By CHARLES SIMENGWA –

DID the Zambia Police Service make a mess of the investigations into claims attributed to opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema that he  ‘controls’ the State intelligence?
What should have been the right reaction of the police officers to instructions from President Edgar Lungu to probe claims by the United Party for National Development (UPND) leader that he receives intelligence briefings from the Zambia Security Intelligence Service before the Head of State does?
There are two crucial schools of thought among some members of the public, with some upholding the view that the early morning searches, on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, at Mr Hichilema’s residence and at the UPND secretariat in Lusaka were conducted professionally and were an appropriate reaction to the concerns raised by the President.
The fundamental argument is that one could not expect the police to dither over important issues deemed a security threat to Zambia.
Mr Hichilema made the statement publicly and it would be illogical for the Zambia Police Service to institute ‘silent’ investigations, the reasoning further runs.
There are yet other commentators who are parading the outspoken opposition leader as a “victim of political oppression”.
This is despite his scathing attacks and often distasteful utterances against the ruling class.
Following the searches, Mr Hichilema was questioned by the police on Wednesday over the same claims.
Police spokesperson Charity Chanda said Mr Hichilema, who lost the January 20, 2015 presidential by-election to Mr Lungu, was warned over the statement he made at a news conference last month.
Ms Chanda said Mr Hichilema’s statement bordered on the violation of the country’s state security laws.
However, the opposition leader’s lawyer Jack Mwiimbu told journalists in Lusaka that the police had acted unprofessionally.
“There is political interference from the President. Our client is not facing a treasonable offence but we are dismayed over the handling of this issue,” he said.

. Mwimbu

According to Mr Mwiimbu, it took the President to express concern over the statement attributed to Mr Hichilema for the police to act.
But Ms Chanda said the police had instituted their investigations long before President Lungu commented on the matter.
What is arguable, though, is whether it was necessary to deploy police officers at Mr Hichilema’s homes and at the secretariat in a sort of ‘public show’.
Could the police not simply have continued with their investigations without raising their antennae and, better still, intensify their efforts in view of the concerns raised by the President?
This is a matter that appeals for sober reflection; whether it is determinable by emotions or logic is subject to careful examination, devoid of open biases.
The UPND leadership has not condemned the dastardly behaviour of its members who vented their anger – needlessly – on journalists from the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation during a Press briefing in Lusaka.
This has rightly attracted the ire of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Zambia Chapter), which has called for civility in the conduct of political party members.
A point of note is that despite being ill-qualified to interpret important national issues, some political party cadres enjoy unlimited liberty to harass members of the public.
But no matter how aggrieved opposition leaders might be, they should realise that giving unbridled freedom to their followers to assail innocent citizens, including journalists on duty, is a clear way of encouraging mob rule.
More importantly, some commentators need to understand where Mr Hichilema’s confrontation with the law – whether real or imagined – is coming from, what factors are contributing to it, and what techniques are most effective in dealing with it. They need to know not just what to do, but why they are doing it.
It is interesting that veteran politician Vernon Mwaanga, who campaigned for Mr Hichilema for the January polls, has frowned upon claims by the opposition leader that he controls the intelligence service.
Mr Mwaanga, who once headed the Zambia Security Intelligence Service, has been quoted in some sections of the media as having labelled Mr Hichilema’s statement as unfortunate.
There are some Zambians who are inclined to think that since he lost the election in which he had appeared to over-estimate his abilities, the UPND leader has resorted to what may pass for slash-and-burn politics.
Such an argument seems to validate the view that Mr Hichilema lacks real issues to discuss and prefers to take the easier route of denting the image of the Government and President Lungu, as that requires less intellectual prowess among his supporters.
It is true that in a democracy, people are free to express their opinions and question those of others.
This is an important personal freedom, and also essential to the very principle of governing by discussion.
The ridicule and censure of members of the public with opposing views should not be condoned, but there is a high level of responsibility which should be exhibited by people in leadership positions.
Consider another statement attributed to Mr Hichilema that President Lungu has set aside US$10 million dollars to destabilise the UPND, and that the Head of State sent investigators to South Africa to probe sources of funding for the opposition party.
In the absence of verifiable evidence, these are reckless statements with great potential to hurl the country into political turmoil.
Such statements are usually driven by political expediency; something some individuals do to advance themselves politically.
This is echoed by Shiwang’andu Member of Parliament Stephen Kampyongo, who says leaders should be responsible for the statements they make.
Mr Kampyongo, a deputy minister in the Office of the Vice-President, has a piece of advice for national leaders: “Take responsibility for everything you do because you are not ordinary citizens.”
The police could have muddled up the Hichilema investigation, and possibly turned it into a debacle, but the importance of the reasons for such conflicts with the law should not be diminished.
All the political and other leaders in Zambia have a fairly big space in which they could express themselves, as free speech in the country is not criminalised.
However, it is incumbent upon all of them to avoid making statements which are only meant to draw attention to their parties, disregarding the threat to national security.