FUGITIVE IS NOT A VICTIM!’
….State House fires back at human rights groups over Jay Jay Banda apprehension
By DAVID KANDUZA
STATE House has strongly fired back at a coalition of 24 local and regional civil society organisations and international human rights bodies following their joint statement questioning the legal basis of the recent capture of fugitive former Petauke Central Member of Parliament, Emmanuel ‘Jay Jay’ Banda.
In a sharply-worded official response issued today, October 20, 2026, State House chief communications specialist Clayson Hamasaka dismantled the growing human rights narrative surrounding the cross-border operation.
Mr Hamasaka dismissed the civic coalition’s concerns as a ‘political booby trap’ designed to turn a fleeing criminal suspect into a political martyr.
The dramatic saga of Mr Banda had gripped Zambia for months.
Facing high court charges of attempted murder and aggravated robbery stemming from an unresolved 2015 incident, Mr Banda made headlines when he mysteriously vanished from lawful custody at Chipata General Hospital on August 4, 2024, prompting the Government to issue a K2 million bounty for his arrest.
Rumours of his location swirled through the region until mid-October 2026, when reports surfaced that a joint task force had tracked and apprehended him at a secluded hideout in Mozambique.
The apprehension triggered a fierce backlash from prominent domestic and international organisations—including Caritas Zambia, Chapter One Foundation, and regional groups from South Africa and Botswana.
They accused the State of a lack of transparency’ and hinted at ‘lawlessness’ and a violation of sovereign boundaries.
Responding to these heavy accusations, Mr Hamasaka did not mince words.
He challenged the fundamental legal logic of the human rights defenders, questioning whether they truly understand the limits of constitutional rights.
Mr Hamasaka defended the cross-border apprehension as a standard protocol of mutual legal assistance, emphasising that fleeing a geographic border does not grant immunity from prosecution for serious offences.
State House further assured the public that Mr Banda remained safe, would face trial and granted full medical care, access to legal counsel and constitutional protections.
Below state house press release
PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, 20th October, 2026
STATE HOUSE RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STATEMENT ON THE APPREHENSION OF MR EMMANUEL JAY BANDA
State House has noted the joint statement issued on 18th October 2026 by a group of local and regional civil society organisations concerning the apprehension of Mr. Emmanuel Jay Banda.
The statement contains a fundamental contradiction which its authors must answer. It expressly states that it is not declaring the apprehension unlawful, yet concludes by calling upon the international community to condemn “these acts of lawlessness”. That is a verdict that precedes evidence. Civil society is entitled to demand transparency. Its credibility, however, depends on applying to its own conclusions the same rigour it demands of Government.
It is only bogus organisations that can question the apprehension of a suspect who made a public call for the assassination of a democratically elected Head of State and for the genocidal annihilation of the ethnic group from which the President hails. No genuine human rights defender can excuse such incitement and remain credible.
We appreciate that civil society organisations must justify continued funding from their financiers, but there is a moral way of sourcing money. Human rights advocacy cannot be reduced to a commercial enterprise in which outrage is manufactured for sale to the highest bidder. Appeals for support must rest on verified facts and consistent principle.
Where was this concern for human dignity when Mr. Banda is alleged to have committed the dehumanising act of urinating in the mouth of a journalist carrying out his professional duties? At no point did these organisations raise a sustained voice to condemn that alleged act of torture, nor to enquire into the trauma and welfare of the journalist and his family.
Where was this concern when Mr. Banda is alleged to have raided a police station, assaulted officers in lawful uniform at one of the biggest police station in the country? There was no defence of the rights of those officers or of the sanctity of a law enforcement institution.
Their selective morality is revealing.
Their description of Mr. Banda’s broadcasts as merely “vulgar” is wholly inadequate. Alleged calls for assassination and for the elimination of an entire community are threats to human life, not merely offensive political language. If authenticated, they require explicit condemnation and urgent investigation.
The statement also ignores material questions. Was Mr. Banda lawfully present in the foreign country from which he was apprehended? What, in the view of these organisations, is the lawful means of securing the return of a fugitive who fled prosecution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery and who continued to commit serious offences from abroad?
Zambia is a sovereign state governed by the Constitution and the rule of law. A fugitive does not acquire immunity by crossing a border. Cooperation between sovereign states in securing the return of wanted persons to face justice is a legitimate exercise of sovereign responsibility and mutual legal assistance.
Mr. Banda is in custody and will be presented before a competent court to answer the charges he faces. He will be afforded medical care, access to counsel and family, and all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice will be done according to the law.
Those who seek to turn a fugitive into a victim and a law enforcement operation into lawlessness should reflect deeply on whose human rights they truly serve.
Issued By:
Clayson Hamasaka
CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
STATE HOUSE