Cursed Justice: Zambia's Witchcraft Trials and the Struggle for Evidence-Based Law
Dr Keith Silika discusses how admitting contested confessions and ritual objects challenge the norms of evidence-based justice—and why this could signal a dangerous precedent.
by Dr Keith Silika
04 April, 2025
The 2025 Zambian witchcraft case currently before the courts presents a troubling precedent in modern judicial proceedings. Two men stand accused of practising witchcraft with intent to harm the President, Hakainde Hichilema, after being discovered in a hotel room with so-called ritual objects, including a bottled chameleon, white powder, and animal parts. The prosecution's case hinges largely on a confession by the two men claiming that they were promised money to curse the President, allegedly at the behest of a brother of a political opponent.
This high-profile case has attracted national attention, occurring suspiciously close to upcoming elections. It highlights the ongoing tension between Zambia's colonial-era Witchcraft Act, Chapter 90, which criminalizes “acts of witchcraft” and contemporary constitutional protections for cultural practices and beliefs. The judiciary's decision to reverse live broadcast permissions suggests an awareness of the case's problematic nature as potential political theatre rather than legitimate justice, raising serious questions about evidence standards and the weaponization of traditional belief systems against political rivals.
The purpose of this piece is to unpack the case in a forensic evidential context regarding material evidence, confession, Zambian and international laws.
Material evidence concerns: The described evidence (bottled chameleon, white powder, red cloth, animal tail) lacks forensic value without established scientific methods to connect these items to harmful intent. These items cannot be subjected to standard forensic testing protocols to establish causal links to any potential harm. Zambia is signatory to a host of United Nations (UN) conventions in relation to human rights and investigations.
Confession reliability: The alleged confession that the accused were hired to curse the President raises serious concerns about potential coercion, especially given Zambia's documented history of custodial pressure during interrogations. Under both UN conventions and Zambian evidence rules, confessions obtained under duress are inadmissible. Zambia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which it ratified in 1984. Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, while Article 14 ensures fair trial rights, including the exclusion of coerced evidence. The UN Human Rights Committee (OHCHR) has consistently interpreted these provisions to mean that confessions obtained under duress are inadmissible.
Witness testimony: The sole witness appears to be a hotel cleaner who reported "strange noises". This represents hearsay evidence, as it would be difficult to substantiate in court under rigorous evidentiary standards.
Zambian Law Context
Colonial legacy: The Witchcraft Act (Chapter 90) remains a problematic colonial-era legislation that criminalizes witchcraft practices without providing objective criteria for evidence. This creates a fundamental tension between traditional beliefs and modern judicial requirements for empirical evidence.
Legal precedent: In similar cases (e.g., The People v. Mawawa and Smart, 2020), Zambian courts have struggled with applying objective standards to subjective beliefs. The High Court has previously ruled that accusations require demonstrable harmful outcomes, not merely possession of traditional items. Beliefs in witchcraft can be used as a defence in extenuating circumstances.
Constitutional contradictions: Zambia's Constitution under Article 19 guarantees freedom of belief and cultural practice, creating inherent contradictions with the Witchcraft Act's criminalization of traditional spiritual practices.
This case contradicts several UN resolutions and principles:
Resolution A/HRC/RES/47/8 (2021): Condemns the persecution of individuals based on accusations of witchcraft and ritual attacks.
UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights: Has explicitly critiqued the criminalization of traditional beliefs as a form of cultural discrimination that violates Indigenous rights. (Alexandra Xanthaki UN Doc A/77/290).
UN Principles on Fair Trial: The evidentiary standards in this case likely fail to meet the minimum thresholds for admissible evidence under international fair trial principles. These principles are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICCPR and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which states that evidence obtained through violations of human rights or the Statute itself shall not be admissible. Zambia is a signatory to both the Rome Statute and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Labelling and Justice Concerns
Political weaponization: The case appears to exemplify how witchcraft accusations can be weaponized for political purposes, particularly with elections approaching. This follows a concerning pattern observed across Sub-Saharan Africa.
Public perception management: The judiciary's reversal on broadcasting the trial suggests an awareness of the case's problematic nature as a spectacle rather than a legitimate judicial process. State-controlled or aligned media may frame the accused as national threats, reinforcing fears of witchcraft as a political and security risk.
Double standards: The historical context in which President Hichilema was previously accused of witchcraft demonstrates the arbitrary application of these laws based on political power rather than consistent legal principles. When Hichilema was an opposition leader, the late President Michael Sata accused him of using witchcraft. This accusation was made over a decade ago, highlighting the long-standing nature of such allegations in Zambian politics.
From a policing, legal, and forensic perspective, this case presents nearly insurmountable challenges:
Lacks material evidence: No forensically testable evidence connects the accused to any demonstrable harm or attempted harm.
Causation gap: Even if intent could be established, there exists no scientific methodology to establish causation between ritual objects and any potential harm to the President.
Expert testimony problem: As noted in media commentary, the court faces the paradoxical question of whether to allow "witch doctors" to testify as expert witnesses, highlighting the fundamental incompatibility between traditional beliefs and modern evidence-based judicial processes.
Allowing a witchcraft case against political opponents to proceed based on ritual objects and contested confessions risks institutionalizing a dangerous standard where cultural beliefs are weaponized for political purposes. The advancement of this case beyond the initial investigative stage to a full trial, without requiring empirically verifiable evidence, suggests a judicial willingness to treat ritual objects and contested confessions as admissible evidence. This raises serious concerns about the potential institutionalization of a standard in which subjective interpretations of traditional items could lead to criminal convictions.
This precedent potentially undermines fundamental principles of evidence-based justice across the region, creating a framework where subjective interpretations of traditional items can lead to criminal convictions. Most concerning is how this validates colonial-era legislation that criminalizes Indigenous spiritual practices through a Western legal lens. This potentially affects constitutional protections for cultural expression while simultaneously enabling targeted prosecution of political dissidents under the guise of protecting public figures from supernatural harm.
