WE are continuing to cross examine the Global Witness and its propaganda report which has been circulating in Zambia. As we pointed out yesterday, the hypocrisy in the document is glaring. The organisation claims to be exposing what it describes as interference in Zambia’s democracy by First Quantum Minerals, yet its own intervention is plainly […]

WE are continuing to cross examine the Global Witness and its propaganda report which has been circulating in Zambia. As we pointed out yesterday, the hypocrisy in the document is glaring. The organisation claims to be exposing what it describes as interference in Zambia’s democracy by First Quantum Minerals, yet its own intervention is plainly designed to influence the same democracy.

By publishing a politically explosive document days before elections, and framing one presidential candidate as the beneficiary of foreign corporate capture, Global Witness is attempting to shape the judgement of the Zambian voter. If that was not its mission, it would have produced a more balanced, researched and evidence backed report.

Most of what the report presents as revelation has been discussed openly in Zambia for years. It makes a dramatic discovery of President Hakainde Hichilema’s relationship with the Oppenheimers and the Brenthurst Foundation, yet this association was never hidden. The President publicly attended their events, interacted with their representatives and launched the book “Expensive Poverty” in front of invited journalists. Those who follow our work will recall that this newspaper raised questions about those relationships and about the wisdom of a Zambian President appearing to rely on wealthy foreign advisers.

Zambians gave the President five years to assess whether the advice from the President’s foreign friends translated into good governance, improved services delivery and national development. In under three weeks, Zambians will have a duty to pass judgement on that performance.

It is therefore stunning that Global Witness is today presenting allegations about events said to have occurred even before the UPND formed government in 2021 as though it has uncovered a secret architecture of power. The report says mining companies, including FQM, poured money into Hichilema’s campaign and alleges that Brenthurst supplied funding, transport and campaign support. But the central financing allegations still rest mainly on unnamed sources rather than hard facts and evidence.

More fundamentally, Global Witness writes as though private financing of politics arrived in Zambia with President Hichilema. That is either ignorance or deliberate selectivity. Which serious student of Zambian politics does not know that political parties have always relied on financiers? Who financed the Movement for Multi-party Democracy? Who financed Rupiah Banda? Who financed Michael Sata? Who financed Edgar Lungu and the Patriotic Front?

Whether this is good or bad is a story for another day. But the truth is that business interests have supported political parties throughout Zambia’s multiparty era. This is precisely why the country has repeatedly debated legislation to regulate political-party financing and require disclosure.
There is another question this supposed witness must answer under cross-examination. Who is financing the other candidates in this election? Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the UPND received private donations in 2021 and has received more for 2026. Is President Hichilema the only candidate receiving outside financial support? Who is financing Mr Brian Mundubile’s campaign? He is running a nationwide operation involving transport, rallies, publicity, candidates and campaign materials. Does Global Witness believe all this is being paid for from his personal pocket?

If the organisation genuinely seeks political-finance transparency, it should demand disclosure from every party and every presidential candidate. It should investigate the sources of opposition funding with the same energy it has applied to the UPND. Instead, it has selected one candidate, recycled old public controversies, added anonymous accusations and released the package at the moment of maximum electoral impact. That timing makes the report less an intervention for reform and more an intervention in the contest before Zambian voters.

That selective scrutiny has an electoral consequence. Global Witness cannot credibly accuse others of influencing Zambia’s democracy while withholding equivalent scrutiny from those who stand to benefit from its report. It’s such a shame.