Government has rejected a United Nations Special Rapporteur’s description of people arrested after the just-ended elections as political detainees, and asked the UN to correct a reference to treason as a capital offence. The dispute now turns on a question Zambian courts, not press releases, will settle.
Key takeaways
- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says a news release by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association contains errors of law, presents contested allegations as facts and risks prejudicing ongoing court proceedings.
- Government rejects the description of treason as a capital offence, noting Zambia abolished the death penalty in 2022 and acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, in force for Zambia since March 2025.
- It contrasts the Rapporteur’s approach with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy, who was in Zambia and facilitated the handover of two opposition leaders to the Church and then to security agencies.
- Government’s position: opposition membership does not place anyone beyond the law, nor does it convert a criminal suspect into a political detainee. The courts should decide the charges.
Why does the fight matter? Because it is being waged over who gets to define what is happening in Zambia after an election, and those definitions travel. A statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in Lusaka today rejects the UN Special Rapporteur’s claim that people arrested during the just-ended elections are political detainees, and disputes the characterisation of recent developments as a post-election crackdown.
What the government said
The statement targets a news release by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association. It makes four arguments. First, that people facing criminal proceedings are not, by that fact alone, political detainees. Second, that the release contains errors of law, presents contested allegations as facts and risks prejudicing court proceedings that are already under way. Third, that claims of electoral flaws, intimidation, assaults, abductions and deaths require independent and comprehensive verification before being stated as established fact. Fourth, that the Rapporteur’s reference to treason as a capital offence is wrong on Zambia’s law.
On that last point the government is on firm domestic ground. Zambia abolished the death penalty in 2022 and removed it from military law in 2023. It then acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the treaty that commits states to abolition, which entered into force for Zambia in March 2025. Treason remains a serious offence. It no longer carries a death sentence, and the government has asked the Special Rapporteur and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to publicly correct the reference.
The Special Envoy versus the Special Rapporteur
The sharpest passage in the statement is a comparison between two UN voices. The Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, the government notes, was present in Zambia during the events in question and personally facilitated the handover of the two opposition leaders into the care of the Church, and subsequently to the security agencies. That handover, the statement says, rested on government assurances that the suspects’ fundamental rights would be respected at every stage of due process.
The contrast it draws is blunt: constructive facilitation on the ground, against what it calls condemnation by news release, issued from a distance and without engagement. The subtext is that the Rapporteur did not take up the state’s information before publishing. Governments facing criticism routinely make that complaint. Here it arrives with a named counterparty inside the same UN system who chose a different route.
Political detainees or criminal suspects?
The core legal claim is easy to state and hard to referee from outside. Being a member of an opposition party, the government argues, does not place a person beyond the reach of the law, and nor does it convert a criminal suspect into a political detainee. Criminal allegations should be determined by Zambia’s courts, it says, while suspects remain entitled to due process, including the presumption of innocence and a fair hearing.
That framing is correct as a matter of principle, and it is also the framing any government in this position would choose. The test the statement itself sets is the right one to watch: whether the prosecutions that follow are conducted in open court, on evidence, within a reasonable time. Courtroom conduct, not duelling statements, will settle whether “criminal proceedings” is an accurate description or a euphemism. The Rapporteur’s office has not yet publicly responded to the request for a correction.
What it means for Zambia’s standing
Zambia sells itself to bond investors and mining capital as a stable constitutional democracy, and reputational fights of this kind carry a cost even when the government wins on the facts. The statement closes by reaffirming commitment to constitutional democracy, political pluralism, freedom of assembly and association, the rule of law and cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms, while insisting that engagement rest on accuracy, objectivity and respect for each mandate holder’s brief. It welcomes scrutiny, on the standards of fairness the Human Rights Council has itself set.
The episode leaves two things to watch. One is whether the UN offices make the requested correction, a rare public concession if it comes. The other is the court files themselves, where the government has chosen to stake its case. Investor and diplomatic attention will follow the hearings, not the headlines.
More coverage of Zambia’s post-election politics and institutions is collected in our Leadership and Governance hub.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material and all other digital content on this website may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed, in whole or in part, without the prior express permission of The Zambian Economist. Where permission is granted, the content must be clearly credited to “The Zambian Economist,” with “www.zambianeconomist.com” prominently displayed.
WhatsApp: +260775574228 | Email: info@zambianeconomist.com © 2026 The Zambian Economist.
Work With The Zambian Economist: Advertise With Us · List With Us · Submit an Article
