Dialogue or trial? Zambia’s post-election debate reaches a critical point Calls for national dialogue and reconciliation are gaining momentum in Zambia, but a fundamental disagreement is emerging over what should happen to opposition figures facing criminal charges before any political engagement takes place.
Zambian Eye examines the positions of Government, civil society, the Catholic Church and the ruling UPND, and the bigger question of whether dialogue and the judicial process can proceed side by side.
Civil society organisations have called for dialogue, while also demanding that people who have been detained in connection with the post-election events be brought before court without further delay or released if there is no credible case against them.
Government, however, says it is open to dialogue but insists that political engagement cannot be used to stop criminal investigations, interfere with the courts or provide immunity from the law.
The Catholic Church has now added its voice to the debate, with Chipata Diocese Bishop George Cosmas Zumaire Lungu calling for dialogue, justice and reconciliation.
At the same time, UPND Media Director Mark Simuuwe has taken a different position, arguing that people facing serious criminal allegations should first face the law rather than use dialogue as a means of avoiding accountability.
The competing positions raise a question that is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: Can Zambia pursue national dialogue and reconciliation while criminal cases arising from the post-election period are still unresolved? What civil society is asking for The debate intensified after a coalition of civil society organisations issued a statement on 14 September expressing concern about what it described as a deterioration in the rule of law following the 13 August general election.
Among their demands was that opposition figures facing criminal charges be taken before court without further delay.
The organisations specifically referred to NRPUP presidential candidate Brian Mundubile, his running mate Makebi Zulu and other detainees who have been held in connection with the post-election investigations.
The CSOs cited constitutional protections relating to arrest, detention, legal representation and a fair hearing, and called on Government to either bring accused persons before court or release them if a credible case had not been established.
The call for speedier court proceedings has also gained significance because Mundubile, Zulu and other detainees have challenged their continued detention before the High Court.
The petition argues that their continued detention is unlawful and unconstitutional.
Those allegations remain before the courts and have not been finally determined.
The issue therefore has two separate dimensions: dialogue and due process.
The CSOs are not simply asking political leaders to sit around a table.
They are also demanding that the ordinary legal process operate within constitutional timeframes.
Government: dialogue cannot stop the law The Government’s response came through Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha.
Mr Kabesha rejected the civil society characterisation that Zambia has descended into lawlessness, describing the allegations as sweeping, inflammatory and unsupported by established facts and evidence.
He said Zambia remains a constitutional democracy governed by the Constitution and laws enacted under it.
On the question of dialogue, however, Government did not reject engagement altogether.
Instead, the Attorney General said Government welcomed calls for peace, restraint and dialogue and remained open to constructive engagement with political parties, civil society organisations, faith-based organisations and other stakeholders.
But he drew a clear line around what such dialogue could achieve.
According to the Attorney General, dialogue must be conducted in good faith and cannot override the mandate of the courts, terminate legitimate criminal investigations or confer immunity from the law.
That position effectively separates political dialogue from criminal proceedings.
Government’s argument is that the two can exist simultaneously, but one cannot be used to terminate the other.
What does that mean in practice? If the Government’s position is followed, political leaders and civil society organisations can sit down and discuss national issues, reconciliation, political tolerance and the country’s future.
But where an individual is facing a criminal investigation or prosecution, that person remains subject to the ordinary legal process.
A political agreement could therefore not simply result in criminal investigations being abandoned or charges being erased.
This distinction is important because the word “dialogue” is being used to describe several different things.
It could mean dialogue between political parties about national reconciliation.
It could mean discussions between Government and civil society about governance.
It could mean efforts by religious leaders to reduce political tension.
