Archbishop Alick Banda Warned by DEC: Silence, Questions, and the Public Interest Debate

By BalanceHub Editorial Team

A press statement issued by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) on 5th January 2026 has placed Archbishop Alick Banda, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Lusaka, at the centre of a matter that has sparked intense national debate, public curiosity, and serious questions about accountability, transparency, and silence in the face of lawful inquiry.

According to the DEC, through its Anti–Money Laundering Investigations Unit (AMLIU), Archbishop Banda was formally warned and cautioned in relation to investigations surrounding the alleged unlawful possession of a Toyota Hilux motor vehicle, registration number ALF 7734, which is suspected to be property of the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA).

What the DEC Has Stated — The Facts

The Commission alleges that between 22nd April 2021 and 27th December 2023, the Archbishop was in possession of the said vehicle, which is reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained from ZRA, contrary to Section 319(a) of the Penal Code, Cap 87.

Crucially, the DEC notes that when given an opportunity to explain how he came into possession of the vehicle, Dr. Banda chose to remain silent. The Commission further stated that investigations are ongoing and that the public will be informed of the outcome at an appropriate time.

At this stage, it is important to emphasize:

👉 No conviction has been announced.

👉 Investigations are still ongoing.

👉 The law presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

However, silence in such circumstances naturally invites public scrutiny.

The Question on Many Minds: Why Remain Silent?

The central issue gripping the public is not merely the vehicle itself — but the choice to remain silent when asked a straightforward question:

“How did you come to possess this vehicle?”

From a public-interest perspective, this raises legitimate questions.

If the vehicle was:

Borrowed

Donated

Officially allocated

Or acquired through lawful means

Then a simple explanation could have clarified the matter quickly, eased public concern, and protected both institutional and personal integrity.

Silence, while a legal right, often carries reputational consequences, especially for public figures whose moral authority rests heavily on trust, openness, and ethical leadership.

Does Silence Imply Guilt?

Legally — No.

Morally and publicly — It invites suspicion.

Choosing silence does not automatically mean wrongdoing. Individuals may remain silent on legal advice, personal principle, or fear of misinterpretation. However, in cases involving suspected proceeds of crime, silence can be interpreted by the public as avoidance rather than caution.

This is where perception matters.

For a religious leader — particularly one entrusted with spiritual guidance, moral clarity, and ethical example — silence can unintentionally undermine confidence, even before the law has spoken.

Proceeds of Crime? Or a Misunderstanding?

The DEC has not declared the vehicle to be proceeds of crime — only that it is reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained. That distinction is critical.

Yet, public debate is unavoidable because:

The vehicle is allegedly linked to a state institution

The investigation spans over two years

The subject is a high-profile religious leader

There was an opportunity to explain — and it was declined

This combination naturally fuels speculation.

Could this be:

An administrative oversight?

A miscommunication between institutions?

A case of undocumented authorization?

Or something more serious?

Only a transparent investigation — and clear communication — will answer these questions.

The Bigger Issue: Accountability Without Fear or Favor

This case also highlights an important national principle:

No one is above the law — and no one should be condemned without due process.

The DEC’s actions demonstrate institutional willingness to investigate without regard to status. At the same time, the public must guard against trial-by-social-media and premature conclusions.

Justice requires evidence, not emotion.

Accountability requires truth, not assumptions.

Why This Matters to Zambia

Zambia’s fight against corruption, abuse of office, and unexplained wealth depends not just on arrests and statements — but on public confidence.

That confidence grows when:

Institutions act professionally

Investigations are transparent

Public figures respond responsibly

And silence does not replace accountability

Whether Archbishop Banda eventually explains his position, or whether the courts clarify the matter, the outcome will set an important tone for moral leadership and public trust.

Final Reflection

Remaining silent is a constitutional right.

But leadership — especially moral leadership — often demands more than silence.

As investigations continue, the nation waits — not for condemnation, but for clarity.

Truth has a way of speaking, even when people choose not to.

Follow BalanceHub for balanced national updates, legal analysis, faith reflections, governance debates, and powerful stories shaping Zambia and beyond.