EXPLAINER | Passports cancelled. What happens to Mwamba and five others now?

🇿🇲 EXPLAINER | Passports cancelled. What happens to Mwamba and five others now? Zambia’s cancellation of passports belonging to Emmanuel Mwamba, Emmanuel Jay Banda, Binwell Mpundu, Peter Kaiser Zulu, Sishuwa Sishuwa and Lillian Mutambo is more consequential than simply withdrawing six travel documents. All six are outside Zambia, and Gazette Notice No. 1421 of 2026 […]

🇿🇲 EXPLAINER | Passports cancelled. What happens to Mwamba and five others now?

Zambia’s cancellation of passports belonging to Emmanuel Mwamba, Emmanuel Jay Banda, Binwell Mpundu, Peter Kaiser Zulu, Sishuwa Sishuwa and Lillian Mutambo is more consequential than simply withdrawing six travel documents. All six are outside Zambia, and Gazette Notice No. 1421 of 2026 says their passports were cancelled “for security reasons in the interest of national security.”

The documents can no longer be used for identification, travel or official purposes, while public institutions, financial institutions, border authorities and law-enforcement agencies have been directed not to recognise them.

What the Gazette does not disclose is the specific security information behind each decision.

Zambia’s Passports Act No. 28 of 2016 provides the immediate legal framework. Section 5 establishes that a Zambian passport remains Government property, while Sections 11 and 12 provide grounds and procedures for confiscation and cancellation. Section 12 requires the holder to be informed of the cancellation and reasons within 14 days and requires surrender of the cancelled passport within 21 days.

Section 18 provides an appeal first to the responsible Minister and subsequently to the High Court, while Section 19 prohibits using a cancelled passport for identification or international travel. The affected individuals therefore have legal avenues to challenge the State’s decision.

What Government has cancelled is the passport, not Zambian citizenship. The two are legally different. Nothing in the Gazette says any of the six has been stripped of nationality, and deprivation of citizenship is governed separately by the Constitution. Because they are abroad, cancellation also does not automatically mean deportation. Their continued residence will depend on their status and the laws of their respective host countries. But losing the validity of the passport can complicate travel, immigration procedures and other transactions requiring a recognised national document.

There is, however, an obvious political context which cannot be ignored. The six are associated, in different ways and to different degrees, with opposition politics or sustained criticism of the Hichilema administration from abroad. Several have repeatedly circulated disputed or unverified claims about the August election, the military and the legitimacy of the Government. Parts of this diaspora discourse have also moved into inflammatory regional and ethnic rhetoric.

Even opposition leader Harry Kalaba, while appearing on Emmanuel Mwamba’s programme this week, said that if he were President he would call Mwamba and ask him to “tone down.” These are observable facts surrounding the political environment. They do not, by themselves, establish the legal reason Government invoked national security.

There is another possibility which responsible reporting cannot either assert or dismiss: Zambia is already conducting a wider national-security investigation involving senior opposition figures. Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu and others have been charged with treason following allegations involving weapons, illegal military activity and foreign links. Those allegations remain unproved and are for the courts to determine. There is presently no publicly established evidence linking the six passport cancellations to that investigation.

It would therefore be wrong to connect them as fact. But it would be equally premature to assume the Gazette arose solely from social-media speech when Government has deliberately invoked national security without publicly revealing the underlying intelligence or evidence.

If the State eventually alleges something more serious, the international consequences could change substantially. Zambia could investigate, charge suspects, obtain warrants and seek mutual legal assistance, preservation of electronic evidence or extradition where the law permits. A foreign government would not surrender someone simply because Zambia describes him or her as a security threat. It would examine the alleged offence, supporting evidence, its own law, applicable extradition arrangements and human-rights considerations. Nor should terms such as terrorism or insurrection be attached to these six without evidence and charges.

If Government believes their activities reach such thresholds, it must establish that through law.

International law also protects robust political criticism. Criticising Hichilema, questioning ECZ or accusing the military of wrongdoing does not become criminal merely because Government considers the allegation false.

But freedom of expression is not unlimited. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires prohibition by law of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Zambia therefore has both responsibilities: to protect political speech and to act lawfully where evidence establishes incitement, criminal coordination or genuine threats to national security. The dividing line is evidence.

Citizens should therefore watch what Government does next rather than speculate ahead of the investigation. The immediate facts are clear: six passports have been invalidated on national-security grounds; citizenship has not been cancelled; deportation or extradition does not follow automatically; and the affected individuals can challenge the decisions.

What remains unknown is more important: what information persuaded the State to invoke national security, whether criminal proceedings will follow, and whether Zambia will seek cooperation from governments abroad. The Gazette has revealed the action. It has not yet revealed the case behind it.

– The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu