Government Contrasts UN Envoy’s Ground Engagement With Rapporteur’s Distant Criticism

Government has drawn a sharp contrast between the conduct of two United Nations representatives during Zambia’s post-election period, arguing that the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy engaged constructively on the ground while the Special Rapporteur issued condemnation from a distance without similar engagement.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation said Special Envoy Parfait Onanga-Anyanga was present in Zambia during the events surrounding the August 14 arrests in Kabulonga and personally facilitated the handover of two opposition leaders to the Church before their transfer to security agencies.

The handover took place on the basis of assurances from Government that the fundamental rights of the suspects would be respected at every stage of the legal process, the ministry said.

“The UN Special Envoy engaged directly on the ground and chose constructive facilitation. The Special Rapporteur, from a distance and without such engagement, has chosen condemnation by news release,” Government said in its statement.

Special Rapporteur Gina Romero had issued a statement from Geneva earlier in the week urging Zambian authorities to release all political detainees and restore democratic accountability. Her release did not reference the Special Envoy’s earlier involvement in the case.

Government said the contrast between the two approaches illustrated what it described as a deeper problem with the Rapporteur’s statement: that it was built on distant assessment rather than direct verification.

Officials said the Special Envoy’s role in personally overseeing the handover, and securing assurances regarding the treatment of the two leaders, reflected the kind of engagement Government said it welcomed from international partners.

By contrast, the ministry argued, the Rapporteur’s release adopted language describing the arrests as a “crackdown” and the detainees as “political detainees” without direct verification of the circumstances on the ground.

“Zambia values the contribution of the United Nations Special Procedures to the promotion and protection of human rights. But engagement must rest on accuracy, objectivity and respect for the specific mandate entrusted to each office-holder,” the statement read.

Government said sweeping assertions about electoral flaws, intimidation, abductions or deaths, without substantiated evidence, did not strengthen democracy but instead risked sowing doubt and confusion.

United Party for National Development legal and constitutional affairs chairperson Jack Mwiimbu said the party had reviewed the Rapporteur’s statement and concluded that she had exceeded her mandate by making broad pronouncements on Zambia’s electoral conduct.

Mwiimbu said the Southern African Development Community’s Electoral Observer Mission had reported that the political environment in most areas was peaceful and represented an improvement on the 2021 elections, a finding he said the Rapporteur’s assessment failed to reflect.

The UPND International Relations Committee separately urged the UN to allow competent Zambian authorities and courts to independently determine the facts surrounding the cases, describing the Rapporteur’s call for the release of suspects as premature and potentially prejudicial to ongoing judicial processes.

UPND media director Mark Simuuwe said the UN should respect Zambia’s sovereignty and the credibility of its legal institutions in presiding over matters relating to treason. He said the world body should not provide what he termed sanctuary to those who may have violated Zambian law.

Government said it remained committed to constitutional democracy, political pluralism, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and constructive cooperation with the UN human rights system, provided that engagement was conducted on the basis of the same standards it was demanding of others.

The ministry has formally requested that the Rapporteur and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights correct the record with the same prominence given to the original statement, though no response had been received by the time of publication.