The Illogical Implementation of Live Broadcasts by the UPND Government
By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma
I recently came across a press release from Thabo Kawana, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Information, announcing that the government has implemented live broadcasts of court proceedings to promote justice. For those unfamiliar with Kawana, this is the same individual who, in a leaked audio recording, was allegedly heard coercing Hon. JJ Banda to exonerate his alleged abductors—Clayson Hamasaka, Trevor Mwiinde, and Levy Ngoma—in exchange for his freedom. This controversial background raises serious questions about the sincerity of the government’s latest move.
The decision to start broadcasting court proceedings, beginning with the judgment of the eligibility case of former President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, scheduled for December 10th, is illogical and appears politically motivated.
A Misguided Approach to Transparency
If the UPND government’s intent is to promote justice, why begin live broadcasts at the judgment stage of Dr. Lungu’s case? Transparency is about allowing the public to witness the entire judicial process, from the arguments and evidence presented to the deliberations leading to the decision. Starting at the conclusion of such a high-profile case is counterproductive and raises doubts about the authenticity of this initiative.
This piecemeal approach not only fails to achieve true transparency but also risks distorting public perception. Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done in its entirety. Broadcasting just the final judgment denies Zambians the opportunity to assess the process and understand how the decision was reached.
Who Defines ‘Public Interest’?
The government’s claim that live broadcasts will be reserved for cases of public interest is also problematic. What criteria will be used to determine which cases qualify as “public interest”? The lack of clarity leaves room for selective application, undermining the credibility of the policy.
For instance, the recent gold scandal at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, involving individuals linked to the UPND government, was undeniably a matter of public interest. However, this case was handled behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. When this case occurred, it attracted public attention, and citizens wanted to follow it to the end, only to be told it would be handled privately. The question that begs an answer is: why? Is it because certain individuals linked to the President were mentioned?
Coming back to this policy, the fact that we do not know the criteria that will be used to determine which cases are of public interest means this selective approach creates the perception that the policy will be used as a political weapon, targeting opponents while protecting allies. Genuine transparency cannot exist under such biased conditions.
Mockery of Justice
By selectively applying live broadcasts, the government risks turning the justice system into a tool for political theater. Zambians deserve an impartial and consistent judicial system, free from the influence of partisan politics. Broadcasting some cases while shielding others undermines trust in the judiciary and fuels skepticism about the government’s intentions.
Transparency cannot be a half-measure. A selective approach not only erodes confidence in the justice system but also disrespects the Zambian people, who deserve fairness and impartiality in all matters of public interest.
A Call for Genuine Transparency
If the UPND government is serious about promoting justice, it must apply the live broadcast policy consistently and impartially. This means televising proceedings from the very beginning, not just at the judgment stage. Additionally, there must be clear and transparent criteria for determining which cases qualify as being of public interest.
Without these safeguards, the policy will continue to be seen as a tool for political expediency rather than a genuine effort to enhance accountability. Zambians deserve more than symbolic gestures and political theatrics; they deserve a government that is genuinely committed to upholding justice and transparency.
Conclusion
The UPND government’s selective and ill-timed implementation of live broadcasts undermines its credibility and the integrity of the judiciary. The use of Dr. Lungu’s case as a “test” for transparency feels more like a political spectacle than a genuine reform. The involvement of individuals like Thabo Kawana, whose past actions have raised questions about his commitment to justice, only deepens these suspicions.
Zambians are not fooled by this facade. If the government wants to rebuild trust and demonstrate its commitment to justice, it must abandon its selective approach and embrace genuine transparency for all cases of public interest. Anything less is an insult to the intelligence of the Zambian people and a betrayal of democratic principles.