Ordinary Zambians lose out twice: to global looting and local corruption
Your editorial (The Guardian view on Zambia's Trumpian predicament: US aid cuts are dwarfed by a far bigger heist, 10 January) highlights research by Prof Andrew Fischer, and the exploitation of Zambia's commodity resources via illicit financial schemes. Many Zambians have raised the issue of this looting for years, but have met coordinated resistance. Consequently, Zambia's treasury loses billions of dollars in revenue. These losses are driven by well-known multinationals working in concert with certain insiders close to the Zambian state.
Your editorial also says: 'The US decision to cut $50m a year in aid to Zambia … is dreadful, and the reason given, corruption, rings hollow.' Alas, I disagree and wish to place this in context.
The aid cut followed large-scale theft of US-donated medical supplies by individuals connected to and within the Zambian state. Even before Donald Trump assumed office, Michael Gonzales, the US ambassador, confronted Zambian authorities about this. US officials engaged in 33 meetings with senior members of the Zambian government and officers from the Zambia police service and other law enforcement agencies. US officials urged the Zambians to take action to ensure medicines reached the country's poorest citizens. The president's inner circle ignored the warnings, ultimately leading to the aid cut. The Zambian government's reaction was to dismiss these legitimate concerns, saying diplomats should stay out of Zambia's internal affairs.
This response is inadequate, as the issues go beyond mere bureaucratic inefficiency and touch on profound state corruption.
The government's refusal to confront this reality is disappointing and has led to more suffering, where ordinary people who benefited from this aid will be most affected.Emmanuel MwambaZambia's high commissioner to South Africa (2015-19)
As a Zambian and UK citizen, I am both enraged and heartbroken by Prof Andrew Fischer's research exposing the systematic plunder of my country's wealth. While Donald Trump cuts our aid, citing 'corruption', the real thieves operate with complete impunity under the guise of legitimate business.
The figures are devastating: $5bn extracted in 2021 alone. This isn't corruption in the traditional sense, it's legalised theft orchestrated by multinational corporations that exploit our resources while leaving us in poverty. How can we be called corrupt when the very system designed to 'help' us facilitates our exploitation?
I think of my fellow Zambians struggling to access basic healthcare, education and clean water while billions flow to Swiss bank accounts. We sit on some of the world's most valuable mineral deposits, yet we're drowning in debt. This isn't coincidence – it's by design.
Foreign direct investment is often foreign direct extraction in disguise. Companies like Glencore and First Quantum Minerals have treated Zambia like a cash machine, using complex financial structures to strip our wealth while paying minimal taxes. When confronted, they simply leave or settle for pennies in the pound.
This global economic architecture, which enables legal plunder, must be challenged. African countries need new models of resource governance that prioritise our people over foreign shareholders. We need transparency requirements exposing these shadowy financial flows, progressive taxation capturing fair value from our resources, and regional cooperation preventing companies from playing us against each other.
The west's moralising about corruption while facilitating this systematic theft is breathtaking hypocrisy. Until the international community addresses the structural violence of this extractive system, their aid will remain what it truly is – a drop in the ocean compared with the torrent of wealth flowing out of Africa.Fiona MulaishoLondon
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Niger military leaders to nationalise uranium firm Somaïr
Niger's military junta says it will nationalise the majority French-owned local uranium company in the latest escalation in a row between the two is operated by French nuclear fuels company Orano, which Niger accuses of several "irresponsible acts". Since seizing power in 2023, Niger's military leaders have said they want to keep more local control of the country's mineral wealth, and have distanced themselves from France, the former colonial power, moving closer to is the world's seventh largest producer of uranium and has the highest-grade ores in Africa. "This nationalisation will allow for healthier and more sustainable management of the company and, consequently, optimal enjoyment of the wealth from mining resources by Nigeriens," the junta said in a statement. Orano has not yet company, which has operated in Niger for decades, owns a 63% stake in Somaïr but last year the military authorities seized operational control of the to the Reuters news agency, Orano, which is owned by the French state, has launched legal action against Niger over its a uranium mine became a pawn in the row between Niger and FranceNiger achieved independence from France in 1960 and the former colonial power managed to secure exclusive access to Niger's uranium supply through various say this was seen by many in Niger as a symbol of the country's continued domination by they also note that any uncertainty over the mining sector's future could threaten hundreds of jobs, as well as export earnings. You may also be interested in: WATCH: How has Niger changed since the coup?'France takes us for idiots' - Inside coup-hit NigerIs France to blame for coups in West Africa?Why young Africans are celebrating military takeovers Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
What it's really like … to know I'm going to miss my Harvard graduation because of Trump's travel ban
Next May, I should be walking across a stage at Harvard – my two-year-old daughter in my arms, my name called out, my doctoral hood placed over shoulders that have carried far more than academic ambition. It was going to be more than a graduation. It was to be a culmination, a reclamation. My daughter's presence would symbolise not only my personal triumph but the very journey that led me here: discovering my own uterine fibroid when I decided to become a mother inspired my doctorate. Together, mother and daughter would cross a finish line that generations before me weren't even allowed to approach. This summer, after years of balancing motherhood, research and rigorous study, I was ready to return briefly to Harvard to defend my doctoral dissertation – one final, vital step before next year's graduation. Instead, I am in Sierra Leone, denied the ability to return – not due to misconduct, overstaying or fraud – but simply for being Sierra Leonean. Under new restrictions enacted in June 2025, Sierra Leoneans – and nationals from several other countries – are now denied non-immigrant visas. Our individual circumstances do not matter. I have met every previous legal requirement. I have complied with every visa stipulation throughout my academic journey. I can demonstrate a clear intent to return home. My research is on African women's reproductive health, and I intend to continue working on the continent. Still: no. The sudden denial, without recourse or meaningful appeal, sends a chilling message to thousands of international students who now face a similar fate: educational dreams suspended, futures uncertain, doors closed without warning or reason. This amplifies the already overwhelming fears and hurdles we face. It has never been easy to get a visa. I had to prove financial solvency, undergo invasive medical screenings, pass extensive background checks, and demonstrate to US immigration authorities that my presence would constitute 'national value'. Even after fulfilling these rigorous demands, students such as me are now vulnerable to sudden exclusion. The impact of this ban reaches deeper than individual disappointments. It disrupts academic communities, weakens critical international collaborations, and undermines global scholarship that profoundly benefits the US. My research – focusing on uterine fibroids, a condition severely affecting women's lives across Africa and globally – is critical to advancing women's health. Through my social impact venture, Youterus Health, we centre African women's experiences, turning insight into action by mobilising resources and creating systemic solutions for neglected gynaecological conditions – including abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids and adenomyosis. These conditions directly affect maternal health, economic empowerment and global equity. Our work elevates uterine care within maternal and reproductive health agendas, challenging historic neglect and reshaping healthier futures for women and communities everywhere. Harvard has embraced me and my work. When I gave birth to my daughter in 2023, I sat for my written exams just two weeks later. Harvard's unwavering support during that intense period made me believe that merit would always outweigh difficult circumstances. The US government's decision undermines this belief, revealing a deeper systemic issue: a harsh, bureaucratic racism selectively silencing voices from African and Middle Eastern countries. This exclusion is neither isolated nor new. African scholars have long navigated bureaucratic hurdles designed to quietly but persistently deny our presence. This latest policy continues a historical pattern of selective exclusion. Yet even during earlier restrictions, such as bans during Trump's first term, many of us held hope. We believed our achievements, resilience and the genuine value of our work would speak louder than our passports. Today, students from banned countries face intensified exclusion without clear paths for appeal or resolution. I have tried to remain positive, to respond with grace. But the truth is, this decision cuts deeply. It denies me not only the moment I earned on that graduation stage but dims the aspirations of countless others who, like me, envision using their education as a force for global good. What do we do when we've done everything right yet find ourselves standing at locked doors? We speak louder. We write bolder. We name these wounds clearly, defiantly. And we persist in rewriting the narrative. I am not just missing the Harvard graduation. The US will be missing what I can offer. Our value – my value – is not defined by a stamp in a passport. Yet, this moment calls for allies in academia, policy and beyond to recognise and actively challenge these systemic barriers. Because a closed door for some diminishes the potential of all. Fatou Wurie is a doctoral candidate at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and founder of Youterus Health, a pioneering African women's health venture.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Edgar Lungu: Zambian ex-president's burial in doubt after Hakainde Hichilema cancels mourning
Zambia's President Hakainde Hichilema has abruptly ended the national mourning period of former President Edgar Lungu in an escalating stand-off between the family and the authorities about his burial plans. It follows the last-minute cancellation of the return of Lungu's body from South Africa by his family on Wednesday, leaving the country uncertain about when and where the former leader will be his address on Thursday evening, President Hakainde Hichilema announced an immediate end to the mourning period, saying the country needed to "resume normal life". "The government has done everything possible to engage with the family of our departed sixth president," said Hichilema. The national mourning period initially ran from 8 to 14 June but was later extended until 23 June, with flags flying at half-mast and radio stations playing solemn music. The extension followed a meeting between government officials and Lungu's family in an attempt to resolve the deadlock over his funeral arrangements had been finalised and his remains were due to be flown back home on Wednesday on a private charter plane. Funeral row causes chaos for mourners of Zambia's ex-presidentPresident Hichilema and senior officials had been prepared to receive the coffin with full military honours, and plans were set for the body to lie in state at Lungu's residence before a funeral this Sunday and burial the following Lungu's family on Wednesday blocked the repatriation of Lungu's remains, saying the government had reneged on its agreement over the funeral family said it hoped that the former president's body would be repatriated "some day" and buried in government expressed regret over the family's action and issued an apology to the South African government and military, who had prepared for the handover."It is unfortunate that their efforts were in vain," Hichilema said. He added that Lungu, being a former president, "belongs to the nation of Zambia" and his body should therefore "be buried in Zambia with full honours, and not in any other nation".Hichilema said his government had "reached a point where a clear decision has to be made," adding that the country "cannot afford a state of indefinite mourning". The opposition Patriotic Front (PF), the party Lungu led until his death, has backed the family's position."The government has turned a solemn occasion into a political game," said PF acting president Given Lubinda. "This is not how we treat a former head of state."Civil society groups have called for an urgent resolution of the matter, with a section of religious leaders saying the stand-off was "hurting the dignity of our country"."We appeal for humility, dialogue, and a resolution that honours the memory of the former president while keeping the nation united," said Emmanuel Chikoya, head of the Council of Churches in government has called for calm and reaffirmed its willingness to continue dialogue with the family over the who led Zambia from 2015 to 2021, died earlier this month in South Africa where he was receiving treatment for an undisclosed six years as head of state, Lungu lost the 2021 election to Hichilema by a large margin. He stepped back from politics but later returned to the had ambitions to vie for the presidency again but at the end of last year the Constitutional Court barred him from running, ruling that he had already served the maximum two terms allowed by his disqualification from the presidential election, he remained hugely influential in Zambian politics and did not hold back in his criticism of his reporting by Wycliffe Muia More BBC stories from Zambia: 'My son is a drug addict, please help' - the actor breaking a Zambian tabooAn ancient writing system confounding myths about AfricaZambia president orders ministers to stop sleeping in cabinet Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
