Munir Zulu’s Petition on Israel–Zambia Relations Misses the Bigger Picture

Munir Zulu’s Petition on Israel–Zambia Relations Misses the Bigger Picture

By Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo, LLB

Munir Zulu’s petition before the Constitutional Court to challenge Zambia’s diplomatic ties with Israel is legally weak, historically misleading, and politically opportunistic. Since the matter is before our respected Court, I will not undermine its authority. The Constitutional Court will make the final determination. However, I am compelled to comment on what is already in the public domain so that the Zambian people are not misled.

The truth is that Zambia’s renewed engagement with Israel did not begin under the New Dawn administration. It started under the Patriotic Front. The late President Michael Sata reopened our mission in Israel and appointed Ambassador Martin Mwanabale. The late President Edgar Chagwa Lungu then expanded this relationship by personally visiting Israel and signing agreements that laid the foundation for today’s cooperation.

What we are witnessing now , the opening of Israel’s Embassy in Lusaka  is the fruit of those earlier efforts. To suggest otherwise, as Mr. Zulu does, is to ignore history and mislead the public, and this is very unfortunate for him.

It is worth noting that the very individual now challenging Israel–Zambia relations, former Lumezi MP Munir Zulu, benefited politically from the Patriotic Front era which set this policy in motion. Ironically, while Presidents Sata and Lungu were deepening ties with Israel, Mr. Zulu never raised a constitutional objection. It is only now, when he finds himself out of Parliament and facing his own legal troubles ,  indeed now imprisoned,  that he suddenly presents himself as a defender of constitutional morality. This inconsistency exposes the petition as political theatre rather than principle.

The Constitution itself does not support Zulu’s claim. Articles 8 and 9 highlight values such as human dignity, but they do not prohibit Zambia from engaging with other states. If his interpretation were taken seriously, Zambia would be forced to sever ties with many nations across the globe, including some of our largest trading partners. Such an approach would leave the country isolated and unable to advance its development agenda. Diplomacy, by its very nature should be understood as a tool of dialogue and engagement, not about walling ourselves off from the world.

History also demands context. The late Dr. Kenneth Kaunda’s decision in 1973 to cut ties with Israel was shaped by the Cold War, Africa’s solidarity with Palestine, and the dynamics of the Non-Aligned Movement. Kaunda himself was a pragmatist who shifted foreign policy whenever Zambia’s national interest required it. To hold his 1973 decision as a permanent ban is to misread his legacy and to bind Zambia’s present to outdated geopolitical battles.

It is therefore, an undisputed fact that, Zambia, meanwhile, has much to gain from Israel in areas like agriculture, irrigation, water management, technology, and health. These are not abstract benefits, they directly address Zambia’s pressing challenges of food insecurity, climate change, and the need for innovation. Turning away from such opportunities for the sake of political posturing would harm ordinary Zambians who need practical solutions, not empty rhetoric.

In reality, this petition is not about the Constitution, not about Palestine, and not about Zambia’s sovereignty. It is about a desperate attempt by Munir Zulu to seek political attention while ignoring the bigger picture of Zambia’s development and diplomatic interests. The Constitutional Court will ultimately render its decision, but the people of Zambia should be clear: our relations with Israel are strategic, beneficial, and consistent with a policy direction set by our past leaders. Munir Zulu’s petition deserves to be seen for what it is , a distraction, not a defense of dignity.