THERE is a report flying around generated by an organisation called the Global Witness which we have deliberately opted to ignore because it is loaded with propaganda and hypocrisy. But because its claims are now being circulated as established fact, we must explain why this publication deserves interrogation, not reverence. As we will demonstrate in this series of editorial comments, this publication claims to be exposing interference in Zambia’s democracy while doing the exact same thing.

In most credible investigations by foreign media, there is normally a point when they conduct a research to see what local media has reported on the matters they are investigating. As an investigative newspaper ourselves, we have collaborated with various foreign media houses and assisted in finding some of the information they need on a topic. But when these issues which they say they are exposing were being discussed among Zambia, this Global witness didn’t seem to take interest, until now when citizens are dusting their voters cards to go and vote.

Anyway, this report announces, from its title, that First Quantum Minerals “infiltrated” Zambia’s democracy and bankrolled President Hakainde Hichilema. From our experience, the moment you make such a claim, the next thing people want to see is your evidence supporting that allegation. But shocking, this report by the Global Witness then immediately states from the opening few paragraphs that it has no evidence suggesting that FQM engaged in corruption. They go further to put another disclaimer saying they do not allege that any supposed financial support violated Zambia’s electoral laws, and cannot show that the company knew how any alleged funding would be used.

We are reading this report and we are asking ourselves, what, then, is the Global Witness trying to communicate? What exactly is their point? Where is the credibility of their report hinged? Maybe, they have very credible sources who came out to spill the beans, so we read further and find that all their sources are anonymous. Its central claims rests largely on unnamed insiders and one former employee who says the company told the President it was willing to provide the money. The report produces no bank transfer, receipt, ledger, board resolution, audited exception, payment instruction or identified recipient. Instead, the source speculates that such money could simply be absorbed as expenditure.

At this point, we paused and asked ourselves. Suppose we published an “investigative report” suggesting that Mr Brian Mundubile was being bankrolled by an organisation that promotes gay right, and then we don’t show any form of evidence to support that, what would Zambians say? This is not the same thing as saying “Mr Mundubile has differed with his running mate according to ‘sources’. It’s a serious allegation that has to be anchored on something. The more extraordinary the accusation, the greater the obligation to corroborate. Global Witness says testimony is supported by public documents and data, yet its most politically explosive proposition remains unsupported by any document shown to the Zambian public. The report is shouting “evidence” in the headline but whispers “sources said” in the body.

The same analytical weakness appears in its treatment of mining taxation. Global Witness calculates that policy changes saved FQM US$771 million between 2022 and 2025, then presents those savings as though they prove a political funding. But a tax benefit is not evidence of a campaign donation, and policy alignment is not proof of a corrupt quid pro quo. We are not here to vouch for FQM and say that they never gave any campaign donations, at the time when tax policy changes were being made, we persistently challenged the Ministry of Finance to explain its dealings with FQM and Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane faced the country to explain. His explanations on whether government was giving tax breaks to FQM are still in public domain, but the Global Witness chose not to refer to those answers.

More damaging to its own narrative, the report acknowledges that the fiscal reforms coincided with major new investment, increased production, US$902 million paid to government in 2025, and US$2.14 billion spent through Zambian-registered businesses. It also admits that testing FQM’s claim that the old tax regime discouraged investment was outside the scope of its analysis. That is precisely the economic question which must be answered before declaring the reforms evidence of capture.

The hypocrisy is therefore breathtaking. Global Witness accuses outsiders of influencing Zambia’s democracy while releasing an incendiary, poorly evidenced report at the precise moment most likely to influence Zambia’s election. Whether admitted or not, its immediate political beneficiary is Brian Mundubile. An organisation cannot condemn covert electoral influence while attempting, through insinuation and timing, to tilt public opinion against one candidate.

Zambians should treat this report with the contempt reserved for claims that promise proof but deliver hearsay. Global Witness may call itself a witness, but under cross-examination its testimony collapses: If you are saying FQM bankrolled President Hichilema from the time he was in opposition up to now, and then you say there is no evidence of corruption, it means you have said nothing.

To be continued…