DPP PHIRI: “THE LAW DOES NOT FORGET” — ZAMBIANS ABROAD WARNED

POLITICS

By Zambian Observer — Zambian Observer

DPP PHIRI: “THE LAW DOES NOT FORGET” — ZAMBIANS ABROAD WARNED
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Gilbert Phiri has issued a stark warning to Zambians residing abroad, emphasizing that physical distance does not confer immunity from the country's legal framework. Speaking in Lusaka, Mr Phiri stated that citizens who commit offenses while living thousands of kilometres away remain fully amenable to prosecution by Zambian courts. His comments come amid an escalating official pushback against what authorities describe as reckless and inflammatory online commentary targeting individuals and public figures back home. Mr Phiri explained that criminal liability can be incurred through conduct or public pronouncements, regardless of where the perpetrator is physically located. He cautioned that individuals utilizing the perceived safety of foreign residence to propagate malicious falsehoods or security threats will eventually face a day of reckoning. The DPP's remarks coincide with contentious administrative measures by state authorities, including the cancellation of passports for select citizens abroad over alleged national security violations. Legal commentators note that while extraterritorial jurisdiction exists under specific Zambian statutes—particularly concerning corruption, economic crimes, and treasonous behavior—enforcement across international borders presents complex legal and diplomatic hurdles. Extradition treaties, dual criminality principles, and foreign human rights protections often complicate efforts to bring diaspora-based critics back to face trial. Nevertheless, the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) maintains that modern cooperative frameworks and international warrants can bridge geographical gaps over time. The warning has reignited a polarized national debate regarding freedom of expression, state power, and the limits of executive authority. Critics and civil liberties advocates argue that sweeping declarations from top law enforcement officials risk chilling legitimate political dissent from the di