IT is astonishing that, following the openly partisan statement from Zambia’s Ambassador to South Korea, Mr Andrew Banda, there has been no rebuke from Cabinet Office, State House or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Banda has declared that he has returned to Zambia to campaign for President Hakainde Hichilema because, as a political appointee, he will lose his job if Mr Brian Mundubile wins the August election. In his own words, he has come to “defend President Hichilema to the core”.

This is unacceptable. Mr Banda may have been appointed by the President, but he was appointed to serve as Zambia’s Ambassador to South Korea, not as a UPND campaign operative. He represents the Republic of Zambia, not the political interests of the appointing authority. His salary, allowances and diplomatic privileges are paid for by taxpayers belonging to different political parties, including Mundubile. In fact, if Mr Mundubile was to travel to South Korea tomorrow, it should be Mr Banda’s duty to ensure that his stay in that country is protected.

By declaring that he is campaigning because his job depends on President Hichilema winning, Mr Banda has admitted that his loyalty is not to the Republic, but to the individual who appointed him. That is very dangerous. The position taken by Mr Banda must be condemned, and the appropriate sanction must follow. In fact, he should be fired.

Government cannot remain silent and hope this controversy will disappear. Silence from Cabinet Office and State House creates the impression that Mr Banda has permission to abandon diplomatic restraint and operate as a ruling-party campaigner. On what grounds is he in Zambia? What type of leave has he taken from his office?

This is the problem with our politics. A wrong cannot only become a wrong when the offender belongs to the opposition. A wrong must remain a wrong when it violates the law, regulations and ethical standards governing public service, regardless of political affiliation. Tomorrow, if a civil servant who supports Mr Mundubile stands up and campaigns for him, what will Cabinet Office say? What will State House say? Will that officer be disciplined? If the answer is yes, Mr Banda cannot be excused because he is campaigning for a candidate in the coming elections.

There is a reason public officers are required to exercise political restraint. The public service belongs to the people of Zambia, not to the party occupying government. Governments come and go, but institutions must remain. Public officers are expected to serve citizens professionally, without converting public offices into campaign structures. Granted, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President and may be recalled. But political appointment is not a licence for political misconduct. Mr Banda cannot enjoy the title, privileges and remuneration of an ambassador while behaving like a constituency campaign chairman.

If he wants to campaign openly for President Hichilema, he must first surrender the diplomatic office and join the campaign as a political activist. What he cannot do is retain the benefits of an ambassador while announcing that he has returned to defend one candidate “to the core”.

Even if Mr Banda believes President Hichilema deserves re-election, the office he occupies imposes limits on how he expresses that support. An ambassador is not merely Andrew Banda, son of former president Rupiah Banda. He is a representative of Zambia. His conduct reflects on the country. President Hichilema has spoken about restoring professionalism in the public service. This matter gives his administration an opportunity to prove that those principles apply even when the offender is campaigning for the ruling party.

Protecting Mr Banda would undermine the government’s claims of fairness and professionalism. Worse, it would tell public officers that partisan political participation is acceptable as long as it benefits those in power. That precedent will return to haunt the UPND when another party forms government.

Fear of losing a job does not excuse abuse of office or abandonment of professional responsibility. If anything, his remarks prove that he is no longer suitable to serve as ambassador. He has declared that his overriding interest is preserving his appointment. This is why we insist that he must be relieved of his duty. Cabinet Office must condemn this conduct. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must distance the diplomatic service from these remarks. Above all, President Hichilema must recall Mr Banda.