On the Shutdown of RightsCon 2026 and Potential PRC Pressure
Statement by Samuel Chu, President of The Campaign for Hong Kong
I was preparing to travel to Lusaka for RightsCon—the world’s leading summit on human rights in the digital age—along with hundreds of participants from civil society, government, and the technology sector.
Days before it was set to begin, the Government of the Republic of Zambia announced that the Summit would be “postponed.”
That is not accurate.
The organizers have confirmed that RightsCon 2026 will not proceed in Zambia or online.
Calling it a postponement does not change the reality—it was shut down.
The Government’s explanation cites “security and administrative clearances,” “comprehensive disclosure,” “alignment with national values,” and “further consultations.”
No specifics.
No concrete issue.
No timeline.
This is not an explanation—it is a refusal to provide one.
Subsequent reporting indicates that the Government’s concerns were tied to specific delegates, including the potential participation of Taiwanese voices who could speak critically about China.
If true, the implications are clear.
When “security” is used to decide who is allowed to speak, it is not about safety—it is about silencing.
This must be understood in context.
RightsCon 2026 was scheduled to take place at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre—Zambia’s flagship international venue, whose newest wing was funded and constructed by the People’s Republic of China—and was expected to bring together more than 3,000 in-person participants and many more online from over 150 countries.
At the same time, China has announced expanded zero-tariff access for African exports and is accelerating long-term economic partnerships across the continent, including with Zambia.
These are not abstract relationships.
Economic leverage does not stay in the market—it extends into speech, access, and who is allowed in the room.
If external pressure played no role, the Government should say so clearly.
If it did, the public deserves to know who is setting the limits on speech—and why.
I say this not only as an observer, but as someone who has personally experienced being targeted and criticized by actors aligned with the Chinese government for my work on democracy and human rights. I know how pressure is applied—directly and indirectly—to shape public space.
RightsCon is one of the few global forums where governments, activists, and technologists come together to debate surveillance, power, and freedom. To shut down that space days before it begins is not a technical or procedural decision.
It is a political decision—with global consequences.
I have submitted a formal letter to the Minister of Technology and Science requesting specific answers:
● What were the actual security concerns?
● Who was deemed a risk—and on what basis?
● Why were these issues raised only days before the Summit?
● And did any external government influence this decision?
Credibility collapses when governments hide behind vague language instead of answering direct questions.
If a global human rights summit can be stopped this easily, then no international space for open dialogue can be assumed to be secure.
What happened in Zambia is not an exception. It is a warning.
###