UPND ACCUSED OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AS MILES SAMPA CASE SPARKS DEBATE.
The arrest complaint against Patriotic Front faction leader Honourable Miles Sampa has ignited a wider public debate, with critics accusing the ruling UPND of applying the law selectively in an election-sensitive period.
On Monday, the Zambia Police Service confirmed that a complaint had been lodged against Mr. Sampa by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) over allegations that he circulated false information claiming a fake polling station had been opened along Lusaka’s Ring Road. Police say investigations are underway under Section 19 of the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025, which addresses the transmission of unsolicited or deceptive communication.
However, the development has drawn mixed reactions from political commentators and citizens, many of whom argue that the authorities are ignoring key mitigating factors, including Mr. Sampa’s public retraction and apology. Several contributors to public discussion platforms noted that the retraction was issued promptly on the same social media platform where the original claim appeared and was later carried in government-owned print media.
Critics contend that proceeding with criminal investigations despite the apology reflects selective enforcement of the law. They point to past instances where senior UPND figures allegedly made unverified or false claims without attracting similar police action. One example repeatedly cited is President Hakainde Hichilema’s previous remarks alleging the beating of Tonga people at Intercity Bus Terminus in Choma claims that, according to critics, were not subjected to police scrutiny.
Political analysts warn that the handling of the Miles Sampa matter could deepen perceptions of bias and intolerance, particularly as Zambia heads toward a highly charged election cycle. Some argue that while the initial statement by Mr. Sampa was irresponsible and potentially destabilizing, the swift retraction and apology should have warranted administrative engagement rather than criminal prosecution.
“There is a legitimate expectation that when a public figure admits an error, retracts, and apologises, the matter should be de-escalated,” one commentator observed, adding that “not every mistake requires the heavy hand of the police.”
Supporters of this view caution that criminalising political speech selectively risks eroding public trust in state institutions such as the police and ECZ, which are expected to act impartially. They further argue that inconsistent application of the law could ultimately harm the credibility of the government more than its political opponents.
As investigations continue, observers say the manner in which the case is handled will be closely watched as a test of the UPND government’s commitment to fairness, equal application of the law, and tolerance of dissenting political voices.
KUMWESU
It’s after the fact. As a leader he should have gone to ECZ to Verify before spreading calculated propaganda. He knows the consequences and did it expecting other PF clowns to do the same Vuvuzela stupid thing. After all at one time he was seeking to be arrested.
He was reckless and he is still, an apology doesn’t mean you don’t face the consequences. Please, get him
Mukwatayi mwane. so that he serves as an example. This was just one by – election, what will happen during the general election which is bigger, if this is not dealt with?
Jata muntu.