Corruption not a political ideology

AS ZAMBIA steadily strengthens its democratic institutions and heads towards the August 2026 elections, one principle must remain beyond debate: corruption is a crime, not a political belief.
In these 2026 elections, the national conversation has increasingly featured arguments that seek to blur the line between political persecution and criminal accountability. Some parties have attempted to portray individuals convicted of corruption-related offences as victims of political injustice rather than subjects of the law. This is a dangerous path for any democracy to follow.
A functioning democracy depends on the rule of law. It requires that public officials, regardless of rank, influence or political affiliation, are held accountable for their actions. When allegations of corruption arise, they must be investigated fairly. When evidence is presented before competent courts, verdicts must be respected. To substitute legal facts with political narratives aimed at hoodwinking voters is to undermine the very foundations of justice.
The issue at stake is larger than any individual or political party. Corruption is not a victimless offence.
Unlike ordinary crimes that may affect a single person, corruption steals from entire communities. When public resources are misused, hospitals go without medicines, schools remain unfinished, roads deteriorate and essential services suffer.
The consequences are borne not by those who loot but by ordinary citizens.
Every inflated contract means fewer resources for development. Every misappropriated public fund represents a lost opportunity for a child in Lusaka seeking an education, a farmer in Kaputa requiring support, or a patient needing healthcare. That is why corruption should never be trivialised, politicised or romanticised.
Zambia’s economic history provides important lessons. The country’s debt burden, fiscal challenges and stalled development projects have often been linked to concerns about financial mismanagement and weak accountability systems. While economic difficulties cannot be attributed to a single factor, there is little doubt that poor stewardship of public resources in the previous PF government has exacted a heavy cost on national development.
The question, therefore, should not be whether corruption cases are politically convenient or inconvenient. The question should be whether public resources were managed lawfully and responsibly.
This distinction is critical. Here is why.
A political prisoner is generally understood to be someone punished for expressing opinions, exercising fundamental freedoms or opposing those in power. Such individuals are denied justice because of their beliefs or political activities.
A person convicted through a legal process for abusing public resources occupies an entirely different category.
Conflating the two diminishes genuine struggles for political freedom while simultaneously weakening public confidence in anti-corruption efforts.
No democracy can afford to send the message that political influence provides immunity from accountability. No!
Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing many developing nations is the perception that there are different standards of justice for different people.
Citizens become disillusioned when they believe powerful individuals can evade consequences while ordinary people face the full force of the law. For this reason, anti-corruption efforts must remain consistent, transparent and impartial.
At the same time, the pursuit of accountability must be anchored in due process. Investigations must be professional. Prosecutions must be evidence-based. Courts must remain independent. The fight against corruption gains legitimacy not through political rhetoric but through adherence to the law.
Equally important is the need for continued scrutiny of public expenditure.
Calls for audits, reviews of major contracts and strengthened oversight mechanisms should not be viewed as acts of political hostility. Rather, they are essential tools of good governance.
Public resources belong to the people of Zambia. Therefore, citizens have every right to know how borrowed funds were utilised, how contracts were awarded and whether value for money was obtained.
Transparency is not a favour bestowed by government; it is a democratic obligation.
As the country approaches another electoral cycle, political leaders must exercise caution in the promises they make. Campaigns should focus on solutions to national challenges rather than narratives that risk normalising corruption or diminishing the importance of accountability.
The battle against corruption is not a battle against individuals. It is a battle for stronger institutions, responsible governance and sustainable development.
Ultimately, Zambia must guard against the temptation to politicise every legal process. Not every prosecution is political. Not every conviction is persecution.
And not every public official facing accountability is a victim.
A nation that excuses corruption today will inevitably pay a heavier price tomorrow.
The true test of democratic maturity is not how loudly we defend our political allies, but how firmly we uphold principles that protect the public interest.
Corruption should never become a political ideology. It should remain what it is: a betrayal of public trust and an obstacle to national progress.