By Brian Matambo | Lusaka

Zambia’s justice system stands at a crossroads once again. On one hand, we have seen compassion, proportionality, and fairness extended in cases of serious magnitude such as the recent one involving Maria Zaloumis, who has been granted bond while facing a charge of murder. On the other hand, Honourable Raphael Nakachinda, the Patriotic Front Secretary General, remains behind bars on a charge that is not only non-violent but rooted in a law that no longer exists.

It is impossible to speak of justice without speaking of consistency. The rule of law demands that similar principles be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of political standing, background, or opinion. If one accused of taking life can be deemed fit for bond, how can a man accused under a repealed statute not be afforded the same constitutional right to liberty while awaiting appeal or review?

Honourable Nakachinda’s imprisonment stems from a charge under Section 69 of the Penal Code, the notorious “defamation of the President” offence that was repealed in 2022. This law was abolished precisely because it was unjust, outdated, and inconsistent with the democratic ideals Zambia claims to uphold. Yet today, the same law has been exhumed to silence a political voice. That in itself is a contradiction of justice.

Unlike cases of violence or harm, Honourable Nakachinda’s alleged offence involved speech. Words. Opinions. Whether or not one agrees with what he said, the fact remains that his remarks were political, not criminal. They were made in the heat of public debate when he accused President Hakainde Hichilema of interfering with the judiciary over the PF parliamentary petitions. Those words have now cost him his freedom, while the same judiciary he criticised remains silent on the absurdity of applying a dead law.

Granting bond to Honourable Nakachinda would not be an act of leniency; it would be an act of justice. The Constitution of Zambia guarantees every citizen the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and it also gives the courts discretion to release accused persons on reasonable conditions. If that discretion has been exercised to free a murder suspect on bond, it should certainly be applied to a political leader convicted under a repealed provision. Anything less is discrimination, and it makes a mockery of the justice system.

The danger of selective justice is that it chips away at the moral foundation of the nation. It sends a message that some individuals are too politically inconvenient to be treated fairly. Honourable Nakachinda is not a threat to society; he is a public servant who stood for his party and spoke for his colleagues. His continued incarceration serves no purpose except to humiliate and silence him.

Moreover, the humanitarian argument cannot be ignored. Every day spent in confinement by a man whose case is political rather than criminal is a stain on Zambia’s democratic conscience. The courts must recognise that justice is not served by vengeance or political appeasement, but by fairness and equality before the law.

The granting of bond to Maria Zaloumis in a murder case has set a powerful precedent for compassion and judicial balance. It demonstrates that even the gravest accusations do not automatically strip a person of their right to temporary freedom. Therefore, denying Honourable Nakachinda the same consideration under a repealed statute is indefensible.

Zambia’s courts must rise above politics and stand on principle. Justice must not be a privilege reserved for a few. Honourable Nakachinda deserves bond, not as a favour, but as a matter of right, reason, and equality before the law. Anything less would confirm what many already fear — that the scales of justice in Zambia have been tipped by power, not by truth.