Government Response to EU Resolution on Post-Election Repression Under Fire

An analysis published this week has accused government of bureaucratic evasion in its response to a European Parliament resolution condemning post-election repression in Zambia, arguing that officials have prioritised diplomatic posturing over the human rights concerns raised.…

An analysis published this week has accused government of bureaucratic evasion in its response to a European Parliament resolution condemning post-election repression in Zambia, arguing that officials have prioritised diplomatic posturing over the human rights concerns raised.

The European Parliament passed Resolution P10_TA(2026)0311 on September 17 by a vote of 562 to 1, using urgency procedures under Rules 150(5) and 136(4).

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mulambo Haimbe responded on September 19 with a statement the analysis says complained about procedure rather than addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

The analysis lays out a timeline around the death of former Cabinet Minister and Lunte MP Mutotwe Kafwaya, who died on August 14 during a joint state security operation in Kabulonga, Lusaka.

Official confirmation of his death was not made until August 19, five days later. The European Parliament passed its resolution on September 17, and the Foreign Ministry responded two days after that, describing the concern as “premature.”

The analysis argues that a government which took nearly a week to confirm a former lawmaker’s death in custody has little basis to accuse international observers of acting too quickly.

It also challenges the Foreign Ministry’s reliance on an “active investigation” into Kafwaya’s death by the Zambia Police Service, with what it calls only nominal oversight from the Zambia Human Rights Commission.

Police investigating police, the army or the Drug Enforcement Commission, the analysis argues, presents an inherent conflict of interest. It calls instead for an independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry with the power to subpoena senior officials.

The analysis raises further concern over the use of non-bailable treason charges against opposition figures, naming Brian Mundubile, Makebi Zulu, George Chisanga, Bishop Trevor Mwamba and Patrick Mwansa among those detained.

It argues that extended pre-trial detention under such charges, without a speedy trial, functions as political intimidation regardless of the judicial independence guaranteed under Article 122 of the Constitution.

On disputed figures for the number of people detained after the election, the analysis calls on government to publish a full roster naming every detainee, the charges filed, the facility holding them, and proof of access to legal counsel, family visits and medical care.

It also criticises the Foreign Ministry’s reliance on Articles 3 and 5 of the Samoa Agreement, which emphasise dialogue and sovereignty, while skipping Article 9, which the analysis says obliges signatories to respect human rights as a condition of the partnership.

The analysis concludes that government’s commitment to democracy will be judged not by its rhetoric in opposition, but by how it exercises power now that it is being challenged.