By Kapya Kaoma
The case of Joseph Chirwa and Company vs. Morgan Ng’ona, Secretary of the Patriotic Front (PF), filed in the High Court—where State House is alleged to have promised to pay K2 million in legal fees for the breakaway PF faction—offers yet another example of corruption surrounding President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration. That on July 4, 2024, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs allegedly assured the law firm that the government would settle the bill on behalf of the faction, and that other similar assurances were reportedly repeated, is troubling and shameful.
These revelations come shortly after the widely circulated Chabinga audio, in which he claims he was sent to South Africa to bribe a judge to rule in favor of the government in a case involving the Lungu family. For many, this latest development is hardly surprising. What is striking, however, is the contrast between President Hichilema’s outspoken anti-corruption stance and the allegations now surfacing against his administration. How far, one must ask, is he willing to go to secure political control? Using taxpayers’ kwacha to destroy democratic institutions?
Defendant Morgan Ng’ona may not be the only one who faces consequences if this case proceeds. Yet any revelations he makes may offer him little protection. No doubt the courts are likely to favor the State, if only to shield the administration’s political interests. The support Ng’ona once enjoyed from State House and the presidency appears to have evaporated. With the PF still standing despite internal divisions, he no longer seems useful to those who previously backed him. In politics, once you cease to have value, your allies vanish too.
Ng’ona now stands alone. If the court rules against him, he should shoulder the financial burden alone. Others in politics must learn that engaging in questionable schemes at the behest of those in power carries personal risk. Even if President Hichilema used him, Ng’ona acted willingly—and must therefore face the consequences. To feel pity for him is, frankly, to insult decency.
But I also have a problem with the role of Chirwa and Company in this case.
The lawsuit raises serious ethical questions. Is it not professionally questionable for lawyers to participate in actions that may be linked to political manipulation or misuse of public funds? The firm’s explanation—that it hesitated to aggressively pursue payment due to confidentiality concerns, and because Ng’ona consistently claimed State House and the President would pay the bill—does little to inspire confidence. The State cannot legally cover the legal fees of a political party; doing so would constitute a misuse of public resources. Shouldn’t a firm of Chirwa and Company’s stature be well aware of this?
In the end, this case speaks to broader governance failures.
It reflects deeper problems within the Hichilema administration—an erosion of political and ethical standards. President Hichilema may continue to campaign on an anti-corruption platform, but many Zambians now view his leadership as corrupt. The man is not clean at all. No wonder he is afraid of losing power—he knows that without a parliamentary majority after August 2026, the truth has a way of resurfacing. With it, his immunity could be lifted. Jail may very well await him.
