WHEN THE PRESIDENCY BECOMES THE JUDGE: WHO PROTECTS ZAMBIA’S DEMOCRACY?
When President Hakainde Hichilema took office, his anti-corruption agenda inspired renewed faith in Zambia’s democracy. The “New Dawn” administration promised integrity, transparency, and a break from past impunity. But several years later, the fight against corruption appears caught in contradiction, commendable in intent, yet questionable in execution. The problem is no longer corruption itself, but how the battle is being fought, and by whom.
The case of former Foreign Minister Joseph Malanji, convicted of corruption and sentenced to four years in prison, illustrates this tension. While hailed as a triumph of justice, the case drew controversy after the President reportedly admitted to personally contacting regional leaders in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Turkey to trace Malanji’s assets. Such involvement, though seemingly pragmatic, raises a serious constitutional question: Can the President pursue justice without becoming its judge?
Democracy depends not only on punishing wrongdoing, but also on maintaining procedural fairness. The principle of procedural justice requires that every citizen be treated equally under the law, free from political influence. The President’s direct engagement in investigative matters, even under the banner of accountability, risks undermining this balance. It sends an unintended message that justice can be guided, or hurried, by those in power.
This perception deepens amid concerns that key investigative bodies such as the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) now operate under the shadow of State House. While government insists this proximity ensures “coordination,” critics view it as consolidation of control.If investigative wings appear answerable to the presidency rather than to law, the separation between prosecutor and arbiter begins to fade.
At the heart of Zambia’s constitutional order lies the doctrine of separation of powers—a safeguard designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too dominant.Today, that safeguard seems increasingly fragile. Parliament is seen as largely compliant, the Judiciary faces questions about its independence, and oversight institutions such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) struggle to inspire public confidence. When these checks weaken, power naturally gravitates toward the Executive. The result is what political scholars call “executive overreach”, a situation where the presidency begins to act as both ruler and referee. And when the presidency becomes the judge, democracy itself stands trial.
The debate over Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 adds fresh urgency to this conversation. The Bill, previously struck down for insufficient consultation, seeks sweeping changes to Zambia’s governance architecture. Given the current political climate, many fear that the forthcoming “technical committee” reviewing Bill 7 will merely ratify what the Executive already desires. If the presidency exerts influence over the Judiciary, investigative agencies, and Parliament, how can citizens trust that constitutional reform will be independent, people-driven, or protective of checks and balances?
President Hichilema’s leadership began with a vision of restoring law, order, and equality before justice. Yet growing perceptions suggest the opposite, that his government is sliding toward the same executive dominance it once condemned. The danger lies not only in political interference, but in public perception. When citizens start to believe that justice depends on political favor, faith in institutions collapses. And when faith collapses, laws lose legitimacy.
The essence of democracy is not that leaders are infallible, but that their power is limited. When a president acts as investigator, prosecutor, and judge, the foundational pillars of democracy begin to crack. The responsibility to restore balance now lies beyond State House, it lies with citizens, civil society, and independent institutions.
Zambia’s democracy will endure only if the people insist that power obeys law, not the other way around. The time has come to ask, boldly and without fear: Who protects Zambia’s democracy when the Presidency becomes the judge?
The Struggle Continues
Sensio Banda
Former Member of Parliament
Kasenengwa Constituency
Eastern Province
So how is the arrest of criminals “consolidating power”?
Those who feel criminals should loot our national treasury willy nilly without consequences should go and join the same criminals in jail. The criminals had their day in court, and they failed to provide evidence or proof that they did not steal. Then you in yowa great wisdom or foolishness want to have the final say in the matter. Nigga please.
Ba Sensio naimwe! The President did the right thing to get the cooperation of other Heads of State in investigating Mr. Malanji. Without this high level involvement, he would have gotten away like so many others before him.
The evidence adduced in court was solid and that is what matters. He was not unjustly convicted. And this kind of cooperation should be encouraged so that thieves don’t feel secure hiding behind the complexity of an investigation.
Imagine if we were to get the cooperation of the Dubai authorities, how much can we recover? Probably millions of dollars of siphoned funds and Mr. Sensio is concerned about such cooperation!
Some times I wonder what kind of values we subscribe to. But then, in the PF universe, right is wrong and wrong is right.
SEEKING CO-ORPERATION FROM ANOTHER STATE REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF A THREATENING NATURE AS CORRUPTLY OBTAINED ASSETS IS THER REASON YOU HAVE BILATERAL AGREEMENTS AND INTERPOL.
THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSSES THAT THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY SUFFERED THROUGH THAT PILFERING FAMILY(PF).
The waste thing is to personalize state resources and disadvantage the rest of the nation and stand on a hill ” I am very rich my self “.