By Sishuwa Sishuwa*
Last year, President Hichilema unsuccessfully tried to get rid of the US Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales after he criticised the government for corruption.
According to credible sources on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hichilema’s officials asked the Biden administration to recall Gonzales, but the US State Department rejected the request.
Gonzales, who arrived in September 2022, is the first US Ambassador to Zambia since 2019 when his predecessor, Daniel Foote, was forced out of the country by Hichilema’s predecessor, Edgar Lungu. Foote had also criticised corruption, saying “The current Government of Zambia is stealing millions of dollars in public funds…[and] wants diplomats to be compliant, with open pockets and closed mouths”.
The attack on Gonzales is not an isolated incident; it is part of a wider strategy by Hichilema to escape accountability by seeking the removal of diplomats who publicly criticise his administration.
A European diplomat who attacked present-day corruption was recently warned about their conduct while others have been intimidated into silence. Hichilema also unsuccessfully lobbied the Vatican to remove the Archbishop of Lusaka Alick Banda who has been a sharp critic of his policies or actions.
For Zambians, Hichilema has simply placed significant restrictions on political and civil rights. Over the last three and half years, his administration has either enacted or maintained repressive legislation that undermines freedom of expression, regularly arrested ordinary citizens and civic activists who criticise him or his officials, largely suppressed peaceful assemblies and protests on governance concerns, and frequently abused state institutions such as the police and the judiciary to arrest and imprison political opponents, mainly opposition lawmakers, on trumped-up charges like sedition.
He will not take a free ride in suppressing dissent – let him ask the late Mobutu Seseko of DRC. He is overstepping his power to govern and it is right.
First of all, the send off of Foote had nothing to do with corruption. Not to say that there wasn’t corruption in the country, off course there was, just like ant other country, or maybe even worse, who knows. But the Foote issue, the author should be truthful, was based on the fact that the Foote of an ambassador started making gay rights campaigns, which the majority of the countries population did not condone. Had the author done their research well, they would have discovered that almost everyone in the country was happy with the move to send away that Foote of a person.
Pleased do not mislead the world with your bad reporting.