NAKACHINDA TRIAL CONTINUES AS STATE LEANS ON FACEBOOK VIDEO EVIDENCE
By Brian Matambo | Monday 4 May 2026
The matter involving Patriotic Front Secretary General Raphael Mangani Nakachinda returned to the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court today, with the State calling its fourth witness in a case that continues to orbit around a single explosive issue, the aflatoxin scare of 2024.
The witness, Given Mayumbela, a 42-year-old businessman of Meanwood Ndeke, took the stand and gave a detailed account of how he came across the now contentious video.
Mayumbela told the court that on the morning of 22 August 2024, around 10:00 hours, he had taken his car for a wash along Munali Road. While waiting, he sat down, picked up his phone, and began scrolling through Facebook.
It was there, he said, that he encountered a press briefing on the Facebook page of Millennium Radio 90.5. The briefing featured Raphael Nakachinda addressing the media.
Curiosity led him to play the video. According to his testimony, Nakachinda alleged in that broadcast that the government under President Hakainde Hichilema had failed to govern and was, in his words, “using the part of genocide to kill their own citizens.” He further warned the public against consuming mealie meal associated with the Zambia National Service, claiming it was dangerous.
Mayumbela told the court that what followed disturbed him even more than the video itself.
He described the scale of engagement as massive. The video, he said, had attracted close to two million reactions, over one and a half million comments, and tens of thousands of shares, though he could not recall the exact number of shares with certainty.
That claim, however, introduces a critical layer that cannot simply pass without scrutiny. Zambia, while active on social media, does not typically generate engagement figures of that magnitude on a single political broadcast. The assertion that millions interacted with the video will require verification. Ultimately, it will be for the court to interrogate the credibility of those figures and determine whether they reflect actual platform data or exaggeration.
As he scrolled through the comment section, Mayumbela said he observed widespread public anger directed at the President and a noticeable lack of confidence in the government. He considered adding his own comment but refrained, opting instead to report the matter to the police.
His next move was not to debate, but to escalate.
Mayumbela testified that he proceeded to Chelston Police Station, where he reported the video as disturbing. He was subsequently referred to Police Force Headquarters, where he met an officer identified as Mr Chikuse. There, he presented the video, and the officer copied the link and recorded his statement. He was later informed that he would be contacted as the matter progressed.
In a striking moment of detail, the witness went further to describe the setting of the video itself. Nakachinda was seated at the centre of a panel, flanked by Japhet Mwakalombe on the right and Emmanuel Mwamba on the left. Behind them were mukwa doors, and a fire extinguisher was positioned over Mwamba’s left shoulder. Nakachinda, he said, wore a grey shirt with a pen in his pocket.
He also recalled that Mwakalombe opened the briefing with a prayer, while Mwamba appeared to chair the session before giving the floor to Nakachinda.
The court also heard the specific statements attributed to Nakachinda, including claims that the government had imported maize contaminated with a chemical referred to as “afloxitane,” which he said had already killed hundreds of dogs and an undisclosed number of people. He urged citizens to stop consuming the implicated mealie meal.
At this stage, proceedings hit a technical wall.
The court indicated that the matter required reference to the actual video evidence, but it currently lacks the facility to play or examine such digital material in session.
As a result, the matter was adjourned to 8 June 2026 at 12:00 hours for continued trial, with a mention scheduled for 21 May.
And so the case continues, not on whether aflatoxins existed, that question has long escaped dispute, but on whether speaking about it in the manner Nakachinda did crosses the line from warning into crime.