In the lexicon of military science, a militia is not a casual gathering of political allies.
It is a paramilitary formation: trained, armed, and organised for combat, often operating under clandestine cover.
Security experts note that militias undergo months—sometimes years—of tactical training, mastering guerrilla warfare, intelligence concealment, and covert logistics.
They do not parade on highways or gather in hotels; they embed themselves in forests, deserts, or urban shadows.
By this definition, the opposition candidate Zambia hon. Brian Mundubile and his colleagues—Bishop Mwamba, George Chisanga, Patrick Mwansa, Richard Banda, and the late Hon. Mutotwe Kafwaya—do not fit the profile.
They are lawyers, clerics, family men, and political actors, not insurgents.
The ominous term “militia” surfaced only after the tragic killing of Kafwaya on 14 August, when a Special Security Unit opened fire on unarmed men. The Inspector General claimed Kafwaya was “caught in fire” and ‘brought in dead’.
Yet the government’s insistence on branding Mr. Mundubile’s circle as a militia raises more questions than answers.
If Brian were truly a militia leader, why was he escorted home to collect his car after the shoot out where his friend Kafwaya died?
Why was he not charged under Zambia’s Terrorism Act? Under Zambian law, terrorism is defined as acts intended to intimidate the public or compel government action through violence.
Filing a presidential nomination, addressing supporters in public, or holding a meeting at a hotel does not meet that threshold of militia or terrorism.
WHERE IS THE SCOTLAND YARD OR CIA?
Consider precedent. When Major Wezi Kaunda, son of Zambia’s founding president, was assassinated in cold blood, Scotland Yard was invited to assist. In other cases of sophisticated terror, international agencies such as the CIA or Russia’s FSB have been consulted.
Why not now, if the state truly believes a militia was uncovered? The absence of external forensic involvement suggests the narrative is built on quicksand.
Propaganda thrives on repetition. The state repeats “militia” and “terror” to instill fear, sow division, and delegitimize opponents. History offers chilling parallels.
THE RWANDA CASE STUDY
In Rwanda, the word Inyenzi (“cockroach”) was repeated until it justified genocide. In Kenya, “Mungiki” became shorthand for terror, weaponized against political rivals.
In Europe, authoritarian regimes branded dissidents as “terrorists” to silence them. In the United States, Donald Trump’s opponents were painted as “radical mobs” “NEVER Trumpers” to polarize voters. Words, repeated endlessly, become weapons sharper than bullets.
The timeline itself undermines the militia tale. Authorities claim surveillance began in 2023, yet Mundubile and Makebi Zulu only rose to prominence three months ago.
Who, then, was the “special operation” tracking?
The contradictions multiply. On 21 August—nine days after the bloodbath—police returned to 212 Kadu Road in Kabulonga, a site they had never cordoned.
In security doctrine, this is called retroactive scene planting: revisiting a crime scene long after contamination, raising suspicion of fabrication. No credible investigation leaves a crime scene unsealed, only to return days later in search of “evidence.”
From a professional security perspective, the operation reeks of cover up. The government’s narrative collapses under scrutiny. If Brian were militia, how did he pass vetting to file presidential nomination papers?
How did police miss the alleged paramilitary structure until after his candidacy gained traction? The more the state pushes the militia story, the more desperate it appears, and the more holes open in its account.
For innocent Zambians who cherish peace, the questions are stark:
• Why was an unarmed politician Kafwaya killed in cold blood?
• Why was the supposed militia leader Mundubile released without terror charges?
• Why was the crime scene left unsealed for nine days?
• Why has the state returned to the crime scene ten days after the fact?
• Why are international forensic experts absent?
The answers point not to insurgency but to propaganda. Repetition of “militia” is designed to indoctrinate citizens, to paint rivals as enemies of the state, and to tilt the electoral field.
It is a tactic as old as politics itself, but in Zambia it risks eroding the nation’s proud record as a beacon of peace in Africa and heighten suspicion and hate among brothers and sisters and neighbours.
My advice to Brian and his team is simple: document everything.
Record eyewitness accounts from 14 to 21 August. Present them to Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Commission, and other observers. Do not allow propaganda to overwrite fact. In the contest between truth and narrative, silence is surrender.
Zambia stands at a crossroads. The militia tale is a mirage, a desperate invention to delegitimize opposition. If unchecked, it will corrode democracy.
If exposed, it will remind the world that Zambia’s strength lies not in fear but in peace. The state’s story is riddled with contradictions; the opposition’s survival depends on shining light into those shadows.
——————————–
Source: The Author is an International Security Expert whose work stem from the UK, the USA, Africa and parts of Europe. Identity withheld by Author
