s brief editors are just UPND Propagandists whose Agenda is to protect Hakainde and his UPND government..It’s Hakainde ‘s answer to Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba, Ketis, and other objectives bloggers critical to the government. It is an attempt to crush any serious challenge to Hakainde.
The UPND tried using the Timmys, Magret Mwanzas, Farai , non existent people as fronts for their propaganda, but this failed. Koswe and Zambia Watchdog are discredited rogue Media , no one takes them seriously, and Hakainde is not getting any value from these.
They have now come up with the People ‘s brief.
As the heat of the season gets high, the camouflage will disappear. They will be seen for who they are. Hakainde’s Propagandists.