........As Parliament prepares for a crucial debate on the long-delayed Tobacco Control Bill, public health advocates, civil society and Nalolo Member of Parliament Imanga Wamunyima are pushing back against misinformation, image management and pressure from tobacco-linked interests.
As Zambia’s long-awaited Tobacco
Control Bill heads toward a crucial phase in Parliament, the battle over the
proposed law is no longer simply about tobacco.
It is now a battle over facts,
public health, political influence and whether a harmful industry — or those
aligned to it — will be allowed to shape a law designed to protect lives.
In recent days, that contest has sharpened.
On one front, the Tobacco Board of
Zambia (TBZ), working with Community Markets for Conservation and backed
publicly by Agriculture Minister Reuben Mtolo, staged a tree-planting
initiative in Chipata, presenting it as a sustainability intervention for
tobacco-growing communities.
On the other, the Zambia Media
Network Against Tobacco (ZAMNAT) issued a strong statement condemning calls to
withdraw the Tobacco Control Bill and accusing some opponents of misleading
farmers and the public about what the law actually seeks to do.
For public health advocates, the
collision of those two developments is not accidental.
They say it reflects a familiar
pattern: at a politically sensitive moment, tobacco-linked institutions seek to
present themselves as development and environmental partners while allies of
the sector push narratives that confuse the public, stir anxiety among farmers
and weaken support for long-overdue reform.
A Bill Delayed for Years — Not Rushed Overnight
Supporters of the Tobacco Control
Bill say one of the most persistent falsehoods being circulated is that the
proposed law is a rushed, anti-farmer or anti-business measure.
They insist it is none of those things.
Zambia ratified the World Health
Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2008, and
the first serious effort to draft a comprehensive Tobacco Control Bill dates
back to around 2010.
In that context, advocates say the current Bill is not a sudden policy ambush, but the delayed fulfilment of obligations Zambia made years ago to protect public health.
The proposed law does not ban tobacco farming or tobacco production.
Instead, supporters say it
introduces public health safeguards that are standard in many jurisdictions:
restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; stronger health
warnings; protection from second-hand smoke; and regulation of emerging nicotine
and vaping products increasingly marketed to younger consumers.
ZAMNAT Chairperson Paxina Phiri
said the most dangerous aspect of the current debate is the deliberate
distortion of the Bill’s actual purpose.
“What is most concerning is the
deliberate distortion of the Tobacco Control Bill by those who want to protect
commercial interests. This Bill does not ban tobacco farming. It does not
criminalise farmers. It is a public health law meant to regulate tobacco
consumption, reduce harm and protect citizens, especially children and young
people, from addiction and disease,” Ms Phiri said.
Nalolo Member of Parliament Imanga Wamunyima has taken a similar position, urging that the national
conversation remain grounded in facts rather than fear.
Ahead of the Bill’s next stage in
Parliament, Wamunyima has maintained that the legislation is a
long-overdue step toward domesticating Zambia’s international obligations and
should be understood as a health protection measure rather than an attack on livelihoods.
He has argued that where concerns
exist, they should be addressed through debate on specific clauses during the
legislative process — not by rejecting the Bill outright on the basis of
misinformation.
ZAMNAT Calls Out False Narratives
In a statement issued in Lusaka on
March 17, 2026, ZAMNAT strongly condemned calls by the Acton Institute for
Policy Analysis Centre (AIPAC) for the withdrawal of the Tobacco Control Bill,
describing that position as misleading, insensitive and irresponsible.
Through its Chairperson Paxina
Phiri, the network said it was deeply concerned by what it called a growing
pattern of deliberate misrepresentation, particularly claims suggesting that
the Bill is designed to shut down tobacco farming or punish growers.
For ZAMNAT, that framing is not only false, but harmful.
The organisation says it unfairly weaponises the legitimate economic concerns of farming communities in order to shield a sector whose products are known to be addictive and deadly. Ms Phiri said farmers must not be turned into political cover for a public health problem.
“Farmers must not be used as shields in this debate. ZAMNAT respects the realities of farming communities and the importance of livelihoods, but it is dishonest to tell farmers that this Bill is coming to take away their income.
That is simply not true. What we
need is an honest national conversation that separates public health regulation
from industry scare tactics,” Ms Phiri said.
The Chipata Tree-Planting Event Raises New Questions
While the debate over the Bill has
intensified, the recent TBZ-backed tree-planting event in Chipata has added
another layer of controversy.
Speaking at the event, Hon. Reuben
Mtolo acknowledged that tobacco remains a significant contributor to Zambia’s
agricultural economy, citing its role in supporting over 500,000 livelihoods
and contributing about 1.9 percent to agricultural GDP.
He also recognised the
environmental burden associated with tobacco, particularly deforestation driven
by the use of fuelwood for curing barns.
The event was presented as a
sustainability initiative in which tobacco farmers would plant trees to create
a more reliable fuel source for curing, thereby reducing pressure on indigenous
forests.
On the surface, few would oppose tree planting.
But public health stakeholders say
the issue is not the trees — it is the framing, the timing and the political
meaning of the event.
Ms Phiri said Zambia must be
careful not to mistake environmental activity for public interest alignment.
“Tree planting is a good and necessary activity, and no one should oppose environmental restoration. But we must be careful not to allow positive environmental language to be used as a public relations shield for the tobacco sector at a time when Parliament is considering a critical public health law.
Zambia should not confuse
reforestation with reputational rehabilitation,” Ms Phiri said.
Why Article 5.3 Matters
The Chipata event has also renewed
attention on Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, which requires governments to protect
public health policy from the commercial and other vested interests of the
tobacco industry.
Its guidelines state that
interactions with the tobacco industry should be limited to what is strictly
necessary for regulation, and governments should avoid partnerships or
public-facing engagements that give the industry legitimacy or policy access.
Nalolo Member of Parliament Imanga Wamunyima has also stressed that Zambia must ensure the legislative
process remains free from undue influence and that lawmakers should focus on
the Bill’s public health purpose rather than industry-driven narratives.
Although the Tobacco Board of Zambia is often viewed as a statutory institution, critics argue that its practical role in promoting tobacco production means public associations with government during an active legislative process raise legitimate concerns. Ms Phiri said the issue is one of governance, not symbolism.
“Zambia has obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and one of the clearest principles is that public health policy must be protected from tobacco industry interference.
When tobacco-linked institutions begin presenting themselves as
development or sustainability partners during an active legislative process, it
raises legitimate public interest concerns that cannot be ignored,” Ms Phiri
said.
African Tobacco Control Alliance
(ATCA) Consultant and Public Health Advocate Caleb Ayong said the 2025 Tobacco
Industry Interference Index reveals worrying levels of tobacco industry
interference in Zambia.
According to Mr Ayong, the report
highlights frequent and unnecessary interactions between government officials
and tobacco companies.
“Government officials continue to
participate in tobacco industry events, giving the industry a seat at the table
— a seat they are not supposed to have,” he said.
He warned that tobacco companies
often use Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, including
tree-planting campaigns and donations, as a strategy to gain public goodwill
and access to policymakers.
“These activities are a
smokescreen designed to distract from the real cost of tobacco use,” Mr Ayong
said.
The Health Burden Cannot Be Ignored
For supporters of the Bill, the
core issue remains stark: tobacco is not a normal commodity.
Advocates say more than 7,000
Zambians die each year from tobacco-related diseases, including cancers, heart
disease and respiratory illnesses.
The burden is also economic, with
tobacco use driving up healthcare costs, reducing productivity and placing
avoidable pressure on households and health systems.
Hon. Wamunyima has warned that
this public health burden must not be downplayed in national debate.
He has also cited growing concern
over youth exposure, noting studies suggesting that nearly one in three young
people in Zambia have experimented with tobacco products.
ZAMNAT says the danger extends
beyond traditional cigarettes.
The network points out that
cigarettes produce thousands of chemicals when burned, including dozens of
known carcinogens, while vapes and other electronic nicotine products expose
users to nicotine, solvents, flavourings, heavy metals and other toxic
compounds.
For advocates, this is why the
Bill must be viewed as a health intervention first — not merely a commercial
regulation.
Consultation Has Happened — Now Comes Responsibility
Another major argument advanced by
supporters is that Zambia has already spent years consulting on tobacco
control.
ZAMNAT says the Bill has gone through extensive policy development, including stakeholder engagement and a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and that calls for endless additional consultation should be treated cautiously. Ms Phiri said delay is often a strategy in itself.
“This Bill has not appeared
overnight. Zambia has been discussing tobacco control for years, and
consultations have already taken place. At some point, the country must move
from endless discussion to responsible action. Repeated calls for more
consultation can easily become a strategy to delay regulation while harmful
products continue to damage lives,” Ms Phiri said.
Hon. Wamunyima has also argued that
constructive concerns should now be handled where they belong — in Parliament,
through clause-by-clause scrutiny — rather than through blanket opposition that
undermines the broader public health purpose of the law.
Livelihoods Matter — But So Does Honesty
Tobacco control advocates
acknowledge that tobacco remains a real source of income for many rural
households and that any long-term transition away from dependence on the crop
must be gradual, practical and properly supported.
But they reject the idea that Zambia must choose between farmers and
public health.
They argue that the real challenge
is how to regulate tobacco while building credible pathways for
diversification, alternative livelihoods and reduced dependence on a harmful
industry.
That, they say, is consistent with
the broader spirit of the WHO FCTC, including the need to support economically
viable alternatives for growers and to protect the health and environment of
communities affected by tobacco cultivation and curing.
A Defining Test for Parliament
As Parliament prepares for the
next stage of deliberation, Zambia is now facing a defining test.
On one side is a long-delayed law
aimed at reducing harm, protecting young people, regulating harmful promotion
and aligning the country with international best practice.
On the other is what public health advocates describe as a coordinated effort to confuse the public, frighten farmers, polish the image of tobacco-linked institutions and delay reform. Ms Phiri said lawmakers now have a duty to look beyond the noise.
“This is a defining moment for
Zambia. Parliament now has an opportunity to stand on the side of health, truth
and future generations. The Tobacco Control Bill is not about attacking farmers
or denying adults their choices. It is about putting reasonable safeguards in
place so that the tobacco industry can no longer market harm without
accountability,” Ms Phiri said.
Hon. Wamunyima has similarly urged
that the national conversation remain focused on evidence, constitutional
responsibility and the protection of future generations.
As the debate intensifies, one
question is becoming unavoidable:
Will Zambia allow false
narratives, image management and tobacco-linked fear to shape a law meant to save
lives — or will Parliament finally deliver the tobacco control protections the
country has delayed for far too long?
.jpg)
0 Comments