By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma ​O’Brien Kaaba’s attempt to frame the silence of local academics surrounding the revocation of Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa’s passport as a principled moral stand is a masterclass in intellectual gymnastics. Rather than exposing a flaw in Sishuwa’s character, Kaaba’s piece lays bare a far more troubling reality: the collapse of independent academic By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma ​O’Brien Kaaba’s attempt to frame the silence of local academics surrounding the revocation of Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa’s passport as a principled moral stand is a masterclass in intellectual gymnastics. Rather than exposing a flaw in Sishuwa’s character, Kaaba’s piece lays bare a far more troubling reality: the collapse of independent academic Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma challenges O’Brien Kaaba’s defence of the state’s treatment of Sishuwa Sishuwa and examines academic freedom, dissent and political pressure in Zambia.

By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma

​O’Brien Kaaba’s attempt to frame the silence of local academics surrounding the revocation of Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa’s passport as a principled moral stand is a masterclass in intellectual gymnastics. Rather than exposing a flaw in Sishuwa’s character, Kaaba’s piece lays bare a far more troubling reality: the collapse of independent academic voice in Zambia and the eager willingness of regime-aligned intellectuals to rationalize state intimidation. ​By weaponizing decorum and tone to justify the state’s arbitrary abuse of power, Kaaba’s argument relies on a fundamental distortion of academic freedom, selective moral outrage, and a complete refusal to hold President Hakainde Hichilema’s (HH) administration accountable. ​1. Defending Authoritarian Overreach Behind Moralizing Disclaimers ​Kaaba opens with a cowardly disclaimer—claiming he lacks “sufficient information” to judge whether the government’s decision to revoke Dr. Sishuwa’s passport was justified. Yet, the entire remaining text functions as an elaborate brief for the prosecution, painting the victim as one who deserves no solidarity. ​Stripping a citizen of their travel documents is a grave administrative punishment used by state apparatuses to punish dissent, restrict physical movement, and enforce exile. By ignoring the severity of the state’s unconstitutional behavior and focusing entirely on auditing the critic’s social media tone, Kaaba flips the burden of accountability. He demands flawless decorum from the citizen while granting complete immunity to the state’s autocratic machinery. ​2. The Artificial Split: “Scholar” vs. “Public Intellectual” ​Kaaba attempts to erect a rigid boundary between academic scholarship and public commentary, arguing that academic freedom protects only sanitized, neutral, peer-reviewed writing, not partisan or biting political critique. ​This argument flies in the face of African intellectual history. From Frantz Fanon and Ali Mazrui to Mahmood Mamdani and Biko, African public intellectuals have always brought their scholarship directly into the political arena to fight state overreach and tyranny. Academic freedom was never designed to protect comfortable, polite discussions inside university lecture halls; it exists precisely to shield scholars when their work collides with power. Demanding that public commentators maintain a mild, sterile neutrality set by those in office is simply a demand for political submissiveness. ​3. “A Prophet Is Not Honored in His Own Land”: Misinterpreting Intimidation as Consensus ​Kaaba treats the “deafening silence” of Zambian academics as proof that local scholars reject Sishuwa’s methods. This interpretation willfully ignores the structural climate of fear governing Zambian higher education. ​Local academics operate in an environment where university appointments, research funding, state patronage, and personal security are directly controlled by or linked to government goodwill. The silence from domestic academics is not a moral consensus against Sishuwa; it is the natural consequence of fear, self-preservation, and the chilling effect produced when a regime revokes the passport of its most visible critic. ​It illustrates a timeless truth: a prophet is rarely honored in his own country. History proves that public intellectuals who challenge the ruling establishment at home are routinely vilified, alienated, or met with state-orchestrated silence by domestic institutions, while receiving solidarity from abroad where scholars are free from regime retaliation. Dismissing foreign academics as “naive” misses the point entirely—international scholars speak out precisely because they are beyond the reach of state intimidation. ​4. Absurd Equivalences and Alarmist Tactics ​To delegitimize Dr. Sishuwa, Kaaba resorts to extreme and dishonest comparisons, citing figures like Biljana Plavšić and Augustin Ngirabatware—individuals convicted by international war crimes tribunals for inciting genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. ​Equating sharp tweets, controversial campaign predictions, or harsh political characterizations of President Hichilema with genocidal propaganda is an absurd, bad-faith escalation. This dishonest comparison is a classic tactic used by regime apologists: frame severe political critique as a threat to national stability to create a pretext for censorship and arbitrary state punishment. ​5. Sanitizing Mediocrity and Compromising Civil Liberties ​What Kaaba presents as a dispassionate critique of academic ethics is, in reality, the defense of a political status quo. True patriotism requires holding those in power accountable regardless of party or president. By serving as an apologist for state overreach under the UPND administration, Kaaba aligns himself with a culture that defends administrative mediocrity, protects political sacred cows, and ignores the gradual erosion of democratic norms in Zambia. ​Conclusion ​When state apparatuses are deployed to strip a citizen of their constitutional right to movement over political commentary, focusing the debate on whether the critic was “polite” or “objective” enough is an act of intellectual complicity. Kaaba’s article does not prove that Dr. Sishuwa went rogue; it proves that when state power turns authoritarian, those who rationalize the state’s actions will always blame the critic for standing in the way of the fist.

Related posts:

1. Hichilema and Vulgarity: Fred M’membe on the state of Zambia’s political discourse
2. South Africa steps in after Zambia cancels Sishuwa’s passport
3. Opinion: Hakainde Hichilema and his team have rigged their stay in leadership in UPND
4. Mundubile Release Demand Grows as Lawyers Are Denied Access at Mukobeko