O’BRIEN KAABA, STOP HIDING BEHIND ACADEMIC SOPHISTRY WHILE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE AT STAKE! By Emmanuel Mwamba O’Brien Kaaba, your reference to “Sishuwa Sishuwa’s phantoms” is both provocative and deserving of a direct response. Who exactly are these phantoms you are talking about? Are they imaginary creatures, or are they real Zambians who are […]

O’BRIEN KAABA, STOP HIDING BEHIND ACADEMIC SOPHISTRY WHILE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE AT STAKE!

By Emmanuel Mwamba

O’Brien Kaaba, your reference to “Sishuwa Sishuwa’s phantoms” is both provocative and deserving of a direct response. Who exactly are these phantoms you are talking about? Are they imaginary creatures, or are they real Zambians who are worried about the state of our democracy, the treatment of government critics and the apparent silence of some members of the intellectual community when those in power are accused of crossing constitutional boundaries

Let me remind you, Dr Kaaba, that there are no phantoms here; there are citizens whose freedoms, dignity and constitutional rights deserve protection. These are people who have watched political promises of democratic reform collide with growing concerns about the space available for dissent. You may disagree with Sishuwa Sishuwa, criticise his scholarship or challenge his political arguments, but you cannot intellectually wish away the legitimate questions surrounding the treatment of government critics.

Your argument appears to spend considerable energy explaining why Dr Fred M’membe has misunderstood you, why Sishuwa’s supporters should not misinterpret your position and why your article should not be read as defending tyranny. But the question you must confront is much bigger than your personal intentions:  what are you doing to interrogate the exercise of state power when a fellow academic and outspoken government critic finds himself at the centre of a serious controversy over his passport?

You say you do not have sufficient information about the government’s reasons for acting against Sishuwa. That admission should make you more determined to demand answers, not more comfortable dismissing the concerns surrounding the matter. If you do not know the grounds on which the decision was made, why should the citizens raising questions be ridiculed as people chasing phantoms? Surely, the logical response to a lack of information is to demand transparency, not to make the critics themselves the principal subject of intellectual scrutiny.

And let us ask the uncomfortable question: who are you, O’Brien Kaaba, when citizens are asking difficult questions about the conduct of those who govern them?  Are you prepared to interrogate power with the same intellectual energy you deploy when correcting those who criticise it? Or does your academic courage become cautious precisely when the questions lead towards State House and the institutions exercising state authority?

This is not a question about your academic qualifications. It is a question about intellectual responsibility. A scholar’s reputation is not protected by elaborate explanations of what he did not mean; it is strengthened by the clarity with which he confronts difficult realities. If you believe the government acted lawfully, say so on the basis of evidence. If you do not know, demand the evidence. But do not suggest that the concerns of citizens are somehow imaginary simply because you have not independently established every detail.

You cannot lecture the nation about intellectual standards while appearing to apply one standard to critics of government and another to the government itself. If Sishuwa makes an inaccurate statement, expose the inaccuracy. If M’membe misrepresents your argument, correct him. But when state power is exercised against a critic, interrogate that power too. The government must not be treated as an innocent bystander while its critics are subjected to an endless examination of their motives, language and political affiliations.

And spare us the suggestion that defending Sishuwa necessarily means endorsing everything he says. That is a false choice. I do not have to agree with every word spoken by a government critic to defend his constitutional rights. I do not have to belong to his political camp to demand an explanation for an administrative decision affecting his freedom of movement. Fundamental rights are not party membership cards issued to people whose opinions please those in authority.

What makes this debate particularly troubling is that Zambia’s democratic credentials cannot be measured merely by the existence of elections or the constitutional language contained in our laws. Democracy is also tested by how a government treats its fiercest critics, its unpopular academics, its journalists and ordinary citizens who dare to disagree. When those citizens raise concerns about possible intimidation, the proper response is to examine the evidence and establish the truth,not to dismiss them as phantoms.

And if you are concerned about the excesses of both PF and UPND governments, then demonstrate that consistency by interrogating specific actions, demanding evidence and defending due process regardless of who occupies State House. Historical wrongdoing by one administration does not excuse questionable conduct by another. Neither does the misconduct of an opposition figure give the government permission to escape accountability.

Dr Kaaba, Zambia does not need intellectual gymnastics that turn a discussion about state power into a prolonged examination of the personalities challenging it. It needs intellectuals who can ask uncomfortable questions without calculating whose political interests might be offended. It needs academics who understand that defending constitutionalism sometimes means standing up for people with whom they profoundly disagree.

The real phantom is not Sishuwa’s supporter. The real danger is the possibility that, in our national debate, the exercise of state power becomes less deserving of scrutiny than the citizens who question it.

So stop making the debate about whether you have been misunderstood and address the substance. What were the legal grounds for the action against Sishuwa? Was due process followed? What safeguards exist against the misuse of administrative authority? And what should happen when the government refuses to provide satisfactory answers to legitimate public questions?

Those are the questions that matter. They will not disappear because you describe the people asking them as phantoms.

O’Brien Kaaba, intellectual independence is not demonstrated by how elegantly you distance yourself from both sides. It is demonstrated by whether you are willing to confront power when confronting it is uncomfortable. Zambia is watching, and the citizens asking these questions are not phantoms. They are the very people whose rights a democracy is supposed to protect.