Mwamba takes on foreign media to save Zambia’s image

In this audio excerpt from South Africa’s Radio 702FM, Zambia’s High Commissioner Emmanuel Mwamba takes a grilling as he answers complicated questions about Hakainde Hichilema’s treason case and the country’s decision to deport DA leader Mmusi Maimane.

He argues that international media was trivialising Hichilema’s treason case by basing it on the Presidential motorcade incident in Mongu.

When the interviewer asks him how a parking violation could amount to treason in Zambia, Mwamba explains that the treason charge against Hichilema was based on events dating back to October 2016.

The interviewer then asks Mwamba if the Zambian judiciary was so fragile that allowing one foreign person into the country to witness trial could affect the court’s decisions.

Defending the government’s approach not to let Maimane step out of the plane, Mwamba explained that it was common practice for immigration authorities across the world to enter an arriving airplane to send back an unwanted passenger, adding that it was also happening even in South Africa.

But the interviewer argues with Mwamba that South African authorities never enter a foreign aircraft to deport people, but instead waits for the passenger to proceed to the immigration desk where they are denied an entry Visa.

Take a listen:

Earlier yesterday, Mwamba addressed international media at his office, explaining why Maimane was not allowed in Zambia.

Comment on article

Comment on article:

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
emmanuel mwamaba
emmanuel mwamaba

this mwamba was instrumental in manipulating things and what can we get from him? sad my people


Corrupt government


The Constitution in the United States gives citizens the right to protect themselves in their home. A citizen has a right not allow agents of the government into his or her sanctuary. Especially when they show up without a search warrant and make matters worse, in the middle of the night.

The display of force in this respect was brazenly excessive and outside what is permissible by law.


It is not a British thing- various pieces of UK legislation permit the discussion of matters that are before the courts. What has to be shown is that the statements are or would be prejudicial or impede the trial, the making of a statement is not prejudicial in itself. We have a similar standard in Zambia whereby the making of a statement is not contempt in itself-it is the nature of the statement in the context of the trial. To put this in context, publication of material insinuating that a person is guilty is not enough to constitute contempt. Why?… Read more »

Send this to a friend