There is an uncomfortable question that Zambia must now confront: can citizens who choose to live, work or operate politically from abroad continue to exercise enormous influence over domestic politics while treating the authority of the Zambian State as though it ends at the country’s borders?
The controversy surrounding the cancellation of passports belonging to prominent government critics, including Sishuwa Sishuwa, Lillian Mutambo, Kaizer Zulu, Emmanuel Mwamba and Emmanuel Jay Banda, has opened precisely this debate.
The argument being advanced by some critics is that the affected individuals are being punished for expressing opposition to President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND administration. But that interpretation risks reducing a serious national-security matter to ordinary political disagreement.
According to the Government Gazette cited in the supplied material, the passports were cancelled on security grounds and in the interest of national security.
The documents were declared invalid for travel and other official purposes, with relevant institutions directed not to recognise them.
That decision deserves scrutiny, but it should not automatically be dismissed as political persecution.
The diaspora dimension makes the debate even more important.
Zambia’s diaspora is an important part of the nation. Zambians living abroad contribute through remittances, investment, professional expertise, cultural links and international advocacy. They have every right to participate in national debate.
But there is a difference between exercising one’s democratic right to express an opinion and conducting an organised political campaign from outside the country while simultaneously presenting oneself as beyond the reach of Zambian institutions.
Being abroad does not place a Zambian citizen above Zambian law. Neither does being an academic, former diplomat, former politician, commentator or social-media personality.
Sishuwa Sishuwa, Emmanuel Mwamba, Lillian Mutambo, Kaizer Zulu and Emmanuel Jay Banda have all occupied prominent positions in Zambia’s political conversation. Their opinions can influence public perceptions, particularly among Zambians abroad and international audiences following developments in the country.
That influence comes with responsibility.
If the State believes that particular activities constitute a national-security concern, it must be allowed to investigate and act within the law. Equally, those affected must have the opportunity to challenge the decisions through appropriate legal channels.
This is not uniquely Zambian. Britain, frequently held up as an example of mature democracy, has powers to withdraw passports on national-security grounds.
The material available for this article indicates that the United Kingdom recorded 100 passport withdrawals for national-security reasons between 2013 and 2024.
The United States also has mechanisms for restricting or revoking passports in specified circumstances, including national-security concerns and serious legal matters.
The lesson is straightforward. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign state. It is not an instrument that gives its holder immunity from the legitimate authority of that state.
At the same time, Zambia must be careful not to create the impression that criticism of government automatically constitutes a security threat. Democratic societies require dissent. A strong government should be able to withstand criticism without treating every opponent as an enemy of the State.
But criticism cannot become a convenient cloak for activities that the authorities reasonably and lawfully consider threatening to national security.
The diaspora, therefore, should not be encouraged to see itself as a parallel political establishment beyond the reach of Zambia’s institutions. Those living abroad remain part of the national conversation, but participation must be accompanied by responsibility.
The passport controversy should ultimately be settled not on social media, YouTube channels, Facebook posts or partisan political rallies, but through evidence, law and the courts.
If the Government has acted lawfully, it should defend its position confidently. If those affected believe their rights have been violated, they should challenge the decisions through the appropriate legal mechanisms.
That is the real test of Zambia’s democracy.
The issue is not whether Sishuwa, Mutambo, Zulu, Mwamba or Banda support or oppose Hichilema. The issue is whether every Zambian, whether at home or abroad, is accountable to the same laws and institutions of the Republic.
