IN winding up our analysis on the The Global Witness report, we wish to state that the publication has now generated enough public discussion for one unavoidable conclusion. This was never meant to be an investigation revealing anything of relevance to the citizens. The authors had one mission and one mission only: to paint Zambia’s sitting President as a corrupt leader, but without any tangible information to support the agenda. The cowardly produced report has now left us with a debate about the standards that should govern organisations that seek to influence public opinion in democratic societies. If international non-governmental organisations wish to be regarded as credible watchdogs, they must subject themselves to the same standards of fairness, accuracy and accountability that they demand from governments, corporations and political leaders.

This is why we find the methodology adopted by Global Witness deeply troubling. We noted that the report repeatedly used words such as “evidence”, “investigation” and “findings”, language that naturally leads readers to expect a rigorous presentation of verifiable facts. Yet, when one carefully examines the document, much of its content is empty hearsay.

As citizens, we must protect our democracy from such external influence. Grave accusations and claims without facts at a critical time like this should concern every Zambian, regardless of political affiliation. Elections are not ordinary moments in the life of a nation. They determine who governs, who controls public resources and who makes decisions affecting millions of citizens. Any organisation releasing allegations capable of influencing those decisions carries an enormous responsibility. As we stated last week, the higher the potential impact, the higher the standard of proof required. That principle should apply equally to politicians, journalists, civil society organisations and international advocacy groups.

Unfortunately, Global Witness appears to have adopted a different approach. It has asked readers to accept extraordinary conclusions while withholding what it repeatedly calls its evidence. We are told that sources have spoken. We are told documents exist. We are told insiders have revealed information. But the Zambian electorate is largely expected to trust the organisation’s interpretation rather than independently evaluate the underlying material.

That is not how public confidence is built. Credibility is earned by allowing readers to test your conclusions against the evidence you present, particularly when the allegations are capable of affecting the outcome of a national election.

This is where Zambian voters must exercise great caution. There is an important distinction between investigative reporting, advocacy and political campaigning. Investigative reporting begins with evidence and follows it wherever it leads, even if the conclusions are inconvenient. Advocacy begins with a cause and seeks facts that support it. Political campaigning begins with a preferred outcome and seeks to persuade voters to produce that outcome. These are three different activities, and citizens should never confuse them.

That is why we reject the suggestion that this publication is merely an innocent contribution to public debate. It is a deliberate attempt to shape that debate. Indeed, viewed in its entirety, it amounts to a malicious effort to sway the Zambian vote under the banner of accountability. If Global Witness genuinely wanted to strengthen democracy, it could have published this report months ago, or even years ago, allowing institutions, citizens and those accused sufficient time to interrogate its findings thoroughly. Instead, it chose maximum political impact over maximum public scrutiny.

There is another danger that should not be overlooked. When international organisations lower their evidential standards for politically sensitive publications, they damage more than their own reputation. They weaken public confidence in genuine investigative work. Future reports exposing real corruption, genuine abuse of power or unlawful corporate conduct may be dismissed because organisations entrusted with public confidence failed to distinguish clearly between suspicion, inference and proof.

Zambians should therefore read every election-related publication with critical minds. They should ask obvious questions. Who is making the allegation? What evidence has been produced? Has the accused been given a fair opportunity to respond? Are the conclusions proportionate to the evidence? Why is the report being released now? Those are not partisan questions. They are the questions responsible citizens ask before allowing anyone, local or foreign, to influence their democratic choices.

Ultimately, Zambia’s democracy belongs to Zambians. It should neither be captured by politicians nor manipulated by corporations. Equally, it should not become a laboratory for international organisations that wish to influence electoral outcomes through reports whose conclusions outrun the evidence presented. The sovereign right to judge the performance of President Hakainde Hichilema, or any other candidate, rests with the Zambian people. They have lived through the last five years. They have experienced the successes, the disappointments and the realities of this administration. On election day, that lived experience should remain the decisive witness.