Private Media Houses Under Siege: How the UPND Government is Undermining Zambia’s Democracy – Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

Private Media Houses Under Siege: How the UPND Government is Undermining Zambia’s Democracy

By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma

In a functioning democracy, independent private media houses are not just desirable—they are indispensable. They are the voice of the people, the watchdog of power, and the backbone of accountability. Yet, under the United Party for National Development (UPND) government, led by President Hakainde Hichilema, Zambia’s private media houses are under siege. Media houses, which should thrive as independent arbiters of truth, are being systematically silenced. This calculated assault on private media houses threatens Zambia’s democratic foundation and undermines the very principles that hold governments accountable to their citizens.

The Role of Private Media Houses in a Democracy

Private media houses are more than just channels of information; they are the fourth pillar of democracy. They check government power, uncover corruption, and give a voice to the voiceless. Private media houses amplify marginalized perspectives and ensure that citizens are informed and empowered to participate meaningfully in governance.

When the independence of media houses is compromised, democracy itself falters. In the absence of free and independent media houses, truth is drowned by propaganda, and authoritarianism flourishes. Zambia is teetering dangerously close to this abyss, with the UPND government leading the charge.

The UPND’s Calculated Assault on Media Freedom

The UPND government has adopted a range of strategies to suppress media freedom. These strategies are sophisticated, insidious, and deeply damaging to Zambia’s democratic fabric.

1. Fear and Intimidation

Under the UPND, journalists and editors working in media houses operate in a climate of fear. Criticism of the government has become a dangerous endeavor, often met with harassment, arrests, and even threats to personal safety. Investigative journalists—those who dare to expose corruption or government misconduct—are bearing the brunt of this repression. Fear has become a weapon, silencing critical voices and creating an environment where self-censorship prevails.

2. Financial Coercion

The government has reportedly exploited its financial influence to manipulate private media houses. Advertising contracts from the government—a lifeline for many struggling outlets—are being weaponized, awarded only to private media houses that align with the UPND’s narrative. This forces private media houses to make an impossible choice: remain financially viable or uphold journalistic integrity.

3. Weaponizing the Law

Legal mechanisms have become tools of suppression under the UPND. Defamation laws and other legal actions are being weaponized to punish dissenting voices. Private media houses face crippling fines and drawn-out legal battles for publishing content deemed unfavorable to the government. The chilling effect is clear: many private media houses are choosing silence over legal entanglement.

4. Covert Censorship

Rather than resorting to overt censorship, the UPND has adopted subtler yet equally destructive methods. Private media houses critical of the government face sudden regulatory scrutiny, delays in licensing renewals, and accusations of violating broadcasting standards. This form of covert censorship stifles dissent while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy.

UPND’s Thin Defense

The UPND government defends itself by asserting that no private media house has been officially shut down since it assumed power. This claim, while technically accurate, is disingenuous. Silencing private media houses does not require shutting down newsrooms. Through financial manipulation, legal pressure, and intimidation, the government has achieved the same outcome—private media houses that cannot operate independently or critically.

Private media houses that are forced to self-censor or serve government interests are as good as silenced. Freedom for media houses is not measured by the number of open offices but by the ability of journalists to report fearlessly and truthfully.

The Collapse of Trust in Private Media Houses

The UPND’s tactics have caused widespread distrust of private media houses. Once viewed as reliable and independent, many are now seen as compromised or controlled. This erosion of trust has driven citizens to alternative platforms like social media, where misinformation and propaganda thrive unchecked.

Without credible private media houses, public discourse becomes polarized, divisive, and vulnerable to manipulation. This breakdown in trust is not just a failure of media—it is a failure of democracy itself.

A Broader Pattern of Suppression

The attack on private media houses is part of a wider crackdown on dissent. Opposition leaders face harassment and arrests, activists are silenced, and citizens are increasingly wary of expressing their views openly. Private media houses, as platforms for amplifying dissenting voices, have become inevitable targets in this broader campaign of repression.

The result is a political climate where the government operates with near impunity, shielded from public scrutiny by the absence of independent and private media houses.

Democracy at a Crossroads

The UPND government’s assault on private media houses is not just an attack on the media—it is an attack on Zambia’s democracy. Free private media houses are essential for transparency, accountability, and public participation. Without them, the government is free to act without oversight, and citizens are left in the dark.

The international community, civil society, and Zambian citizens must not remain silent. Media freedom must be defended as a cornerstone of democracy. A government that cannot tolerate criticism is not a government for the people—it is a regime prioritizing power over accountability.

The Consequences of Silencing Private Media Houses

The UPND government’s actions have far-reaching consequences:

1. Loss of Transparency: Without independent private media houses, corruption and abuse of power thrive in secrecy.

2. Polarization of Society: Controlled media landscapes amplify one-sided narratives, deepening divisions and stifling meaningful dialogue.

3. Weakening of Institutions: Silenced private media houses undermine other democratic institutions by failing to hold them accountable.

Conclusion

The UPND government’s assertion that it has not officially closed any private media houses is a hollow defense. Silencing media houses does not require shutting doors—it requires exerting control through intimidation, financial manipulation, legal pressure, and covert censorship.

By undermining editorial independence and stifling critical reporting, the UPND has effectively muzzled Zambia’s private media houses. Media houses that cannot investigate, report, or critique freely are no better than shuttered ones.

The Zambian people deserve free, fearless, and independent media houses—ones that can challenge those in power, uncover the truth, and amplify the voices of the voiceless. The UPND government must abandon its authoritarian tendencies and embrace the principles of democracy. Only then can Zambia safeguard its democratic gains and ensure a future where media freedom flourishes.