Zambia hits back after Gonzales remarks trigger rare diplomatic fallout

Zambia’s government has issued its strongest response yet to outgoing United States Ambassador Michael Gonzales, accusing the departing envoy of breaching diplomatic protocol, interfering in domestic affairs and misrepresenting the country’s governance record after his farewell speech triggered one of the most serious public diplomatic disputes seen between Lusaka and Washington in recent years. The confrontation erupted after Gonzales openly questioned Zambia’s anti-corruption credibility, criticised governance appointments and raised concerns over stalled bilateral agreements, remarks that quickly ignited political debate across the country just months before the August general election.

Gonzales used his farewell reception in Lusaka last week to accuse authorities of weakening anti-corruption institutions and failing to act decisively against theft in the health sector. He questioned whether meaningful accountability could exist when individuals facing integrity concerns were allegedly elevated into institutions expected to investigate corruption. He also raised concerns over delayed bilateral agreements and suggested investor confidence could be affected by governance concerns.

His remarks immediately triggered sharp political reactions. Opposition figures amplified his corruption concerns and argued that his comments reflected frustrations many citizens already held about governance and accountability. Government allies accused the envoy of overstepping diplomatic boundaries and attempting to influence domestic political narratives at a sensitive time when Zambia is moving toward a high-stakes election.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mulambo Haimbe responded through a lengthy government statement that accused Gonzales of violating accepted diplomatic conduct under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Government said the envoy’s remarks were “deeply regrettable, undiplomatic, and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect that underpins relations between sovereign nations.” Officials argued that serious concerns should have been raised formally through diplomatic channels rather than during a farewell social gathering.

Government said one of its biggest frustrations was that Gonzales did not file any formal diplomatic complaint despite repeated opportunities to engage through official state channels. Authorities said he had been granted access to senior government officials, including multiple meetings with President Hakainde Hichilema, and rejected his suggestion that officials had ignored key issues raised by the United States embassy.

The administration also pushed back strongly against Gonzales’ suggestion that relations between Zambia and the United States are centred around aid. Officials said bilateral ties date back to October 24, 1964 and were built on strategic cooperation, mutual respect and shared interests rather than donor dependency. Government said portraying the relationship as aid-driven ignored decades of diplomatic engagement between both countries.

One of the biggest revelations in the government response involved a proposed US$2 billion health agreement between Zambia and the United States. Officials said negotiations stalled because Zambia rejected clauses involving data-sharing provisions that authorities believed violated citizens’ privacy rights. Government said those provisions are now the subject of legal proceedings and insisted that protecting Zambians remained non-negotiable.

Government also disclosed tensions surrounding a proposed critical minerals framework with Washington. Officials said Zambia rejected provisions that appeared to give preferential treatment to American companies in the country’s mineral sector. Authorities insisted that Zambians must have greater control over how strategic minerals are utilised and opposed attempts to link mineral negotiations to the health agreement.

On corruption allegations, government moved aggressively to defend its record. Officials said over US$30 million had been recovered through asset forfeitures. Government also said 156 arrests had been made in connection with health commodity theft investigations, resulting in 76 convictions, directly challenging Gonzales’ criticism that authorities were failing to act.

The administration also defended its broader economic record, pointing to more than US$12 billion in mining investments, expanded free education, increased social protection spending and economic stabilisation efforts. Officials said Zambia remained on a strong economic recovery path and rejected claims that foreign investors were losing confidence in the country.

Despite the unusually sharp language, government stopped short of escalating tensions further. Officials described the United States as an important strategic partner and said Gonzales’ departure could provide an opportunity to reset bilateral relations. But the dispute has already grown far beyond one farewell speech and reopened deeper questions about corruption credibility, foreign influence and Zambia’s governance image ahead of elections.

Full Goverment Response below

REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

PRESS STATEMENT

For Immediate Release

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE FAREWELL REMARKS BY HIS EXCELLENCY MR. MICHAEL GONZALES, OUTGOING AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO ZAMBIA

The Government of the Republic of Zambia wishes to express its deep concern over the statement issued by the outgoing United States Ambassador to Zambia His Excellency Mr. Michael Gonzales (the Outgoing Ambassador), during a farewell reception held in his honour on 30th April 2026 at the Ambassador’s Official Residence in Lusaka.

The assertions by the Outgoing Ambassador in his statement are deeply regrettable, undiplomatic, and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect that underpins relations between sovereign nations. The statement is also contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (the Convention), which clearly stipulates the conduct of diplomats serving in Receiving States. The remarks by the Outgoing Ambassador violate, inter alia, Article 3 of the Convention which stipulates the functions of a diplomatic mission and Article 41 which requires diplomats to not only respect the laws and regulations of the Receiving State, but also not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Host.

Further, and characteristic of the Outgoing Ambassador’s approach during his tour of duty, the remarks, which were delivered during a social event, have not been communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation by way of an official complaint or demarche or otherwise, which underscores the Outgoing Ambassador’s lack of respect for the Receiving State and for diplomatic processes.

The Government of the Republic of Zambia therefore takes the greatest exception to the conduct of the Outgoing Ambassador, and in this regard, this response is made within the above context and is limited only to matters that the Government deems necessary to respond to for the sake of offering clarity and/or further guidance.

ZAMBIA-UNITED STATES BILATERAL RELATIONS

To start, it is important to clarify that contrary to the statement by the Outgoing Ambassador, the relationship between Zambia and the United States (the US) is not, nor has it been, “centred around aid”. That the Outgoing Ambassador can make such a careless assertion suggests that his understanding of US – Zambia relations is, and has been, limited, which could explain the peculiar conduct of the Outgoing Ambassador.

Since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Zambia and the United States on 24th October 1964, with Robert Foulon serving as Charge d’ Affaires ad interim until the appointment of the first United States Ambassador to Zambia, His Excellency Robert C Good on 11th March 1965, US – Zambia relations have been centred, inter alia, around shared values and experiences, unconditional friendship and mutual respect for one another as sovereign states.

Today, the United States and Zambia continue to share a strong and growing partnership rooted in strategic co-operation. This partnership has delivered tangible benefits for our two peoples from inception and cannot be characterised as aid based as suggested by the Outgoing Ambassador. To do so is an affront of the highest order to the good intentions of our forefathers who dreamed of a friendship across the Atlantic Ocean of two proud states that, whilst being at different stages of development, share a commonality anchored in the principle of equality of states.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

During the period prior to the end of his tenure, Government has observed a deliberate shift away from diplomatic etiquette and an increasingly acrimonious change in attitude by the Outgoing Ambassador. Again, contrary to the Outgoing Ambassador’s allegations of non-responsiveness on the part of the Government of the Republic of Zambia, he was in fact accorded the utmost decorum at the highest level and granted audience with the President of the Republic of Zambia on more occasions than most other Heads of Mission serving in Zambia.

Similarly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international cooperation has guided the Outgoing Ambassador on numerous occasions as to his role as prescribed in the Convention and by diplomatic practice, to no avail. The matters raised in the Outgoing Ambassadors remarks during the farewell reception, for instance, have been raised many times before and addressed at the highest level.

Further, it must be noted that in terms of the proposed Health MOU by which the US graciously offered support of up to US$2 billion over the next 5 years, the US and Zambia are yet to agree on certain of the terms proposed in the draft MOU. While negotiations have been ongoing for a period of time, this cannot be referred to as ignoring the offer or as non-responsiveness. The Government of Zambia owes a duty to the people of Zambia to protect their interests at all times in the same way that the US government must protect US Citizens’ interests and the ongoing negotiations reflect that reality.

For clarity, the Zambian Government wishes to state unequivocally that the stalled negotiations on the Health MOU are as a consequence of the incorporation of terms that the Zambian Government considers unacceptable such as those relating to sharing of data in violation of our citizen’s right to privacy. These matters are the subject of litigation in the Zambian Courts and this must be respected, aside from these provisions being unconscionable from the perspective of the people of Zambia.

Similarly, the proposed critical minerals agreement and associated framework must reflect the will and aspirations of the people of Zambia and as such need to be carefully and diligently considered, contrary to the Outgoing Ambassador’s allegations of inertia on the part of the Zambian Government. Key among the reasons for Zambia’s reluctance to accept the terms of the proposed agreement is the insistence on preferential treatment of US companies over Zambia’s critical minerals. Rather, the Zambian Government rightfully takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others.

A further concern by the Zambian Government is the coupling of the proposed agreements and frameworks to one another such that the conclusion of the critical minerals agreement is made conditional to the conclusion of the Health MOU, for instance. In this respect, the Zambian Government has been consistent that the agreements must be considered separately on their respective merits and in good faith. The statement by the outgoing Ambassador implying the contrary is therefore untrue and aimed at embellishing the real reasons for the stalled negotiations.

That being said, the Zambian Government wishes to place it on record that it remains committed and available for good faith negotiations with all strategic partners, including the US, on critical minerals beneficiation in a value adding environment for the mutual benefit of the people of Zambia and the strategic partners.

GENERAL COMMENT

The Zambian government is clear that its primary responsibility is to the people of Zambia. While the Outgoing Ambassador seeks to paint a bleak picture about Zambia, the opposite is true. First, President Hakainde Hichilema is on record as admitting that more needs to be done in the fight against corruption. Without question, the Zambian Government is under no illusion of the need for more effort to be put into ending endemic corruption in the health and other sectors.

It is thus mischievous for the Outgoing Ambassador to imply that the present administration is working against the people of Zambia and their best interests. To this end, during this administration’s tenure, policy and legislative changes have been made in order to bolster the fight against corruption with asset recovery at an all-time high. Recently US$30 million has been recovered and forfeited to the state, for example. Further, in relation to the health commodity theft issue, while the Outgoing Ambassador insists on misleading the world that no tangible arrests have been made in over a year, the truth is that 156 arrests have been made across the Country to date resulting in 76 convictions. While the outgoing Ambassador disparages the forensic audit undertaken in relation to health commodities theft on the one hand, it must be remembered on the other that he was part of the team health cooperating partners that were invited to set the terms of reference for the audit. This begs the question, whether the Outgoing Ambassador’s remarks are not self-contradictory in that regard.

Still regarding the health sector where the Outgoing Ambassador speculates rather patronisingly that the Zambian Government would rather sit back than deploy its own resources, it is worth noting that as a matter of fact, despite the numerous challenges being faced, the Government has increased health funding in the national budget since 2021, with a 30% rise in the amount allocated in the 2026 budget compared to 2025. That the outgoing Ambassador should allege irresponsibility on the part of Government in spite of the foregoing is pure mischief aimed at disparaging Government and should be taken with the utmost contempt.

Furthermore, the Outgoing Ambassador going so far as to disparage legitimate processes of governance such as the appointment of the Director General of the Anti-corruption Commission and the enactment of Constitutional amendments after due process by Parliament and other sovereign intuitions is further testament of a clear lack of understanding of his role as a foreign envoy. For him to even suggest regime change on the back of such assertions crosses all known diplomatic lines and must be condemned for violating established diplomatic etiquette.

The Outgoing Ambassador’s delusional suggestion that foreign investors are shying away from Zambia as a result of what he describes in his statement cannot be further from the truth. Today Zambia is heralded as an attractive investment destination by various partners globally, including the US. Recent achievements in the mining sector that place Zambia in pole position to achieve its 3 million metric tonnes of copper production. The recent commissioning of various mining assets, new investment in mines exceeding US$12 billion, the restoration of mines that had ceased to operate and the undertaking of geological mapping so as to unlock Zambia’s mining potential attest to that fact that Zambia is on the right trajectory.

The strides made by President Hakainde Hichilema and the Zambian Government to maintain macroeconomic stability, to restore the rule of law and reverse inherited societal imbalances speak for themselves. Numbers do not lie. From a debt distressed and declining economy with GDP at negative 2.8 percent in 2021, Zambia is now stable and poised for growth at an unprecedented level. Through effective policy implementation measures, the Zambian government has been able to tangibly deliver to its people in various social sectors including education, with the free education policy and CDF combined seeing over 2.5 million learners returning to school, teacher recruitment being undertaken, water and sanitation being enhanced, desks being made available, school feeding and health initiatives now being availed to learners that had little to no hope of attaining decent education. Through interventions in the social sector, such as enhanced social cash transfer and cash for work, the New dawn Administration has shown its commitment to improving the wellbeing of the most disadvantaged Zambians.

This is not rhetoric, but rather verifiable facts that are in public domain. This leaves us to wonder which Zambia the Outgoing Ambassador was referring to in his remarks?

What is more, and contrary to the Outgoing Ambassador’s unsubstantiated assertions, through Government’s deliberate efforts, policy interventions and implementation strategies, Zambia today is considered among the premier destinations for trade and investment on the African continent and beyond. The Zambian Government therefore wholesomely rejects the narrative put forward by the Outgoing Ambassador as being false.

POLICY POSITION

Zambia remains an independent nation whose sovereignty, laws and regulations must be respected. In addition, Zambia will not accept narratives that undermine its dignity, institutions, or leadership. The Government remains fully committed to strengthening governance, fighting corruption, and delivering sustainable development for its People, in accordance with its national priorities. Going forward, Zambia remains open to constructive engagement with all international partners within the context of international law and established diplomatic practice.

However, such engagements must be grounded in respect, non-interference and a genuine commitment to partnership and not paternalism. In particular, the Government of the Republic of Zambia reaffirms that its relationship with strategic partners, must evolve on the basis of mutual respect and shared responsibility. Zambia will continue to pursue policies that serve the interests of its People and uphold its sovereignty regardless of external commentary.

We call on all well-meaning Zambian citizens and global partners to ignore the assertions made by the Outgoing Ambassador during the farewell event hosted in his honour. As his tenure comes to an end, and as we bid him farewell and wish him all the best in his endeavours, we are confident that the departure of the Outgoing Ambassador presents a unique opportunity for US – Zambia relations to once again blossom and grow to their full potential. Zambia thus remains committed to the US as a cherished and important friend and partner in development.

We also wish to take this opportunity to remind all members of the diplomatic corps of the need to engage in a sober, mutually respectful manner in keeping with established diplomatic practice at all times. Articles 3, 9 and 41 of the Convention are clear as to the duties and responsibilities of both foreign missions and the Host Government. The Zambian Government reiterates its belief in dialogue rather than confrontation and remains open to mutually respectful, transparent and meaningful engagement.

(Original signed)
Hon. Mulambo Haimbe, S.C, M.P
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
LUSAKA.