WHY MUNIR ZULU IS STILL IN PRISON AND DIDN’T GET REMISSION

WHY MUNIR ZULU IS STILL IN PRISON AND DIDN’T GET REMISSION

By Shalala Oliver Sepiso

Munir Zulu is currently serving multiple sentences concurrently or consecutively, including a 12-month term for criminal libel (for which his bail appeal was denied) and an 18-month term for seditious practices (for which he was granted bail, but remained in custody due to the other active sentence).

However, his continued detention without remission, even after serving the potential minimum time, is a point of contention and debate among his lawyers and supporters, who have labeled it unlawful and a matter for judicial review.

But those who support his continued detention say his conduct in prison nullified his eligibility for early release via remission, and his multiple, active sentences legally permit his continued incarceration.

Let’s moved from the above summary and look at details and specifics.

As of January 2026, Munir Zulu remains in prison primarily because he is serving multiple, overlapping sentences and has been denied bail for his most significant term.

While there is public debate regarding his release, his current legal status is as follows:
1. Serving an 18-month Term: In May 2025, Zulu was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment with hard labour for seditious practices related to claims that the President would dissolve Parliament early. Although he was granted a K35,000 cash bail pending appeal for this specific case in August 2025, he could not be released because he was serving another active sentence.

2. The 12-month Libel Sentence: He was sentenced in April 2025 to 12 months for criminal libel against two cabinet ministers. His application for bail pending appeal for this term was specifically denied by the court because the court felt that he failed to show “exceptional circumstances” and displayed a lack of remorse.

3. Additional Suspended Sentence: In May 2025, he received a further nine-month sentence for another sedition charge. This term was suspended for 12 months, meaning he does not have to serve it behind bars unless he commits a similar offense within that period.

Issues with Remission: Although some reports suggest he should have been released by now through standard “remission” (which typically allows for release after serving two-thirds of a sentence), prison authorities have reportedly cancelled or not granted his remission due to administrative action or alleged ‘no good behaviour’.

Summary of his “Mail” (Bail) Status: You may have heard he was given bail, which is partially true; he was granted bail for the 18-month sedition case. However, because he was simultaneously serving the 12-month libel sentence—for which bail was refused—he remained in custody. His supporters claim he has now served his full time, but legal experts note that without remission, he must serve the terms in full, potentially keeping him jailed until October 2026 if the terms are served concurrently or even May or June 2027 if the terms are served consecutively and without any granted appeals.

In conclusion, in Zambia, remission is not a mandatory right for all convicts; it is an earning scheme based on industry and good conduct within the correctional facility. The Zambia Correctional Service (ZCS) has the discretion to grant or cancel remission. The Nature of Remission as as follows:

1. Discretionary, not Mandatory: While the law provides that a prisoner can earn a remission of one-third of their sentence for good behavior, this is a privilege, not an automatic right. The decision rests with the officer in charge of the correctional facility to motivate inmates to behave well.
2. Based on Conduct: Remission can be lost, in whole or in part, if an inmate commits a prison offense or is found guilty of misconduct.

3. Munir Zulu’s Situation: It is confirmed from Prison sources that Munir Zulu’s remission was administratively cancelled or not granted, which is a primary reason he remains in prison despite having served the notional “two-thirds” of a sentence. Prison authorities or the officer in charge reportedly cancelled or refused to grant his remission due to alleged “not good behaviour” or “administrative action”.

Specific alleged offenses included being “problematic” in prison and accusing authorities of theft. It is also confirmed that he was charged twice for illegally being found in position of communication gadgets (phones). And generally, in the prison authorities’ assessment, his discipline was not good.