Analysis by Rev Chilekwa Mulenga |
The recent summons of Archbishop Dr. Alick Banda by Zambia’s Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) has ignited a complex national conversation that sits at the intersection of faith, politics, and law. The Archbishop’s decision to remain silent during questioning was not merely a legal tactic but a profound theological statement, deeply rooted in Christian scripture and tradition. This analysis explores the multifaceted implications of this event, providing context often missing from surface-level reporting.
The Theological Foundation of Silence
Archbishop Banda’s posture draws direct inspiration from the Passion narratives of Jesus Christ. As cited in Isaiah 53:7, Jesus “did not open his mouth” when oppressed and led to slaughter. This motif is repeated in the Gospels: before Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:5), where His silence amazed the Roman governor, and before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9), where He offered no reply to lengthy questioning. The apostolic interpretation, found in 1 Peter 2:23, frames this silence not as weakness but as a conscious entrustment of justice to God: “He did not retaliate… but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly.”
For a church leader, this scriptural precedent transforms silence from passivity into a powerful, non-verbal witness. It is a declaration that one’s ultimate accountability lies not with temporal authorities but with divine judgment. This stance communicates that the accusations are so baseless or politically motivated that they do not merit a dignified response, thereby shifting the moral burden onto the accusers.
The Legal and Procedural Context
The controversy extends beyond theology into legal and procedural norms. The core issue reportedly involves a donation received by the Archbishop. In many jurisdictions, religious leaders routinely receive gifts for charitable, pastoral, or institutional work. The critical legal question is one of mens rea (criminal intent). As the original article notes, without evidence of criminal intent, the matter could arguably have been handled through administrative channels—a private meeting or written correspondence—rather than a highly public summons.
The use of a state institution like the DEC for what is perceived as a politically charged investigation raises concerns about the weaponization of state agencies. When investigative bodies are deployed to target political opponents or critical voices, it undermines the rule of law and public trust. The call for the DEC to have acted with greater wisdom and discretion highlights a tension between legal procedure and the prudent exercise of authority, especially when dealing with figures of significant public stature during sensitive national periods.
The Political Dimension and Historical Precedent
The assertion that Archbishop Banda is being targeted for “character assassination” must be understood within Zambia’s recent political history. The Church in Zambia has long played a prophetic role, speaking truth to power on issues of governance, corruption, and social justice. This has, at times, placed church leaders in direct confrontation with the state. The phrase “kicking against the pricks” (a biblical reference from Acts 9:5) suggests that targeting the church is a futile and self-destructive endeavor for any government, as it mobilizes not just political opposition but deep-seated moral and spiritual resistance.
The warning that “no weapon forged against the Church in Zambia will succeed” is both a statement of faith and a political prediction. It implies that attempts to silence the church’s prophetic voice often backfire, consolidating public sympathy for religious leaders and painting the state as authoritarian.
Broader Implications for Civic Space
This incident is a microcosm of a global struggle concerning the shrinking of civic space. The summoning of religious leaders under questionable pretenses can be a tactic to intimidate and discredit influential voices outside the political mainstream. The Archbishop’s silent response, therefore, becomes a strategy of non-violent resistance. By refusing to engage on the terms set by his interrogators, he denies them the spectacle of a defense or admission, instead framing the encounter on his own theological terms.
This approach is designed to “trouble the hearts” of the schemers, as the original text states. It forces observers to question the motives behind the summons and places the moral and psychological onus on the accusers. The silence is deafening, demanding an explanation from the state rather than from the Archbishop.
Conclusion: A Statement Beyond Words
Archbishop Banda’s silence before the DEC was a multilayered act. Theologically, it was an imitation of Christ and a testament of faith. Legally, it was a challenge to the proportionality and intent of the state’s actions. Politically, it was a defiant protection of the church’s role as a moral guardian. His posture suggests that some forms of power—political, legal—are transient, while the authority derived from faith and moral conviction is enduring.
The ultimate outcome hinges on whether the public and institutions perceive this as a matter of legitimate legal inquiry or as an overreach of state power against a critical civic institution. As Zambia navigates this tension, the Archbishop’s silent witness serves as a powerful reminder that sometimes, the most resonant statements are those made without uttering a single word.
Ndola, Copperbelt, Zambia.
END///
This analysis expands upon an original report. Full credit for the initial story and perspective goes to the original source. Readers are encouraged to explore the foundational report for further context. (Source)