By Munshya wa Munshya

Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda has objected very strongly to this paragraph in my article of 20 September 2013 in the Daily Nation Newspaper. This same article is also published on www.eliasmunshya.org. This is what I wrote:

When Chiluba and his cohorts – Michael Sata and Miyanda to be exact – found great solace in the barbaric use of the Public Order Act, it is gallant judges who held that some sections of this law should be ruled as unconstitutional (see cases of Mulundika & Resident Doctors). Further, when Chiluba, Sata and Miyanda amended the 1996 constitution to exclude the likes of Kaunda based on the “parentage” clause; again our Supreme Court came back and provided a more sensible interpretation of what it meant to have Zambian parents (see Lewanika & Others v. Chiluba). It has been my position, following guidance from the Lewanika case, that even a Zambian like Guy Scott does satisfy the requirements of the “parentage clause”.

Specifically, General Miyanda has taken strong exception to my description of him as a “cohort” to Chiluba and Sata in the “barbaric use of the Public Order Act”. General Miyanda has also objected to my opinion that he with Chiluba and Sata “amended the 1996 constitution” to exclude the likes of Kaunda.

I had responded to his objections in my article entitled “When a General Cherry-Picks History”. In his response, Brigadier General Miyanda wasted no time to accuse me of all sorts of things. Additionally, he accused me of having an agenda to stigmatize him. Further General Miyanda cited me for forgery. One would then wonder where this stigmatization is based in my article as I only mentioned the trio’s political activities to this our country. Addressing the forgery I have been cited for, I still don’t know what he meant by that.

I do stand by what I had written in its entirety. Further, I wish to not respond any further to his insinuations. Indeed spending lots of time answering General Miyanda could take me away from the nobler task of adding our democratic visibility to those who currently serve in the “Donchi Kubeba” government. These individuals will soon join General Miyanda in the ranks of former this or former that. It is to these individuals like Guy Scott, Wynter Kabimba and even Bo Chilufya Sata that we must expend our energies in offering the needed political criticism. I do thank General Miyanda for his distinguished service to our people. He is a gallant soldier of democracy. But what I have written about his role during the Chiluba Era still remains my opinion and I would not for a second regret  authoring such.

I do this with a clear and sincere hope that the greatness of our nation lies ahead of us. I also do believe that in this little way, we could help to bequeath to our children a better democracy and with that a better republic.

Follow the conversation on twitter: @munshyamunshya

By Munshya wa Munshya

 Fighting for his political survival, Hon. Wynter Kabimba, made a very significant comment that his party has a clique of Bemba political hegemonists. Even Guy Scott has supported Wynter in these assertions. A daily newspaper has also, in its editorial, made the same allegations: there seems to be a Bemba clique within the PF that wants exclusive political control. Kabimba, further, acknowledged that he had been naïve all along. We’ve been telling Wynter all along that the PF is a tribal party, but it is only now that he has suddenly realized it. After this reality had sunk in, Wynter realized that the party he thought would rule Zambia for 100 years was in fact, a tribal party. Since Bo Kabimba has joined in this conversation, it would be just and prudent for all of us to continue it. After all, democracy is an orgy of ideas.

At independence in 1964 Zambia’s first president naively thought that Zambia had entered a new era of post-tribal politics. Kaunda had managed to convince the Litunga to have Barotseland proceed to independence, with the rest of Zambia, as one nation. However, just three years into power, Kaunda realized that the Zambian tribes were not as united as he had previously thought. The first post independence UNIP convention saw a very bitter tribal fight. The Bemba—Tonga pact had at the UNIP convention bitterly defeated the Lozi—Nyanja alliance. Kapwepwe was elected UNIP’s vice-President to the consternation of Kaunda. Reuben Kamanga, an easterner, was soundly defeated. In fact, it was during this time, that some UNIP stalwarts started doubting Kaunda’s loyalty to the Bemba tribe since he had Malawian parentage. Kaunda knew very well that he needed to do something more to overcome this new era of tribalism that had started to engulf the nation.

To overcome this, Kaunda retraced and reemphasized his loyalty as a Bemba subject of Chief Nkula in Chinsali. He also made a point to try and persuade Kapwepwe to step aside since two Bembas could not possibly hold two top positions in both UNIP and the government. Kapwepwe reluctantly obliged and Kaunda quickly brought in Mainza Chona, a Southerner to replace Kapwepwe. But this deeply displeased Kapwepwe and several other Bemba hegemonists, who later proceeded to found the UPP, a party whose principal popularity was in Luapula Province and its Copperbelt subsidiary of Mufulira.

To cure the issue of tribalism Kaunda started what he called Tribal Balancing. In this new arrangement he made sure that the provinces were well represented in government. It was so intentional that you could actually predict who would be in Cabinet and who would not. In this new arrangement the position of Prime Minister was almost exclusively reserved for either Barotseland or Southern Province. Out of six Premiers, from 1973—1991, four were Lozis and the other two were Tonga. This was KK’s tribal balancing at its best.

When Chiluba came into power, the intentional and deliberate tribal balancing was effectively overruled. Chiluba now claimed that he would appoint people on “merit.” However, it still remains to be answered why under Chiluba almost all Parastatal chiefs seemed to originate from Luapula Province. From just this it may be clear that appointment on merit may have meant tribal merit as well. But even if this is the reality with Chiluba, he was never accused of playing tribal politics. I guess if it were a Lenje doing the same thing, some vocal quarters could have condemned the practice.

It seems like; there is an assumption, a disturbing one for that matter, among some Zambians that only non-Bemba speaking peoples are more capable of tribalism. This is obviously erroneous. It should be quite surprising that President Sata would in one breath appoint an exclusively Bemba cabinet and in the next condemn Hakainde Hichilema for tribalism. Of all the presidents, it is the Bemba-speaking presidents who in fact have appointed more of their tribesmen to power. Chiluba and Sata have appointed more Bembas in their cabinet and Parastatal companies. What is surprising is that in spite of this, these presidents still deny being tribal.

When leaving power in 2001 Chiluba wanted to have a minority tribe to take over. This honour obviously fell on Mwanawasa—of both Lamba and Lenje heritage. Even without objective evidence, Mwanawasa was quickly accused of appointing a family tree in his cabinet.  Opposition leader Michael Sata was the main accuser. But once objectively assessed you will notice that Mwanawasa’s cabinet was more tribally balanced than any other in history. Mwanawasa also brought in some tribal diversity in Parastatal companies. However, when he appointed Sisala as ZESCO Managing Director, more tribalistic accusations were leveled against him. This again plays to my thesis that several Zambians believe, erroneously, that only non-Bembas are more capable of tribalism.

Under the Rupiah Banda presidency, the issue of tribalism took on a new shape all together. What was even more surprising with Rupiah Banda is that in spite of only having five easterners in his cabinet, opposition leader Michael Sata repeatedly accused Banda of practicing tribalism. Five easterners in Rupiah Banda’s government by far pale the over 70% Bembas in Michael Sata’s government.

President Sata has appointed more of his tribesmen to both Cabinet and the diplomatic service. But in spite of this, he still denies that he is a tribalist. I don’t know what measures tribalism better than a president’s exercise of prerogative powers. If a president appoints more of his tribesmen than any other tribe, surely, we could easily conclude that tribe must be playing a more prominent role than any other consideration. The idea that this president tries to balance brains is even more insulting to other tribes considering that these so called brains are derived primarily from Luapula-Muchinga-Northern corridor.

In the Bible both Joshua and Moses were repeatedly asked to choose men from each tribe of Israel. Tribal balancing does have some biblical basis as well.

Tribalism is alive and well in PF because President Sata tolerates and in fact, flourishes in it. Action speaks louder than words. If President Sata wants to put a stop to this tribal nonsense, then he must act and act decisively. The president should not be seen to be acting with a forked tongue – condemning GBM and his group while at the same time doing nothing concrete to put a stop to GBM’s tribal crusade, as alleged by Wynter. But to add more salt to injury just this week His Excellency sent two more Bembas to the diplomatic service.

Munshya wa Munshya

Tribal diversity should be the bedrock of our republic. No one should be ashamed of his or her tribe and no one should be made to think lowly of their heritage. The rivers of our national identity pass through the valleys of tribal and ethnic diversity. The dream of One Zambia, One Nation is not a motto that obliterates differences, but a tool that unites diversity for the national good. In Zambia, all people from all tribes and ethnic groups should feel a part of their country. From Mongu to Mwansabombwe and from Milanzi to Milenge, it should be clear that our country is better and stronger once diversity is not only recognized but also respected.

Our national motto is One Zambia One Nation and not One Bemba One Nation. It should be simple common sense to realize that a little tribal balancing could help foster unity more than this crass preference for the peoples of Luapula-Muchinga-Northern corridor.

 Munshya wa Munshya

 Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education results are out. And they are pathetic. Out of over 200 candidates only 6 managed to pass the legal practice exams. Another six of repeaters have passed. Now this number translates to a meager 3% pass rate. The next number is even more worrying, upsetting actually. Ninety-seven per cent of all candidates have failed. Nothing should define a crisis in the legal system than this pathetic failure ratio. Indeed, with a pass rate this low and a failure rate so high, the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education should rightly be called the Institute of Advanced Legal Failures or something to that effect. The collateral effect of this deplorable pass rate at ZIALE is that instead of leading to legal excellence, this institution will lead Zambia into legal extinction, into doldrums. The numbers just don’t add up.

Currently, Zambia has about 800 lawyers. Applying this number to our general population means that there is only one lawyer for every 20,000 of us. If all lawyers were to be spread across the country and evenly distributed in the depth and breadth of Zambia, there will be a distance of about 250-kms between each lawyer. What this means is that there is just not enough lawyers in Zambia to go round. The lawyer to population ratio is just too high. This is unsustainable in the long run.

Legal access is a fundamental element of the rule of law. Zambia cannot achieve adequate justice without adequate legal representation for its people. From Mongu to Milenge and from Chipata to Chavuma, remand prisons are full of our people who are incarcerated, without bail, because they do not have access to adequate legal representation. This is pathetic and a betrayal of the fundamental provisions of the rule of law. And instead of helping heal this gap in the lawyer population, one wonders why ZIALE should continue to perpetuate lawyer shortage.

With this failure rate, if ZIALE were the regulator of medical doctors, government and indeed the population would have long reacted. Indeed, if ZIALE were the regulator or examiner of nurses, the population would have long noticed and this wholesale failure would not have been tolerated a single day. I still wonder why in spite of this tragedy in the number of lawyers, ZIALE should be permitted or even allowed to be passing a meager six lawyers per examination period. Something must change.

In our democracy, the supply for lawyers is not a benevolent offering of a few lawyers. It is an imperative of good democratic governance. In fact, just as we demand for medical doctors to fill our clinics, so should we demand for more lawyers to fill our chambers. Without lawyers, the rule of law becomes a pipe dream only available to the bourgeoisie of Lusaka.

There are some eminent persons among us, who argue that ZIALE is doing well in regulating how many people get into law so as to limit the number of lawyers. With due respect, this argument can only be sustained if indeed we were dealing with an oversupply of lawyers. Reality sharply contradicts this line of thought. Zambia does not have an oversupply of lawyers; it has an undersupply of them. It is, therefore, ridiculous to suggest that ZIALE should continue to trickle down a few lawyers each year in a society that already needs hundreds of lawyers each year. It is consequently, nonsense, to argue that we have too many lawyers. I actually cannot see how one lawyer for every 20,000 people can become an oversupply.

Another issue that should be dismissed with contempt is the erroneous idea that most of the law graduates who go to ZIALE are in fact of low calibre. Indeed this argument could be sustainable only if it is a few failures we are dealing with. In this case, it is not a few failures we are dealing with but rather almost all of our brightest. It is bizarre to think that almost all of Zambia’s LLB graduates, from both UNZA and other private universities, are in fact of such low calibre that only 6 or 10 of them are worthy to become lawyers. It just does not make sense at all.

All the other excuses that ZIALE has been using are just as pitiful. ZIALE and its council should have run out of excuses by now. The ordinary people of Zambia want answers. Someone must put a stop to the baloney that is going on at ZIALE. The excuses such as lack of accommodation for students make no sense too. There should be no relationship between student accommodation and this pathetic failure rate. ZIALE should reform or it should be disbanded.

There is a very worrying tendency, even among practicing lawyers, to treat law as a fundamental preserve of a few. Indeed, this tendency or philosophy should have been truer to the old tired regime of the First or Second Republics. In the Third Republic, each citizen of our great nation owns a part of the legal destiny of our country. And no one institution should hold hostage the legal development of our country to please a few somewhat selfish individuals that want to keep a tight rein on the law profession.

What then should be done about ZIALE? The ZIALE scandal should not be left in the hands of lawyers alone. Lawyers are by nature risk averse. They are trained to not take risks. Calculation and over-carefulness are the caricature of all legal education. Lawyers alone will not reform ZIALE. Indeed some are unwilling to. Had they wanted to do so, they would have prevailed upon the powers that be to change the law or do something about it. But no, they won’t, even if it means overstretching themselves over a distance of 250-kms purporting to do an impossible feat of serving 20,000 people each day.

Zambia’ Attorney General is in a unique position to influence change in the legal fraternity. Doing this however, could come with a political risk for her. We must support and prevail upon the Attorney General and other politicians to prevail upon parliament to bring changes to ZIALE. The Attorney General plays an important role in our democracy. Importantly, she is the leader of the Zambian bar. But more than that she is the principal legal representor of the juristic public interest. As a quasi-politician, the AG should be more aware of the political pressure exerted by the people. It is at this level where those demanding changes at ZIALE can begin. The crisis at ZIALE should be moved from being a pure legal issue to become a wider crisis that threatens the public interest and the growth of our democracy. With political pressure, ZIALE can be reformed.

Current law students can also join the thousands of ZIALE failures to do something. To demonstrate along Cairo Road and perhaps make some noise along Great East Road and bring visibility to this issue. Additionally, all law students and graduates in Zambia could one year boycott ZIALE. Send no application there. Send a clear message. It cannot be a fair process that which collects billions of Kwacha in fees only to select the lucky six for law licenses. Action should begin now.

There is 1 lawyer for every 20,000 of Zambians

I am curious though to find out what professors at ZIALE really teach their students as to account for this low pass rate. Do they teach them in Hebrew only to examine them in Greek? Indeed, it is either these law graduates are so dull or it is to the professors we must direct this criticism. Zambia will be better and greater with a few more lawyers in it. But with the failure rate at ZIALE so high we shall continue to have 20,000 of us chase the skirts or robes of one lawyer. And the problem is that there are just not enough skirts or robes to go round.

 Munshya wa Munshya

Reimagining The Myths of Our Nation

Myths are powerful. Not only do they create nations, but they also perpetuate them. No nation can last, for a day, without some story justifying its existence as a nation or as a group of nations. Human genius knows no better partner than the myth of national storytelling. Through myths, we tell stories of our nation. Through myths, we philosophize our nationhood. Through myths, we define the perimeters of patriotism and demarcate the fields of vision and national purpose. It, therefore, goes without saying that while myths might provide ammunition to run a nation; they can in the same vein ruin a nation.

Forty-nine years of our independence call for deeper reflection of those myths and stories told to us about our country. With the 49^th Independence Anniversary comes the activity of mythmaking and story telling. The problem with these myths is that once repeatedly told the same way, they stop making sense. They become stale. They cease to inspire. Cast in this tired light, the independence narrative becomes a burden. When this happens, we must awaken ourselves to seek a renewal and a reawakening of national mythmaking.

Forty-nine years after independence, most of our people still live in abject poverty. May be Hakainde Hichilema is right: it is not enough just to celebrate independence; we must have something to show for it. However, within the context of disappointments, it is easy for the population to give way to despondency and hopelessness. In the face of failed fruits of independence we must, actually we should, recast the independence story in ways that are relevant to our times. Independence Day should not just be a day where we gather and listen to the same old and drowsy story of how we fought the Europeans. It should be more than that. Each Zambian should see themselves within the context of a continuous story.

The reimagined Zambian myth should begin by challenging and questioning the popular assumptions of what it really means to be Zambian. In spite of evidence to the contrary, Zambia at the turn of independence became a victim of a citizenship formulation that was, at most, a lie. This formulation envisaged a nation with “pure Zambian citizens.” This primordial paradigm, unfortunately, has continued unchallenged almost 50 years after independence. Kaunda at independence demanded for pure Zambians, and so did Chiluba with the 1996 amendments to the constitution. The current sidelining of Guy Scott by Michael Sata also shows that the puristic views of Zambian identity are still prevalent.

The 1964 explanation of what it meant to be a citizen made people like Kaunda to live in absurdities. For his part, Kaunda tried to cure this absurdity by writing to the Malawian government so as to renounce his Malawian citizenship. That 1973 letter goes to show the inadequacy and utter drivel of one-dimensional outlook of citizenship. In an African country like ours, it should not have been required of Kaunda to renounce his Malawian connections. He should have been allowed to be both Zambian and Malawian. Indeed, in the modern Zambia, many of our people are realizing and abandoning the purist one-dimensional view of what it means to be Zambian. As a nation, Zambia will comprise of peoples transecting varied demographics, religions, and persuasions. Whites, blacks, Indian and mixed race peoples are uniting and claiming a share in the process of mythmaking. People like Guy Scott and Dipak Patel should be given the full rights and recognition of citizenship. There should, therefore, be no justifiable reason why Guy Scott should not act as President of Zambia. In a reimagined myth of Zambia, we do not discriminate based on origin or based on the past. Rather, we unite those minds among us who share a common destiny. In this reimagination, Zambia becomes to us a destiny more than a heritage. A heritage connects us to the past, but a destiny connects us to the future. When we say we are Zambian, it is not to the past that we are seeking an identity, but rather it is to the future.

The reimagination of Zambian nationhood should also embrace the many Zambians who now live outside of the country. The present government should give a hearing to the many demands from the diaspora to recognise dual nationality. It is absurd that in the face of globalization, Zambians can become global citizens while being denied the legal protection of citizenship in their own country of origin.

A reimagination of nationhood might also involve a confrontation of our identity as a Christian nation. It goes without saying that most Zambians are Christian. In fact, beginning from independence, even Kaunda recognized Zambia as a Christian nation. By declaring Zambia as a Christian nation in 1991, President Chiluba was merely affirming a reality consistent with what Kaunda and others believed about Zambia. The fact that the Christian nation declaration forms part of the preamble to our republican constitution goes to show the significance of Christianity to our people. But the Christian nation identity of our country should be reimagined and recast in ways that, nevertheless, recognise the religious diversity of our country. Even if we have minority religions in Zambia, people who adhere to those religions must be accorded the same constitutional protections accorded to Christianity. In spite of being a Christian nation, Zambia is not a church and certainly not a parish. Our country is made up of a diverse cadre of adherents to various religions. This religious diversity should be recognised and respected. Our government should not run affairs of this nation in ways that deny constitutional liberties to citizens. As such, the Declaration should not be taken as a tool to oppress non-Christians. It is in this vein, therefore, that it worries me for Information Permanent Secretary Emmanuel Mwamba to cancel radio licenses to Muslims for the fact that they are Muslim. Tyranny against one group is tyranny against all groups.

Munshya wa Munshya

Reimagining the myth of nationhood also means that we must relook at the meaning we assign to mottos such as “One Zambia One Nation”.  One Zambia One Nation motto is perhaps one of the founding myths of our republic from which many in Zambia derive a great sense of unity and patriotism. But there are areas in which this motto has been so interpreted not as a tool of liberty, but as a tool of tyranny. The aspirational value of One Zambia One Nation means that, it is the various sects and tribes and peoples of Zambia that are contributing equally to the creation of a modern state. This motto should make each sect in our nation to be more humble towards others. It means that the majority should never think they are the only ones making Zambia, but rather that Zambia, like a human body, survives and subsists through the contribution and sacrifice of even the smallest parts. In practice, it means that we will not let this motto to delegitimize our tribes, but rather that this motto will legitimate our tribes while assigning a new aspirational vision.

There are many ways we could begin the process of reimagination of the myths that make our nation. I offer only but a few hoping that as we all participate in our nation building, we will find ways and opportunities to build. The Zambian myth is no greater than the people making it. At 49, we are presented with a rare opportunity for imagination and reimagination.

 Munshya wa Munshya

William Harrington, a private citizen of Zambia wrote the Chief Justice of Zambia requesting that a tribunal be instituted to probe the activities of a cabinet minister. Hon. Sylvia Masebo is alleged to have committed some irregularities with regard to her role in personnel firing, board appointments and subsequent awarding of tenders in the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. Harrington petitioned the Chief Justice in keeping with the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct. At section 13 (1) the Code states that:

An allegation that a Member has breached Part II may be made to the Chief Justice by any person, in writing giving particulars of the breaches or breaches alleged, signed by the complainant and giving the complainant’s name and address.

What is so interesting about the facts of this case is how similar they are to a case, again brought by the same William Harrington (Harrington v. Siliya & Attorney General [2009]). In the Siliya case, Harrington had brought similar charges accusing Hon Dora Siliya of obtaining pecuniary advantage from her position as Minister of Transport and Communications. The Siliya case made its way up to the Supreme Court and its ratio decidendi must be relied on in this new case of Masebo.

With regard to Harrington v. Masebo, however, the Acting Chief Justice of Zambia, Lombe Chibesakunda neglected to constitute a tribunal. Among other reasons, she rationalized that she did not have sufficient information from Harrington. Harrington sought judicial review of Chibesakunda’s decision and Justice Sichinga of the Lusaka High Court ruled that under the Ministerial Code of Conduct the Chief Justice of Zambia should have constituted the tribunal.

When Harrington petitioned Justice Sichinga, Zambia’s Attorney General joined the proceedings, as expected. Mumba Malila was of the view that the Chief Justice was right in her decision to stall in appointing the tribunal. Obviously, Mumba Malila lost this case and Justice Sichinga sided with Harrington. Chibesakunda was going to appoint the tribunal.

Zambia’s Chief Justice, in so far as she functions within contemplation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, is not functioning as a judicial officer but rather as an officer of the administrative state. And so with regard to her constituting of the tribunal she is subject to normal judicial review procedure. It is, therefore, not surprising that a judge, one court her junior, compelled her to appoint a tribunal. After Sichinga’s ruling, Chief Justice Chibesakunda complied with the court and appointed a tribunal to probe the conduct of Hon. Sylvia Masebo. However, before the tribunal could sit, Sylvia Masebo and the Attorney General applied to court to have this decision stayed as the Attorney General appeals to the Supreme Court.

What is at issue here is whether Zambia’s Attorney General can in fact appeal against a tribunal set-up to probe a political leader. In other words, is it legally right within our legal and political system of governance for Mumba Malila to appeal against the formation of a tribunal by the Chief Justice?

The goal of the Ministerial Code of Conduct is clearly laid down in statute. It is aimed at increasing political accountability of members of cabinet not only to the president but also to the people of Zambia directly. Section 3 (1) of the Ministerial Code of Conduct Act states that:

The provisions of this Part shall constitute part of the code of conduct for Members for the purposes of the Constitution, a breach of which results in the vacation of the seat of the Member concerned.

It is the people of Zambia who appoint and vote for politicians to lead in governing. However, it is within contemplation of both the constitution and statute that politicians will have to account personally for their official acts. It is in this vein, therefore, that the role of Harrington should be seen and interpreted. This being the case, the Attorney General of Zambia, should not appear to be impeding political accountability of ministers to the people of Zambia. Instead of impeding this accountability, the Attorney General should be enhancing it.

The law governing the role of the Attorney General in our democracy can be found in at least three sources: the common law, the constitution and statute. Constitutionally, the role of the Attorney General is espoused in Article 54 of the constitution. Statutorily, the role of the Attorney General can be found in various statues that bring his role under contemplation. The common law also has some specific judge made rules regarding the role of the Attorney General. A review of all these three sources reveals the following principles.

First, the AG is the principal legal advisor of the government. This means that she is the lawyer or counsel for the president and his government. Typically then, President Sata and his government ministers go to court under the cover of the Attorney General. The role of legal adviser is just that “adviser”. This does not mean that government cannot make decisions unless the AG endorses them. According to the impeccable reasoning of Justice Musonda in the Dora Siliya Tribunal case, while the AG is indeed a legal adviser to the government, a government minister is not under legal duty to accept the advise from the AG. Just like what happens in any solicitor to client relationship, a client can refuse to follow counsel. Having the AG as legal adviser to government does not mean that government should only function according to the advise of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court on appeal did not have problems with Musonda’s reasoning per se, they only took issues with his decision to delve into constitutional matters considering that the case at his bar was a judicial review application.

In our political government it is not laws that rule through people, but rather people that rule through laws. Laws are not the principal but people are. It is politicians we hold responsible for government and not laws. As such, Musonda was right. Government can be crippled if it has to wait for an AG to advise on each and every issue. In fact, Musonda went even further by suggesting that sometimes the duty of governance entails taking political decisions that are at variance with the current state of the law. Laws take a long time to change, and no government should be held to ransom due to the inflexibility of laws in so far as governance is concerned. Just as no courts of law can promulgate an injunction against the state, so can’t the advise of the AG bind the state. A politician who makes a decision, with or without advise from the AG is still personally and politically responsible for her decision. It is quite telling, that during the time of the Dora Siliya case, it was Mumba Malila who was AG. It does appear like he never learnt from this opinion. As adviser to government, Mumba Malila should not assume that he could block political accountability of government ministers.

Second, the AG is the general officer of the juristic public interest. This role goes beyond being a legal counsel to a sitting government. If the public interest were a person, the lawyer it would hire would be and should be the AG. In a general sense, the AG acts for this public interest. Public interest could include the AG intervening in certain criminal prosecutions due to the general nature of its impact on public interest. Public interest is widely interpreted. In fact, most courts would let the AG join in court proceedings quite liberally. The courts respect the role of the AG in this respect. I see that Malila could use this power to say that he is interfering in the Masebo case due to public interest matters. The problem in arguing this would betray the very nature of public interest which is on the side of personal accountability of ministers to the people of Zambia. If Malila cannot tell what is truly in public interest, then he should resign from this position and the taxpayers can be better served by a leader of the Zambian bar who understands what is truly at the heart of this public interest.

Third, the AG is the lawyer not only of the political government, but also of the administrative government. What this means is that the AG is legal counsel for the Zambian administrative state with all its tributaries. All state institutions covered under administrative law are within cover of the Attorney General. The administrative law includes statutory bodies, tribunals and commissions of the state. It is this limb that makes the Attorney General to be party to court cases involving the ECZ and bodies such as the Mutuna tribunal. Once an administrative act is done, it automatically assumes a legal defender: the Attorney General.

Specifically, the tribunal is funded directly by the taxpayer (s.15 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct). A taxpayer funded operation; the tribunal deserves legal representation from the foremost taxpayer legal counsel, the Attorney General.

Since a tribunal constituted by the administrative state should have the Attorney General as its lawyer, it becomes quite questionable that in the case of Sylvia Masebo tribunal, the Attorney General has decided to join proceedings against the tribunal. This is quite unusual. The major question to ask here is: who is the client of the AG between Masebo and the tribunal?

Munshya wa Munshya

Masebo cannot be client of the Attorney General because within the contemplation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, a minister is personally responsible for his or her action. What Harrington is petitioning is that Masebo might have gotten pecuniary advantage from her position as minister. The Code is aimed at increasing personal accountability of government political leaders. If the Attorney General impedes this then personal accountability will be betrayed. Even if Masebo made decisions on advise of the AG in the first instance, once a tribunal has been instituted against her, the AG ceases to be her lawyer. She must find other lawyers to represent her. As it were, the tribunal is a government organ while Sylvia Masebo in so far as the tribunal is concerned does not function as a government organ. The tribunal is a political process of accountability of government ministers directly to the people. In fact, specifically the Code of Conduct brings a ministerial tribunal at par with Commission of Inquiry instituted under the Inquiries Act (Code of Conduct section 14 [10]). Therefore, there should no difference between a constitutional review commission and ministerial tribunal. They are both organs instituted by the State.

By insisting that he represent her or rather that he defends her, Malila has betrayed the Zambian people who are actually his clients. If Malila wants to be Masebo’s lawyer then the honourable thing he should do is to give up the taxpayers’ salary and go and become Masebo’s lawyer. The Zambian people have already hired Malila. He has a duty to defend both good and bad decisions made by the Zambian state. He has a duty to defend the tribunal even if it were irregularly constituted. In fact, he should be spending time trying to defend the tribunal rather than betraying it.

The principle here is not that Chibesakunda was right or wrong to constitute a tribunal. The issue is whose client will the tribunal be? And it is clear that the tribunal already has a lawyer: Mumba Malila. If Malila does not want that then he should resign. A new AG will meet him in court and defeat him viciously.

Note: This article is meant for academic and public interest comment. It is not intended to render specific legal advise. Those seeking legal advice should consult members of the Zambian Bar. (c)Munshya wa Munshya, 2013

By E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), MA, MDiv.

The New Year is finally here. We should all be relieved that the year 2013 has come to an end. Each New Year brings to us a fresh perspective on life. And for Zambia, we all should expect a renewed look at what would make our nation better and greater. The shape of any nation is continually fashioned by people and events. In this New Year 2014 there are several events and people I see shaping the way the fabric of our nation shall unfold.

The Year of GBM 

Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba (GBM) is likely to affect the political field more than any other person this year. GBM’s high profile end-of-year resignation from President Sata’s cabinet has created some perception that he is a courageous politician. In this fresh perception, it does not matter that GBM’s resignation might have been caused by his loss of influence within the PF (Team A v Team B). All that seem to matter to his supporters is that he has shown some courage by quitting and standing up to his former boss. GBM will do well to leverage this momentum. It therefore matters how he will handle himself especially in the coming few weeks.

GBM will shape Zambia’s political landscape in 2014

To benefit from this momentum, GBM could choose to launch a political party of his own. But that would be a serious mistake. Launching a new party would only go to crowd an already over-bloated opposition scene. What he needs to do is to be more calculating. The two choices that come to mind are either the MMD or the UPND. Going to MMD has some risk involved. The MMD is a compromised brand. Having another powerful Bemba in MMD, after Nevers Mumba, would prove problematic for GBM. The most formidable step GBM can take is to collaborate with the UPND. This choice would almost certainly be mutually beneficial for both GBM and Hakainde Hichilema. Such a move would make the UPND strong enough to be a serious contender to power in 2016. If GBM were to join the UPND, he could become its Vice-President. In this arrangement, the goal is not to get the Bemba vote to UPND, but to bring the urban vote gravitas to the UPND. As it stands now, GBM cannot dislodge the PF’s stronghold in Bemba-speaking areas in the Luapula-Muchinga corridor. But most certainly, GBM does have the aura in the urban areas to dissuade Lusaka and Copperbelt from continuing with the PF.

In 2014, the political front is not likely to bring any surprises. In the seats that have been nullified, we expect the PF to win in its traditional areas and the opposition to win in their respective areas. It is quite unlikely that the PF will perform well in these by-elections. The MMD is likely to lose some seats to the UPND especially in areas such as Northwestern Province and Barotseland. As far as the Eastern Province is concerned, Nevers Mumba’s MMD is likely to win all the by-elections held there.

The Year of Justice Chibesakunda & Chikopa

“2014 – Will be a significant year for Zambia” – Elias Munshya

The Supreme Court will be determining important cases this year. One case that is likely to return to the bench is the Mutuna case, which is being handled by Ndola High Court Judge Siavwapa. I have named this case Mutuna II to differentiate it from the first Mutuna case, which the Supreme Court has already dealt with. What is unusual with Mutuna II is that Judge Siavwapa has maintained that what Mutuna and others are looking for in Mutuna II is quite different from what they wanted in Mutuna I. By distinguishing issues, Siavwapa does seem to have rejected the idea that he is bound by the stare decisis in Mutuna I. We should all closely watch this court case. It will be one of the most significant cases of the year. The fact that this Mutuna II case has stayed the Chikopa Tribunal is also significant. It is quite interesting that 2 years after Chikopa, this tribunal is yet to begin sitting.

The Supreme Court is also likely to hear the case against Acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda. In this case, the Law Association of Zambia is challenging Chibesakunda’s occupation of office of Chief Justice. This case is likely to divide the court and in turn is likely to divide the members of the Zambian bar themselves. With about thirty lawyers involved in this court case, it will be one of the greatest cases in the nation’s history. In view of this, Justice Chibesakunda could decide to resign before the hearing. She could also decide to stay and fight it out. If she stays to fight it out, the fights might themselves create a perception among citizens that the judiciary is alienated. For an already mistrusted court, this is the last thing they would want associated with them.

Year of Nullifications

Nullifications of parliamentary seats are likely to continue this year. I do not think that the Supreme Court is nullifying these seats due to some ulterior motive. But I think there is fundamental misinterpretation of the law on the judges’ part. It seems like all the judges do seem to be following a clear pattern. They find an irregularity and this irregularity leads to automatic nullification. This has been the case in almost each of the cases heard by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court does seem to misunderstand the real purpose behind electoral laws. And this is a common misconception that any court can make. In my opinion, for a seat to be nullified at least three questions should be answered in the affirmative.

First, was there a malpractice or electoral irregularity? The second question should be; “was the malpractice or the irregularity so grave as to affect the electoral outcome”? The third question should be, taking into account public policy and interest should the election be nullified? Answering all these in the affirmative should lead to nullification.

It would be a serious mistake if any malpractice or irregularity will automatically lead to nullification, as is the case now. Again, I think the Supreme Court judges have done a great disservice to the nation in the way they continue to interpret and implement the Electoral Act. That being the case, I do not think that they are nullifying seats due to some hidden conspiracy.

The Year of More Kaloba

In terms of economics, things are not looking very bright. If the don’t kubeba government continues along this path, Zambia is likely to continue on its path of accumulating kaloba at unprecedented levels. This year is likely to be the year of more kaloba. Finance Minister Chikwanda’s last act of the last year was to sign a 20-year kaloba in millions of dollars with the Chinese. It is not good for our country to accumulate pre-HIPC debt loads. It is unacceptable. The thing is, Chikwanda’s coffers are dry and in order for him to deliver the so many extreme promises the PF have made he has to resort to borrowing.

50 Years Jubilee

Zambia will be 50 years old this year. This calls for celebration. However, the true celebration should be with the way President Sata decides to rule the nation. He must backtrack on debts. He must also improve his human rights record. At 50, the police should not be detaining people simply for possessing Vermox. Several journalists will be in court in a few days time. They are facing charges connected to their work. In this year, we should all apply the necessary pressure upon government to desist from abrogating press freedom.

Kenneth Kaunda Will be 90!

On a good note, this year Kenneth David Kaunda will be turning 90. And at this age, Kenneth Kaunda will be one of those that will shape Zambia in 2014. It will matter how Kaunda celebrates his 90 years. I just hope that he will not spend it as a partisan demagogue, but as a true compatriot of the people of Zambia. Kaunda belongs to all Zambians. He does not belong to the PF alone and the sooner he realizes that, the better.

Happy New Year Zambia.

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), MA, MDiv.

One Zambia, One Kandolo – Munshya

President Levy Mwanawasa (Zambian President from 2002 to 2008) was a controversial figure. Without doubt he has gone into history as one of the most contentious presidents. Several things about Mwanawasa are contentious. Just how he was called from political retirement to become Chiluba’s preferred MMD presidential candidate ruffled a lot of feathers within the MMD in 2001. Legend has it that Mwanawasa was actually woken up from sleep to go and accept his candidacy at an MMD meeting at State House. Without effort, Levy would be king. Chiluba had famously dribbled several people in the MMD to push the Mwanawasa candidacy through. Ironically, one of those dribbled candidates was a potent MMD Secretary known as Michael Chilufya Sata. Ten years later, this MMD strongman is now president of the republic. For some reason, he has decided to dissociate himself from the MMD he served and led. But we will leave that mboholi for another day.

Mwanawasa also proved to be contentious by the way he won the 2001 elections. Held during the December holiday season, the 2001 elections were contested by a record eleven candidates including Michael Sata, Nevers Mumba and Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika. What made the 2001 electoral result even more bizarre was how Mwanawasa beat Anderson Mazoka, by a single percentage point. Some political observers claim that Mwanawasa’s victory was stolen right from Mazoka’s nose. We, of course, do not have any evidence for all these allegations. For their part, the Supreme Court exonerated Mwanawasa from any electoral malpractice in the 2001 electoral petition.

Mwanawasa was also controversial in the way he chose to prosecute and with it persecute his own benefactor President Chiluba and his close collaborators. There was no one who escaped Mwanawasa’s wrath. Beginning from Chiluba’s political collaborators such as Michael Sata to civil servants such as State House senior staff, Mwanawasa made sure that they all faced police cells. Sata’s alleged crime was theft of a motor vehicle. This was a non-bailable crime at that time. For Chiluba himself, it was theft of about half a million dollars. Had Mwanawasa had the way, he would have probably locked up some people for being like kandolo.

With all these controversies, however, there is something for which we should all commend Mwanawasa. The way he handled, perhaps, the most vicious of insults any person can ever face: his mental wellbeing. Shortly after the 1991 elections, Mwanawasa was involved in a very nasty accident where he almost died. He was hospitalized in South Africa for many months. His own recovery was nothing short of a miracle. According to biographer Amos Malupenga, some of Mwanawasa’s closest associates and even Levy himself did link this accident with his short-temperedness and slurred speech. In his own home, Mwanawasa had a nickname: the tiger. His children and his wife learnt over the years how to handle his temper.

The most vicious of insults, however, concerned the idea that Mwanawasa was a cabbage. The term cabbage meant that Levy had basically been so affected by the 1991 accident as to leave him without normal human faculties. He had basically become a vegetable – a cabbage. The idea that Levy was a useless cabbage became the punchline for opposition Zambian leaders. In one of the many protests against Mwanawasa, protesters would be seen hoisting cabbages in the air, sending a clear insult to Levy that he was but a vegetable. In fact, opposition leaders Edith Nawakwi and Dipak Patel even faced a brief prosecution over the “cabbage” remarks. No doubt, calling Levy Mwanawasa a cabbage was an insult. And as such, the law that proscribes presidential defamation covered it.

The way Mwanawasa handled this cabbage episode, however, teaches us a few lessons in leadership and indeed in the way leaders should handle insults. Before political leaders resort to using the courts or the police to resolve issues of insults, it would be better for them to have recourse to some specific tools that could counteract those insults. Mwanawasa had a choice. He could have started to arrest all the people who called him a cabbage. He could have banned cabbages too. Additionally, he could have sent soldiers to arrest UNZA students who frequently hoisted cabbages when protesting. Instead of reacting in retribution, this is how Mwanawasa handled the insult. He simply rebutted it by claiming quite famously that:

“I am not a cabbage, I am a piece of steak”.

With these few but powerful words, Mwanawasa added hilarity to a very difficult insult. He knew that he could not fight all the people calling him a cabbage. It would be difficult to do a tit-for-tat with everyone bent on annoying him. And he realized that he had a choice in the matter. And that choice was humor. When you react to insult with humour you pre-empt the enemy’s venom. From Mwanawasa we learn that even a cabbage can survive the Cobra’s venom by using laughter. From Mwanawasa we learn that while a cobra’s venom cannot hurt a cabbage, humour can transform a cobra into a potato. It may take a few years, but certainly the time always comes when a cobra suddenly becomes a sweet potato. And it appears in all probability that going by what BBC and AP had reported on Tuesday, there was a serious issue of “Kachamba” happening in Kasama this week.

“I am not a cabbage, I’m a piece of steak” – Levy Patrick Mwanawasa

There is a saying in Bemba, which states that “imfumu taituka bantu, abantu ebatuka imfumu”. This can be loosely translated: a leader should be able to tolerate insults from those he is leading. This wit was widely used by President Chiluba (1991-2001) to divert criticism and insults from various political opponents. President Levy Mwanawasa also used the same wisdom to tolerate the deplorable insults coming from various opposition leaders. The pain of being likened to a cabbage was what people in the nation could do against Mwanawasa, but he knew that he had to react better since he was president of the republic. Tolerance is important for several reasons.

First, it helps a leader to focus on providing leadership instead of focusing on useless and unproductive battles. A leader has a lot issues weighing heavily on her. These things include umutengo wa bunga, a people driven constitution and lack of nurses at UTH. And so to give due attention to these worthy causes, it is necessary that a leader be not moved by petty and senseless squabbles. Second, tolerance is important because it helps to foster an atmosphere of democratic liberty. Zambians should have the liberty to both state and miss-state Lozi language sayings such as Ngulu Musholi, a deliberate adulteration of a Bemba saying Chumbu Munshololwa. Indeed, after Bembas have been robed of the opportunity to choose their own Sosala as Chief Chitimukulu, no one should limit their liberty to use their expression connected to Kandolo.

Chumbu Munshololwa

If we are to learn anything from Mwanawasa, it is the way he handled this cabbage insult. I just hope that from him we can all learn to be more tolerant and allow Chingovwa to be what it is: a good delicacy that does not bend. But if it were Mwanawasa we called Mboholi, he was going to tell us in no uncertain terms, “I am not Chimbwali, I am a piece of steak”. And it is this humour that Zambia lacks today: One Zambia, One Kandolo.

By E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Zambia should change laws that unfairly disadvantage women – Munshya

The facts of the 2012 case of one Ms. Kay Figo and her lover Mr. Van are very well defined. Around 2007 a 55 year-old Mr. Van  met a 21-year Ms. Kay Figo at a Kabwata nightclub. Due to love at first sight, Mr. Van that night invited Ms Kay to his Makeni home.  They  lived together for a period of 5 years. The relationship had broken down for at least two years of those five years. Noting that the relationship had broken down, Ms. Kay sued Mr. Van before the Lusaka Local Court. Ms. Kay’s argument was that she deserved compensation from Mr. Van for lost time while “dating” him. She wanted the court to recognise her time with Mr. Van as deserving some level of legal or equitable recognition. Some reports suggest that Ms. Figo had actually wanted this 5-year cohabitation to be recognized as a common law or some form of customary marriage. Mr. Van argued that, to the contrary, he did not need to compensate her because as far as he was concerned he was not married to her. It was also Mr. Van’s argument that during the 5 years he had lived with Ms. Kay he had tried repeatedly to reach her family so that he could get her to marry him. Reaching family suggest that Mr. Van might have wanted to marry her through customary law and practice. He argues further that she was not willing to introduce him to her family. As such she refused his proposal for marriage. That having been the case, he argued that she was un-deserving of any compensation.

This matter has received lots of media attention. Some in the media have characterized Kay as an “untaught” girl and as a gold digger just out to get Mr. Van for his money. Indeed that Kay was quite specific about the amount of compensation she wanted from her former lover, only went to stoke the suspicions in many that she was an opportunist going for a “house, money and car”.

The Lusaka Local Court reached its decision in October 2012. The local court justices dismissed Ms. Kay’s action declaring that since she had not been married to Mr. Van, she had no recourse to any compensation. The courts declared that there was no valid marriage contract upon which compensation can be ordered. As such, Ms. Kay was unsuccessful in this claim.

I find the decision of the court to be unfair. I wish to paint this decision within a wider framework of both law and tradition to argue that there is need for Zambia to change its legal framework as to recognise compensation in cases such as the one under consideration.

Ms. Kay Figo

In Zambia today, there are principally two ways by which marriage can be contracted. The first is marriage under the Act and the second one is the marriage under Zambian traditions and customs. Marriage under the Act is primarily modelled after European system (sometimes misusing the Bible as justification). In this marriage, two people can contract a marriage and have it solemnized by the registrar of marriage or a gazetted minister of religion. The marriages contracted under Zambian laws and tradition is valid only after definite steps are taken. Legal jurisprudence right now as it stands in the Supreme Court precedence is that a marriage under customary law can only be valid if the man has paid some form of dowry or “lobola” to the family of the woman.

The consequence of the law as it stands right now is that regardless of how long a man has lived with a woman, that union cannot be recognized as a marriage unless he has “reached” the woman’s family and some form of dowry has been paid to the woman’s family. It is not my intention to change the way our traditions or the law defines what a marriage is. I would leave that up to the traditionalists and to the Zambian parliament.

My argument is that there has to be some form of legal or customary recognition of some unions contracted in the manner similar to Ms. Kay and Mr. Van’s. My argument is that leaving the law as it is would disadvantage women who are at the receiving end of unbalanced power within society. Indeed, in much of the English Common law jurisdictions, the law has moved on to where it imposes a “marriage” upon any couple that has cohabited for a specific period of time. In Canada for example, the “marriage under common law” is imposed upon any couple that has lived together for at least 12 continuous months. Privileges for such recognition vary from one Canadian jurisdiction to another.

In the case of Zambia, a couple should either be married or if not then it is cohabiting with the later receiving no legal or equitable protection at all. There is no middle ground. Marriage receives both legal and equitable protection while cohabitation does not. I do not wish to encourage cohabitation. Indeed, a marriage is far much better than two people just cohabiting. But there comes a time where women are disadvantaged due to the unfair balances of power after the cohabitation is over. Indeed, in the case of Ms. Kay and Mr. Van, the man took this young girl from a bar and lived with her for 5 years. That they were cohabiting without being married is clear for all to see. But in the event that the relationship comes to an end it would be unconscionable for the woman to walk out of that relationship without some amount of consideration.

She was a de-facto spouse to Mr. Van while she lived with him. She cleaned his house and took out his garbage every night or probably once a week. She worked hard for him. She provided him with the love and affection he needed. This love and affection made him work well and work hard in his businesses. For at least a majority of those five years, she was there for him. Honestly, that after these years she deserved some form of a “house, money or car” from him. He must not be allowed to dismiss her that easily.

Many commentators have discussed how a “gold-digger” Ms. Kay is. In fact, many have questioned her moral values as “ a girl picked from a bar.” Indeed, I find such criticisms very unfair. Why aren’t the same people condemning the 55-year-old Mr. Van who pounced on this innocent girl? Why is it that when it comes to such matters, the woman gets the most condemnation while the man goes scot-free? In fact, Mr. Van has been left off the hook such that there are reports that he has now started another “cohabitation” with another young woman.

If indeed, Ms. Kay is a bar girl, that criticism should also be leveled against Mr. Van who took her from the bar and within the same night took her to his house in Makeni. He loved her and lived with her for five solid years. Honestly, after having enjoyed her youth and her innocence, Mr. Van cannot and should not get away so easily. He must at least offer reasonable compensation to her. It is just the right thing to do.

She has lost the case. Probably, as a controversial musician, she will even sell more records after this episode. However, she will bear the brunt of this saga while Mr. Van goes scot free to begin pouncing on another girl at a shabeen in Shang’ombo.

Only that next time, we must make Mr. Van realize that once he picks another girl, he would not discard her so easily. The “not married to you” nonsense should not be tolerated. If you cannot marry the girl then do not cohabit with her. But if you so wish to cohabit with her then you should be able to offer any compensation that would normally fall on a marriage of similar length. Here is a number from Ms. Figo.

(c) E. Munshya, LLB, M.Div. (2012). This article was originally published on this website on 5 October 2012. It is republished here in 2014. All rights reserved.

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Many have undertaken to write on the appropriateness and inappropriateness of Hon Harry Kalaba’s decision to overrule Zambia’s environmental body. Kalaba has permitted a foreign company strangely known as “Zambezi Resources Limited” to develop an open pit mine in the middle of the Lower Zambezi National Park. Ignoring advice from environmental experts from the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), Hon Kalaba has used his statutory powers and invoked public policy objects in granting this license. I understand that this matter is now in court. There are reports that the aliens in charge of Zambezi Resources have refuted the reality of any injunction against them. As far as they are concerned they are ready to begin the plunder of the Zambezi River Basin. I will leave the legal arguments to the competent lawyers and the High Court. In this article, however, I will dwell only on the other arguments advanced by Kalaba and his government peers in justifying this environmental sacrilege.

Pollution in Mufulira, Zambia

Harry Kalaba is in many senses a very reasonable gentleman. He is a rising star in the PF government. As a native of Luapula, I have no doubt that Kalaba brings to public office the grace, gallantry and great wisdom domiciled in our people. It is young Luapulans like Kalaba who daily keep alive the hopes and dreams of our republic. Zambia will be better and greater with ministers like Kalaba. In humble patriotism, however, we must call upon even gifted people like Kalaba to reevaluate the way they are governing the country. We must put aside personal familiarities and common kinship in pursuit of higher ideals for our national healing. And for the stance he has taken on the issue of mining in the Lower Zambezi National Park, I must differ with him and the policies of his colleagues in the Don’t Kubeba government.

Lower Zambezi National Park

The Don’t Kubeba government is arguing that this foreign firm, “Zambezi Resources” does have the technology necessary to keep the game park in pristine condition while excavating an open pit mine. This is nonsense. Kalaba and his colleagues have failed to put in place any measures to protect the people of Mufulira who are currently being slaughtered daily by sulphur gases discharging from Butondo. How then will they have the technology to do better in Zambezi? Why can’t they start to show us their “modern technology” by cleaning up Mufulira and Chingola before these companies go on to turn the whole country into a huge pile of torrential chemicals? Indeed, it is simple logic. That which has failed to work for Chingola and Mufulira will most certainly fail to work for the Lower Zambezi. Zambezi Resources does not have the technology to mine in the Zambezi any safer than other mining companies are currently doing on the Copperbelt. And as the people of Nchanga know, a mine is a mine. An open pit mine is an open pit mine. There is no technology that can ever replace soils dug out of the ground to make room for this open pit mine. Digging in the Lower Zambezi does have consequences on the land, the animals and the people of the Lower Zambezi.

The Don’t Kubeba government is also arguing that they have permitted mining in the Lower Zambezi so as to create jobs for Zambians. Sometimes President Sata’s ministers speak in a way that defies modest sense. When they talk about jobs, they speak as if they do have job creation as an important element in their government. One cannot avoid but notice that this government’s policies have killed more jobs than any other government in the Third Republic. It is, therefore, strange that they would use job creation as the excuse for desecrating the Lower Zambezi National Park. Indeed, there are better ways to create jobs. The first way to create jobs in an economy like Zambia is to first protect the jobs that already exist in the economy. It is rather absurd that Sata’s government has fired close to 500 nurses countrywide and yet turns back and claims to be creating jobs in the Lower Zambezi. This government is not serious about job creation for Zambians. It is only serious about job creation for the party and its family. If they really want to provide jobs to Zambians they should immediately reinstate the nurses and not just smear us with more “bufi” about Zambezi.

The PF government moved with a lot of zeal to impose taxes and duty on vehicles used by churches and NGOs in their poverty alleviation programs. The imposition of this duty and tax means that NGOs will hire fewer workers. Fewer workers will further complicate Zambia’s job creation outlook. It is the poor that will suffer further because churches and NGOs will not be able to drive into the interior without suitable equipment. It is, therefore, surprising that the same government that acted at impulse to punish NGOs would today claim to sell the Zambezi on the pretext that it wants to create jobs. We can know the direction of a government by the way it treats small men and women. It has failed to collect enough tax from mines and yet it wants to kill the NGO sector, which is one of the biggest employment sectors in the country. The 3 years of PF rule is awash with examples of how it has failed to adequately tax mining companies. And yet it finds it easy to terrorize powerless NGOs. Approving more mines in the national park will not solve the tax problem created by the PF’s lack of economic competency. To mine tax, I must now turn.

Harry Kalaba’s government specializes in guesswork – Munshya wa Munshya

PF ministers are arguing that Zambezi Resources will bring in lots of revenue into government coffers. This is not only laughable but also pitiful. We must pity the don’t kubeba government. Inspite of having a seat on the boards of copper mines pillaging our copper, the PF government has no idea of how much these copper mines are actually generating. It is all guess work. That being the case, it makes no sense that they now want to add more companies to this list of their ineptitude. In any case, the winners in the Lower Zambezi will not be the Zambians; it will be the same foreign companies and their investors in Berlin, New York, Toronto and Brisbane. Moreover, the PF government will not collect a ngwee from this company because it has neither the capacity nor the backbone to collect tax from companies.  As mentioned above, the only tax it knows to collect is that taken from the churches and NGOs. A few years from now, the Lower Zambezi, will become just another town ravaged by foreign multinational companies leaving sulphur dioxide in their wake. This company will bring more misery to the country’s mining sector.

We appeal to the Hon Kalaba to reverse his decision. We appeal to the PF government to clean up the mess in Mufulira first and foremost. We also appeal to the government to leave the Lower Zambezi National Park free from further exploitation by foreign miners. The returns are not just worth losing our pristine land. It would be terrible to have another Mufulira pollution disaster happen among the Goba of the Lower Zambezi river basin.

(c) 2014, E. Munshya. This article appeared in Zambia’s leading independent newspaper the Daily Nation on Friday 6 February 2014. Munshya wa Munshya Column appears  every Friday.

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Registrar of Societies Kakoma Kanganja has proscribed a Lusaka pastor from ministry. This pastor, as widely reported in the media, was accused of among other things, practicing Satanism, sexual misconduct and several doctrinal hullabaloos. Kanganja appears to be more deliberative in his decision making process. In this article, I wish to explore at least two points. I will highlight the rise of the prophetism phenomenon. After this, I will then explore the role, if any, that government can play in controlling some controversial practices.

There are so many people claiming to be prophets that it is difficult to tell one from the other. Some are performing bizarre practices. For the prophet in question, his practices allegedly involved asking members to shave all the hair on their bodies and taking pilgrimage into the bush. Others have alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the prophet.

The prophetism phenomenon calls for serious discernment. It is the duty of all citizens to be able to question and reassess what these prophets are teaching. It should not be difficult for anyone to figure out that any prophet who demands huge sums of cash, as a prerequisite for a miracle, should be doubted. Additionally, it should be clear that any prophet who asks for sex as a way to exorcise spirits is most probably a charlatan. There is no wonder working power in any pastor’s penis. In so saying, I am not in any way suggesting that any form of sexual indiscretion by clergy is a sign that they are false prophets. Indeed, it would be ridiculous for me to claim that. What I am suggesting is that any one who uses religion, as a way to habitually manipulate followers into immoral behaviour is most probably a false prophet. And the people of Zambia should be the best judge of such behaviors.

“Nine Pastor Changwe njiswila ko” – PK Chishala

If we are to learn from PK Chishala’s hit song Pastor Changwe, we see that some controversial pastors can use scripture to justify transgressions. In PK’s song, Pastor Changwe even goes to misquote the Bible as a way to justify his desire to sleep with his deacon’s wife. “Ati wakana ine ninshi wakana Paulo”. Pastor Changwe went on to claim, “Yesu alikwete Maria Magdalena, Paulo nao ali na Phoebe, Petelo alikwete Dorcas”. Clearly, this is twist of scripture. Having supposed that, PK Chishala is not in any way suggesting that Pastor Changwe is committing a crime or an offence. We must create a distinction between conduct that is morally reprehensible and that which is illegal. We should not impute illegality on conduct that might be immoral but not necessarily illegal. I will come back to this later.

Should government ban randy pastors?

Having regard to the reality of deceitful prophets among us, the next question should be, how could we control them? Some members of the said pastor’s church went to the Registrar of Societies and after investigations and to his credit Kanganja decided to ban this pastor. I am alive to the fact that Kanganja did his due diligence. However, even if he had done his due diligence, the decision to ban this pastor does seem to have been an overreach of his powers. It would be a terrible Zambia where we allow a government officer to chose for us who should and who should not be worthy to lead a religious organization. The government should have no role in determining for its citizen the ritual, moral or spiritual fitness of its religious leaders. Even if that pastor were alleged to have been involved in all those activities, the Registrar of Societies does not have the powers and neither should he have the powers to proscribe any citizen from leading a religious organization. Just as government has no powers to determine ritual fitness of Sosala to be Chitimukulu so doesn’t government have powers to determine the ritual fitness of any pastor.

The problem with allowing Kanganja’s conduct to continue is the chilling effect it will have on religious liberty. Today, he might be justified in stopping this rowdy pastor, but tomorrow who knows what Kanganja might be up to? It should be left to the members of a religious organization to determine how they will handle the affairs of their churches. Indeed, a government officer should be blind to internal squabbles that border on religious doctrine. If we allowed government to interfere then there is nothing that would stop Kanganja from entering any independent church and “discipline” randy pastors. In fact, Kanganja’s predecessor, wanted to overzealously ban the bus station pastors. This guy seemed to have had no clue that having the power to register societies in Zambia did not necessarily give him the duty to regulate religious expression, regardless of how annoying it gets.

I take notice of the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the banned Lusaka pastor. But even if these practices are morally questionable and in fact could be unbiblical, they are not in themselves illegal. If a group of citizens decide to shave their hair as a way of their religious ritual, it should be within their right to do so. If a pastor commits sexual immorality, it is immoral obviously but that should not, by itself, make government to disqualify such a pastor. Again, it is not government’s job to do so.

The sexual immorality thing does seem to be quite a petulant subject at the moment. If a religious leader rapes women, then he must be arrested and the law should take its course. If there is no rape, and the leader has consensual sex with consenting adults, while such conduct falls below expected moral standards, it should not by itself lead to government interference in religious matters. If indeed, we allowed government to do so, then even the Mother Church herself would have long closed its doors. Contrary to some perceptions, the problems of sexual immorality are not unique to one social institution or one church. They are prevalent in mainline churches as well as newer religious movements. If Kanganja has to defrock immoral clergy, we might have to suggest that he starts with the Mother Church herself – Ekklesia Katolika. And so, if he has no guts to defrock Catholic clergy, where on earth does he get the authority to defrock an independent church?

It is quite telling that rumors of Satanism have been circulated against even more orthodox Christian organizations. I know a church situated near John Laing and Misisi compounds. This church has the reputation of being “satanic” simply by the many cars that park there each Sunday. Rumors of Satanism have unjustifiably been circulated against organizations such as the Mormon Church and other organizations in Zambia. In fact, on at least two occasions, the Zambian government banned the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) alleging that the church was practicing Satanism. In both of these instances, the Zambian courts took exception to government of overreach and made it clear that religious freedom is sacrosanct. You cannot proscribe a religion simply because of rumors.

This brings me to the consultation Kanganja did with the chairman of ICOMZ – David Masupa. There is this mistaken and irritating belief by some of our people that the mother church bodies are the de-facto regulators of religious expression in Zambia. This idea is neither biblical and neither is it legal. Citizens have the right and freedom to express their religious liberties without recourse to a “church mother body”.

The best adjudicators of any religion are the ordinary people. Government should only interfere if a church or a pastor is committing crimes or corrupting public morals. It should not be the duty of government to intercede on a matter of how some pastor decides to shave his pubic hair as a way of his own religious ritual. Reprehensive as it may seem, it is within the confines of human liberty. Government should stay out of the Church, including the most reprehensive of the churches.

By E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Agony is having someone serve as your vice-president and yet never give him the opportunity to act as president when you are not around. It is quite absurd that President Sata would have a vice-president distrusted to serve. When the PF government came into power in 2011, we welcomed the idea of an African country with a Whiteman as its vice-president. Indeed, President Sata has himself bragged to foreign dignitaries that only two countries in the world have a Blackman for president and Whiteman for vice-president: USA and Zambia. But what lies beneath all this chatter, is a glaring reality: President Sata has never left this Whiteman to act as president of Zambia. This oversight on the president’s part, in my opinion, is an anomaly that could trigger a grave but avoidable crisis.

Guy Lindsay Scott – Vice-President of the Republic of Zambia (2011 – )

President Sata does seem to be operating under the assumption that he could do anything he wants with the office of the vice-president. This is a serious misapplication of the law and the constitution. Unlike positions of cabinet minister, the office of vice-president is a constitutionally provided and protected office. It is the constitution that both limits and delimits the powers and structure of a vice-president (Article 45). Whereas the president does have a lot of discretion with how he configures the offices falling in Cabinet and their functions, the Zambian constitution does not give the president the sole discretion to configure the office of vice-president. Very little is left to presidential wishes. If a president selects a person to serve as vice-president then that appointment should confer upon such person all constitutional duties and privileges.

Article 45 (4) acknowledges that the primary functions of the vice-president are those imposed upon her or him, first and foremost, by the constitution itself and then secondarily by the president’s delegation. This is how Art 45 (4) is phrased:

In addition to the powers and functions of the Vice-President specified in this Constitution or under any other law, the Vice-President shall perform such functions as shall be assigned to him by the President.

So from this article, the president may assign the vice-president some functions, but these functions are “in addition” to the powers specified for the vice-president from the constitution. That being the case, the president cannot use Article 45 (4) to vary constitutional powers conferred upon a vice-president. It does not matter that the vice-president is just an appointee of a president.

The most significant function of a republican vice-president is to be a “transitory” executive office. According to Article 38 the vice-president runs the affairs of the state in an acting capacity when there is a vacancy in the presidency. This involves arranging for fresh elections and presiding over the affairs of the state. This transitory period is up to 90 days and could subsist until the next president takes the oath of office. It is only when the vice-president is “absent” or “sick” or “incapacitated” that cabinet is then authorized to appoint someone else.

Is President Sata discriminating against a white vice-president?

In addition to being a transitory office, the vice-president also becomes a repository of executive power when parliament is dissolved. The Zambian courts have held very consistently that the vice-president and the president are the only members of the executive who remain in office after the dissolution of parliament. This is what Justice Wood stated in the case of Wynter Kabimba v. Attorney General and George Kunda (2011). It is the intent of our constitution that while the vice-president is indeed a member of parliament, he or she does not lose the office when parliament gets dissolved. Here is how this interpretation would apply to the Guy Scott issue. When President Sata dissolves parliament sometime in 2016 for elections, Hon Chikwanda and his cabinet colleagues will cease to be MPs. They will also cease to be cabinet members. Under those circumstances Chikwanda will not and cannot act as president. Vice-President Guy Scott, however, would continue to occupy the office of vice-president until a new president is sworn in. If President Sata continues with the current practice of leaving power only to Chikwanda, he could potentially create a crisis prior to 2016 elections when there will be no Chikwanda and no parliament. President Sata should begin giving the constitutional reins that Guy Scott already possesses by virtue of his office as vice-president. Levers of power should begin getting used to saluting legitimate office bearers regardless of their creed or colour. By stating this, I am not in any way insinuating that Guy Scott is a great political leader. Far from it. I am merely asking that Scott be treated equally like any other citizen of our republic.

Does the constitution preclude Scott from acting as president due to his skin? Arguing that the constitution has precluded a Whiteman from Zambian presidency is plain racism. In fact, it is nonsense. And if that is what is going on in the don’t kubeba government, then we should pity both the Head of State and the cadre of his legal advisors. Isn’t it absurd that the president would go ahead to appoint a vice-president who does not meet presidential eligibility? If a Veep can’t act as president, why then does he even occupy that office? However, I find no legal or constitutional basis why a Whiteman such as Guy Scott should be precluded from acting as president of Zambia. Article 34 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Lewanika & Others v. Chiluba does suggest that any Zambian fitting Guy Scott’s situation could in fact satisfy the eligibility requirements, including the “parentage clause”. Interestingly, the “parentage clause” was passed when Mr. Sata was the country’s third most powerful politician. I wonder whether the contextual discrimination of 1996 is having an impact on the way President Sata is treating Scott today. In Chiluba, The Supreme Court went on to state that the 1996 constitution in Article 34 created problems for the future. Nevertheless, constitutionally absurd rules should be interpreted liberally. You cannot use kangaroo rules to deny a birthright to Zambians simply because they are of the wrong skin!

It is nonsense to claim that the Zambian constitution discriminates against Guy Scott – Munshya

Some have stated that there is precedence that presidents have left power in the hands of their preferred cabinet members. Some point to Chiluba occasionally leaving power to his close ministers and not his Veep. In fact, there is speculation that President Mwanawasa left symbols of power with Defense Minister Mpombo and not Vice-President Rupiah Banda in 2008. For administrative convenience, a president could leave his preferred chaps to act in his absence. But this should be for governmental expediency and should happen once in a while. Administrative convenience does not mean, racial convenience. Scott is not “absent” or “sick” or “incapacitated” for President Sata to continually sideline him for a presidential salute. Or may be he is indeed “incapacitated”. But I am left to wonder whether it is the colour of his skin that makes him incapacitated. It certainly appears so. Only the president can correct this anomaly and do right.

Scott has received some very demeaning remarks from some opposition leaders. That should not be the case. However, President Sata can help prevent these slurs by giving to Scott the privilege of nationality constitutionally accorded to vice-presidents, white or black. Then only will it make sense that Zambia indeed has a black president and a white vice-president. Our Zambia belongs equally to all: Bembas, Tongas, and, of course, bazungus like Guy Lindsay Scott.

Note: This article deals with general matters of the law from a public interest perspective. Those needing specific legal counsel on some of these questions should consult members of the Zambian bar.

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

It is Frank Talk time on prime time television in the early 1990s. One evening, the whole nation is listening in as journalist Frank Mutubila introduces his guest on ZNBC TV. Pastor Nevers Mumba sits confidently in his chair. Next to him is his wife. They are appearing on a program that follows and features news personalities. In the middle of the interview, smart Frank Mutubila probes Nevers about whether he would consider running for public office.“I am a preacher”, Nevers exclaims. And continues, “any involvement in politics would be a demotion.” Those words would become the most memorable lines of that Frank Talk interview.

When Nevers is saying that politics would be demotion. It really means just that. His name had become a household name in Zambia. He was an international preacher attracting the very best of international charismatic preachers. In a Christian nation, Nevers had access to State House at any time. Among his closest friends were President Frederick Chiluba and his Vice-President Godfrey Miyanda. Nevers Mumba was for all reasons a man with a lot of influence, the influence that came as a result of his faith commitment and leadership within the charismatic Pentecostal movement. His yearly Victory conferences became pilgrimages for Zambian Pentecostals.

Nevers’ influence did not just involve the MMD regime, however. President Kenneth Kaunda counted among many admirers of Nevers. In the dwindling days of his presidency, Kenneth Kaunda, a Chinsali native had turned to Nevers, another Chinsali native for counsel. The meeting at State House that Nevers had with Kaunda occupied several pages in Nevers’ book Integrity With Fire. According to Nevers and using Pentecostal language – President Kenneth Kaunda had given his life to the Lord after meeting Nevers at State House around 1990.

After winning the 1991 elections, President Frederick Chiluba’s government policy was to recognise and respect church leaders. Ignored for a long time under the leadership of Kaunda, Chiluba was going to give more visibility to Pentecostal leaders. He lavished them with recognition and Nevers Mumba was among those Chiluba honored with Zambian diplomatic passports. The reason for this honor was simple: “Christian preachers were envoys of the Christian nation of Zambia.”

On television, The Zambia Shall be Saved program was featured weekly, and sometimes appeared twice a week. In that program, Pastor Nevers Mumba became a firebrand of what it meant for Zambia to be a Christian nation. He would preach about faith, about prosperity, about international exposure. He would also preach about black consciousness. In those programs Nevers would testify about his wealth, his vision and the plans for his church and consequently for Zambia. Things were going well it seems. Zambia was going to be saved, and indeed it was getting saved.

Nevers was an alumnus of Hillcrest Technical School in Livingstone. After completing high school he interned for a few months in the Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines. But this was not going to last long. He was to meet Evangelist Reinhard Bonkke in the early 1980s. When Bonkke met Nevers it was like at first sight. Nevers was going to be Bonkke’s Bemba interpreter and before long a scholarship had been arranged for him to study in the USA.

Upon return from the USA around 1983, Nevers registered a ministry under the Companies Act. In those days, Kenneth Kaunda had banned registration of new religious movements. The only recourse for beginners like Nevers was to use the Companies Act. Victory Ministries Inc. was born and with it came the influence, the splendor and the pomp. The poor boy from Chinsali had finally broken into the big league. For Nevers, what Kaunda had said about Zambia being free in 1962, he was going to tweak it and call rebrand it as “Zambia shall be saved.” This was going to be his mantra for life.

That splendor characterized Nevers’ life is an understatement. Ministry supporters of his had given him a mansion in Riverside, Kitwe. Victory Ministries was a staple all over the country. Crusades were held across the nation. Nevers Mumba was that embodiment of those rich American preachers. If any one could say there is money in Christian ministry, Nevers had broken that ceiling. He was swimming in money, in power and in influence. Given that influence, it is true; becoming a politician would truly be a demotion.

And then something happened.

It was in 1997, in Kabwe. Nevers had somewhat a change of heart or mind. We may never know. Or may be he had another born again experience. He announced that he had formed an organization to push for political reforms in Zambia. The National Christian Coalition was going to take on President Chiluba’s government.

When Nevers is making the decision to challenge Chiluba in this manner. He knew that this move would come at great personal and ministry risk. Indeed, if Nevers had cared about his own welfare he knew that challenging the Chiluba government would be a risky move. And it is this move that many analysts of Nevers never pay attention to. By breaking with the Chiluba government, Nevers had demonstrated tremendous courage. He knew he was going to lose all the honor, splendor and respect the Chiluba government had accorded him. In fact, he knew that the words he had spoken to Frank Mutubila earlier would come back to bite him.

But for Nevers, the nation was at stake. Chiluba had become corrupt. The promise of a Christian nation was not leading to a more moral nation. In that context, Nevers felt he could do something about it. He risked it all. And indeed the response from those in power was swift fierce.

After the NCC announcement, Vice-President Miyanda went to ZNBC. He berated Nevers Mumba. The war of words had now become the war between two of the countries’ foremost Pentecostal firebrands: Nevers in one corner and General Miyanda in another. Clearly, Nevers had fallen out of the league. With those words from General Miyanda, Nevers’ world started to shrink. And it shrunk faster than Nevers had expected. The sacrifice he had envisioned for his people was going to demand more than he could handle. If he had been tested and tried many times while preaching, the new political frontier was a temptation on steroids.

Nevers’ fellow preachers were next to call him out. He was a traitor, some of them screamed. He was challenging his fellow brother in Christ, some exclaimed. Some of his detractors accused him of leaving the “calling”, a treasonous crime within the Pentecostal fraternity. The words he had used to Frank Mutubila were replayed over and over again. Some even suggested that he was selfish just wanting to get into politics for more power, splendor and influence. Any one who has watched Nevers knows that he has far given more to politics than he had taken out. And if there was any doubt about that – challenging Chiluba’s corruption was the first step.

Chiluba’s machinery continued to respond swiftly. The NCC’s status as a society was threatened. Nevers had to quickly transform it into a political party and rename it the National Citizens Coalition. Chiluba summoned the Zambia Revenue Authority to audit the Victory Ministries Inc., which had for all these years operated as a non-profit company. Nevers was going to pay back back-taxes in millions of Kwachas. All the privileges Nevers had were to be withdrawn. The diplomatic passport was withdrawn too. Nevers might have bargained for too much. And he had bitten a bigger chunk he could not swallow.

But when he started speaking about his journey towards politics, Nevers was loved by the opposition and by civil society. As a close preacher to Chiluba he had noticed the abuse and corruption going on with Chiluba. Nevers had noticed how the government was working against the Zambians instead of working for the Zambians. Chiluba’s closest confidante, Michael Sata, was also on hand to berate the “disgraced preacher”. It was Nevers against Chiluba, Miyanda and Sata. It was Nevers against the machines of power and the testing and trails were only going to get fiercer.

That mansion in Kitwe was going to be subject of litigation. Victory Ministries faced closure. The Zambia Shall be Saved program on TV was only saved by court intervention. The temptation of Nevers Mumba had only started to intensify.

Pentecostal political theology is still in its infancy as an academic subject. Many observers of Pentecostal political theology especially in Africa do characterize it as one that attempts to maintain the status quo. At best, most analysts see Pentecostals as perpetrators of the status quo. As such, Nevers Mumba’s decision to challenge the status quo was a bit unusual and a departure from what is expected of a Pentecostal preacher. In this regard then, Nevers becomes an embodiment of that spirit of resistance against corruption and abuse of power. After noticing that Zambia was going the wrong direction, Nevers bucked his own Pentecostal movement to challenge the excesses of his brother in Christ, Frederick Chiluba. This Nevers did at great cost to his own life and in fact, to his own integrity.

Pentecostalism is for many reasons predicated on an understanding of God who can do anything. As a faith that lacks a central authority, it is by nature quite chaotic and dynamic. In Pentecostalism God speaks directly, but more than that, God continues to speak daily to his people. As such, when Nevers says he could not join politics that is what God could have told him in 1992, but by progressive revelation may be God told Nevers something else by 1997. He had to abandon the church in order to challenge the corruption he saw in the Chiluba government.

This contrasts Nevers and President Michael Sata. Both of them were close to the Chiluba axis of power. But when he noticed corruption, Nevers broke with Chiluba at great personal and family cost. Sata on the other hand stayed with Chiluba in the middle of the worst corruption Zambia has ever seen. In fact, Michael Sata only left Chiluba after it was apparent that Chiluba had dribbled him on succession. Nevers’ decision to leave Chiluba’s MMD was a decision for others, for Zambia. Sata’s decision to leave, however, was based on personal ambition – the desire to be President and only leave corruption when he gets disappointed from being adopted as MMD candidate.

By the time Nevers was campaigning to be president of Zambia for the 2001 elections, he had been reduced to a pauper. The levers of power had worked their way into Nevers’ life. He had lost everything. The only thing he was left with was that Pentecostal confidence in the God who can “do anything.” Nevers had lost his house, his reputation stained, and his friends had run away from him. He had not committed any crimes, or may be the only crime was to cry out against the shoes, the designers Bombasa, and theft he saw in the Chiluba administration. And for doing that, he suffered for it. Politics for Nevers had been a demotion, but a demotion he fully believed was for the good of the nation.

By the end of the 1990s, Nevers’ children had just become teenagers. They needed a father who would provide for them. Having lost the income, the influence, the power, Nevers had paid a huge price for politics. His passion for the ordinary Zambia led him to make these sacrifices. He had some solace in a few friends outside of Zambia who would invite him to preach. Having lost the Kitwe home – Nevers had become a destitute. Politics and a passion for his people and his nation had not made him richer but poorer. And daily, he had to agonize about what happens to his children, and to his family. The days of splendor and glory are over. With a simple stroke of a microphone he could have returned to preaching full time. And as usual, there was going to be more people to welcome back the prodigal preacher.

The temptation of Nevers was too great to bear. The man who could advice presidents was now living in a guest wing at his in-laws. Cruel life. But for a good cause. The cause of his nation.

And then the call came.

Nevers Mumba’s one of his eleven challengers in the 2001 elections had now been president for almost a year. Levy Mwanawasa had been handpicked by President Frederick Chiluba to succeed him. When Levy won the elections, he adopted the fight against corruption as the motto of his presidency. Levy Mwanawasa started proceedings to have Chiluba prosecuted for corruption and theft. Nevers Mumba’s fight against Chiluba’s corruption had now been confirmed that Chiluba was no longer in power. President Chiluba, a man of the people had by the end of his second term faced serious accusation of theft and corruption.

When Mwanawasa made the moves to prosecute Chiluba, Nevers Mumba was among the first to support the decision. The Post Newspapers carried Nevers Mumba’s reaction to President Mwanawasa’s efforts. “It was an answer to God’s justice”, Pastor Nevers Mumba had said. May be, as he is saying this, he has in mind the injustice he had suffered at the hand of President Frederick Chiluba. For now, it was just early 2002 and President Mwanawasa had noticed, a Chinsali born Bemba, and former preacher who shared his ideals against corruption.

Levy Mwanawasa’s crack at the presidency proved difficult. Chiluba’s influence within the levers of power was so endemic. If he had to prosecute Chiluba, Mwanawasa needed partners. But partners within the MMD government proved difficult to keep. And so he had to look elsewhere.

Within the MMD, almost all of the senior leaders had been soiled by the Chiluba corruption. Vice-President Kavindele himself had won the MMD vice-presidency under very controversial circumstances at the 2001 convention. By 2003, the Bemba speaking faction in the MMD had been dissatisfied with Mwanawasa. President Mwanawasa was going to find a perfect fit to help him win the Bemba hearts and to fortify his fight against corruption.

It was early 2003. In an evening broadcast, President Mwanawasa had made a choice of a new Vice-President. Nevers Sekwila Mumba from the living room of his in-laws went through the formalities of appointment. He had become Zambia’s Vice-President. Becoming the first preacher to become Vice-President and the second Chinsalian to become Vice-President after Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe in 1967.

President Mwanawasa had found a partner in the fight. President Mwanawasa had also found a well-spoken preacher to help him deal with the public relations issues facing his government. Nevers was swift, flamboyant and hard working. His personality made him likeable. The image of a clean, handsome man coming into office enthralled many.

But this honeymoon was never to last long.

In 2004, Nevers’ crack at executive privilege had been curtailed. President Mwanawasa had fired him. And with his firing – Nevers’ trials and temptations continued.

By Elias Munshya wa Munshya

Dr. Nevers Sekwila Mumba believes that political parties are not the centre of the political process, people are. As such, he sees nothing wrong with changing parties, starting new ones, disbanding others and going back to the parties that disowned him. Political parties for Nevers are tools that a person can use to aspire for leadership. As such, loyalty to a political party comes second on Nevers Sekwila Mumba’s radar. The adage that there are no permanent enemies in politics except for permanent interests, comes even truer in the political life of

Dr. Nevers Mumba

Nevers Mumba after he was fired as Vice-President of Zambia.

In the previous article, I had mentioned how that after President Mwanawasa’s return from New York in September 2004, it took only 24 hours for Vice-President Nevers Mumba to be fired. The firing itself came as a shock to Nevers Mumba. What is even worse is that President Mwanawasa felt so aggrieved at Nevers that he even paraded Nevers’ letter of apology that he had written in connection with the reports The Post had carried about the airport event the day earlier. Most interestingly, President Mwanawasa even mentioned that he had regretted appointing Nevers as Vice-President.

After he was fired, a brood of the Mwanawasa camp within government and party was excited that Nevers had been fired. The perceived threat that Nevers presented to all those that were aspiring to succeed Mwanawasa had now been taken of. In the opinion of some, the MMD would now move on and keep the Nevers Mumba factor behind them. Not so fast though, the Nevers Mumba factor was alive and well and in the next few months he was to strike back and strike back real hard.

After the September firing, Nevers left government house, his official residence within days. Typically, a former vice-president is expected to stay in the official residence for a few weeks to allow for him to look for decent accommodation elsewhere. He left the country for the USA and a few other countries to perhaps recuperate. After this firing, he mentioned of how he tried the sport of golf and also found solace in taking a few courses at Regent University in Virginia. He had earlier enrolled there in a Master of Public Policy program.

Upon return to Zambia, a few months latter, Nevers discovered that the support he had garnered within the MMD branches across the country was quite unshaken. In fact, even within the MMD NEC itself, it seemed Nevers had some sizeable support. In a party that had grown to dislike Mwanawasa’s hardline style of leadership, most within the MMD party had taken Mumba to be a safe alternative.

The MMD was about to go to the convention that year. Now that it was just November, the arrangements for the convention were delayed until the next year 2005. MMD members who had seen Nevers as an alternative to Mwanawasa had to move quickly to assure Nevers of their support. Even MMD stalwarts like Sikota Wina and his wife were reported to be among those supporting Nevers Mumba to take over as MMD president.

As Nevers’ presidential candidature was gaining momentum, he enlisted the support of President Frederick Chiluba. Nevers knew that openly accepting Chiluba’s endorsement would be a political gaffe. And so he had to be very careful. Chiluba on his part had made it clear that he would support anyone who wishes to challenge Mwanawasa. When asked about this endorsement, Nevers Mumba’s answer was clever and yet subtle:

“I have heard that President Chiluba has endorsed me for MMD president, there is very little I can do about that since I cannot go into his mind and change it.”

Implicitly then, Nevers had accepted Chiluba’s endorsement. And if Nevers had considered Chiluba to be a thief – now that he was running for president of the MMD he could do with as much support as he could get. It did not matter that when in government Nevers did push for Chiluba’s prosecution. An enemy had become a friend – politics par excellence.

And then came the announcement. Nevers was featured on Anthony Mukwita’s Let the People Talk. It is from there that he announced that he was going to run for MMD president and challenge President Levy Mwanawasa at the upcoming MMD convention. Mwanawasa on the other hand gathered enough intelligence both within the party and indeed the nation to know that Nevers was going to be a viable candidate against him. He was told there is a revolt in the MMD branches and Nevers had real support.

With these reports, Mwanawasa had to move very fast. The only way out was to change the MMD’s electoral college. To help Mwanawasa do this was going to be the newly installed MMD Secretary Vernon Mwaanga. It only took weeks for Vernon to announce that the NEC had changed the electoral college of the upcoming MMD convention. It is the NEC that was going to choose delegates to the convention and not district or branch organs. The provincial MMD branches were also stripped of this power. Additionally, Vernon announced that the MMD was going to commence disciplinary action against Nevers Mumba. Among the charges Nevers was facing are gross indiscipline and disloyalty to the party.

The dissatisfaction that the MMD members and branches had against Mwanawasa was so deep rooted that even after changing the Electoral College, most of Mwanawasa’s preferred candidates did not win at the convention in 2005. Most notably, Vernon Mwaanga lost the position of National Secretary from an electoral college, which he himself had handpicked. But we will come back to that later.

After weeks of wrangling, the NEC finally decided. Nevers had been expelled effectively ending his ambition to be president of the MMD. Vernon Mwaanga had also ensured that the electoral college was cleansed of all the supporters of Nevers Mumba. One by one, so called MMD branch officials would appear on national television renouncing Nevers and emphasizing in no flattering language that the disgraced former priest would not come near to tasting the republican presidency.

Politics change and change very quickly. It is one thing to have support within the MMD and quite another to transform that support into a new political party. Even if Nevers was quite outstanding when compared to Mwanawasa he was no Michael Sata. Starting a new political party was going to perhaps be the most controversial decisions of Nevers’ political career.

Enlisting the services of a shadowy figure known as John Ziba, Nevers Mumba established and registered a new political party to be known as the Reform Party. With an emblem of a charging bull, the party symbol was going to show everything that Nevers stood for – tenacity, strength and power. The Reform Party had for its slogan, a phrase taken from the national anthem – strong and free. This party was not going to last long. Nevers did not manage to garner any significant support for it, and before long, the Reform Party remained a party on paper.

Perhaps, Nevers’ decision to start his own party after his expulsion from the MMD might have been motivated by the desire to emulate Michael Sata’s decision to start his Patriotic Front years earlier. However, like I mentioned above – Nevers was no Michael Sata. What Sata represented in the minds of Zambians was far much more real than what Nevers did. And so if Nevers had thought that his new party was going to succeed he was in for a rude shock. The Reform Party made no real inroads into the political scene.

After Nevers was expelled, the Bemba-speaking section within the MMD had lost their political symbol and with it they had lost their influence. This group now wanted to get back its lost power. Mwanawasa knew of this influence and in fact it had been one reason why he had earlier appointed Nevers in the first place – to appease them. For Mwanawasa to keep the Bembas happy within the MMD he appointed another Bemba from Kasama – Lupando Mwape to be Nevers’ replacement. But the Bemba group was still was unsatisfied. Lupando Mwape was not a safe bet.

Meanwhile, as the MMD is recovering from Nevers’ expulsion, a group of six Bemba candidates were lining up and campaigning for the position of party vice-president. Austin Chewe, Lupando Mwape, and Bwalya Chiti were among the leading contenders. Knowing the consequence of such a bloodbath, Mwanawasa came up with a solution, suspend all campaigns for the party vice-presidency but keep Mwape as republican vice-president. But that decision was going to be a costly one for the party.

At the convention, the Bemba group resurfaced again. The same group that was unsatisfied with the expulsion of Nevers Mumba regrouped and the influence was deafening. They influenced the MMD convention to vote for Bemba-speaking Katele Kalumba as MMD National Secretary. This shocked Mwanawasa. But at least it made him realize that in politics friends could be enemies and enemies could turn out to be friends. Katele Kalumba is one of those individuals being prosecuted for corruption and theft by the Mwanawasa government.

This MMD convention and the way it voted in Katele Kalumba made Nevers Mumba to exclaim that Mwanawasa had betrayed the fight against corruption.

To bolster his chances in politics, Nevers knew that the Reform Party was headed nowhere. As such, he sought an opposition alliance with Michael Sata’s Patriotic Front for the 2006 elections. The terms were that Nevers was going to support Sata while he is given the opportunity to stand on PF ticket for parliament. A few weeks before the 2006 elections Nevers Mumba travelled to Chinsali with a certificate of adoption from PF Secretary General Guy Scott.

There was a small problem, however. PF Secretary General Guy Scott had issued a similar certificate of adoption to another candidate Mulenga. Mulenga coincidentally is nephew to Nevers Mumba. He had campaigned hard in Chinsali and had bolstered his popularity in Chinsali. In the battle of the 2 adoption certificates, it was Mulenga’s that won. A family meeting in Chinsali had persuaded the uncle to defer to the nephew and drop out of the race for Chinsali.

Nevers had failed.

The 2006 elections came and Nevers never again appeared with Michael Sata. He never openly campaigned for him. His Reform Party was not prepared enough to even field a single candidate. It seemed like dejavu for Nevers.

In the 2006 election, Mwanawasa finally prevailed. But the MMD’s popularity was further eroded. After having lost popularity in urban areas, the MMD had now lost to the Patriotic Front in both Luapula and Northern Provinces. The Bemba-speaking areas of Zambia had disowned Mwanawasa and the MMD. In fact, even Mwanawasa’s vice-president Lupando Mwape lost to a little known lawyer in a contest for a seat in Kasama.

With the Reform Party now basically extinct Nevers started making gestures to Mwanawasa for an appointment into the diplomatic service. His efforts at going to Canada kept being rebuffed by Mwanawasa and his loyalists. There was no room for Nevers Mumba. His sin had been too much. And his temptations were unforgivable.

Two years after the 2006 elections, President Levy Mwanawasa died. Fresh elections were to be called within 90 days of the burial. The MMD found its candidate in the republic vice-president Rupiah Banda. Knowing that the MMD was basically non-existent in the Bemba-speaking regions of Luapula and Northern Provinces, candidate Rupiah Banda turned to both President Chiluba and to Nevers Mumba. The 2009 presidential by-election would pit Michael Sata against Rupiah Banda. Sata’s friend Frederick Chiluba was no longer supporting the PF. He had changed back to the MMD because Rupiah Banda was more hospitable to him than Mwanawasa had been.

In countless campaign stops, Nevers appeared with Rupiah Banda in Mansa, Chinsali and several others places. Campaigning for Rupiah Banda meant almost instantaneously that Nevers was still going to be game.

After Rupiah Banda won the elections – Nevers’ dream of going to Canada as High Commissioner would come true. The turbulent priest, turbulent vice-president and controversial politician was now on his way to Ottawa to become the country’s ambassador. Upon hitting the ground in Ottawa, Nevers became a hit. He learnt the art of diplomacy quickly and got loved almost instantaneously by his diplomatic colleagues. In 2010 he was appointed dean of the diplomatic corps of Canada. Apart from Canada he was also ambassador to several Caribbean nations such as Bermuda, Jamaica and The Bahamas.

Within the business community, Nevers connected very well. Barrick Gold had just come to Zambia and were making huge investments into Lumwana. President Banda was happy to have Nevers in Ottawa. Since Nevers’ ambition knew no boundaries, Rupiah Banda did well to keep Nevers as far as possible. But even from the far flung areas of Canada, there were still whispers in the corridors of power, that Nevers’ political ambition had not ended. His time in Ottawa was going to be but a preparation time for something bigger.

What else could be bigger than being Ambassador or being vice-president?

Nevers’ sights for State House were never altered. Being Ambassadors was just one of those steps to take to help him reach the goal. However, MMD members and indeed many MMD insiders were still watching Nevers from afar and given the right circumstances they could give him another chance.

And that chance came in 2012. It came very fast and shockingly brutal.

In the 2011 elections, Rupiah Banda had lost the election to Michael Sata. Ambassador Nevers Mumba in Ottawa got the shocking news and knew there will be changes soon in Ottawa. Hours after Sata was sworn in, Nevers sent his congratulations but knew that his time as Ambassador had come to an end. He started gathering his goods and putting his house in order. Zambia had called. Foreign Affairs Minister Chishimba Kabwili recalled Nevers Mumba with immediate effect. To this recall, Nevers responded:

“I will come back to Zambia after the 3 months expires in accordance with my contract.”

This three months would give Nevers the necessary time to bid farewell to the contacts he had gathered in Ottawa. It would also give him the time to reflect on his next move. The opinion within the MMD NEC had been quite categorical – they needed him back to head the MMD.

Rupiah Banda tried to hold on to the MMD presidency for a few more months. But in December 2011 – he resigned as MMD president giving chance to the MMD NEC to find a new president.

In a convention, the MMD electoral college comprising branch, district, provincial and national delegates cast their votes. The first ballot had no convincing winner. It was the second ballot that assured Nevers Mumba of victory.

That morning, Nevers Mumba had been elected president of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy. President Michael Sata was not too happy with this outcome. From State House, President Sata castigated Nevers Mumba as a bogus and fake pastor who had stolen money in Canada and could not be trusted for leadership. “Nevers Mumba”, President Sata said, “abandoned his flock to join politics.” These words left no doubt that Nevers Mumba was going to face more temptations and trials under the leadership of President Sata.

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

In 2008, as President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa was reflecting on his legacy, one issue he had to confront was whether he had any regrets in choosing Nevers Mumba for his Vice-President from 2003 to 2004. According to Malupenga (2010), President Mwanawasa hoped that in future Zambians will come to the same conclusion he had come to in 2003 – that choosing Nevers Mumba as Vice-Present was a great choice.

To put Mwanawasa’s sentiments in perspective it is important to begin from
where it all started. When Mwanawasa assumed power, he came to a country that was deeply divided. For the first time in history, Zambia had eleven presidential candidates in the election that brought in Mwanawasa. The margin of victory for Mwanawasa was a paltry 28%, just a point ahead of his closest rival UPND’s Anderson Mazoka. The EU Observers condemned the 2001 elections as having not been free and fair. On the other hand, an active civil society and The Post newspapers had been pushing the agenda that Mwanawasa’s predecessor, Frederick Chiluba had stolen public funds and should be prosecuted for it.

Within the ruling party, the MMD, there were apparent fractures. President Frederick Chiluba, even after he had relinquished the republican presidency, still maintained a grip on the ruling MMD party. Early 2002 was a difficult time for the country and Mwanawasa needed to act fast to show that he was in charge.

Most of the leaders within the MMD were still loyal to President Frederick Chiluba. Vice-President Kavindele, Foreign Affairs Minister Katele Kalumba and many others still held Chiluba in high esteem. To respond to this, Mwanawasa fired some of Chiluba loyalists including Katele Kalumba and Lupando Mwape. Mwanawasa had to find his own niche.

In this context then, the most attractive of all the candidates he had considered to replace Vice-President Enoch Kavindele was Nevers Mumba. Nevers had been attractive to Mwanawasa for several reasons. First, he had long campaigned against Chiluba’s corruption. Starting from the 1997 formation of the NCC it had been a political aim of Nevers’ to bring to light the misdeeds of the Chiluba administration. Faced with possibilities of a prolonged fight against corruption, Mwanawasa needed a good partner for a Veep whom he could rely on in tough times.

Secondly, Nevers was attractive to Mwanawasa because he was considered an outsider. Lacking any genuine political base, Levy had somehow believed that Nevers would be personally loyal to him. Actually, Zambian presidents do have the habit of choosing politically unpopular candidates as their vice-presidents. Any vice-president that proved politically popular or astute has never lasted in that position beginning with Kapwepwe and ending with Mwanawasa. As an outsider with no political clout, Nevers Mumba would be a good candidate for Vice-President.

Thirdly, Nevers was attractive due to his tribe. When Mwanawasa came into power it was not long before the Bemba political aristocracy got concerned at his lack of regard for the Bemba hegemony. The firebrand of a Bemba aristocracy, Michael Sata was now in opposition and he never hesitated to drive home the point that Mwanawasa’s leadership was heavily nepotic and was patently anti-Bemba. When Levy started to prosecute Chiluba and his close associates, Sata even accused Mwanawasa of unfairly targeting Bemba-speaking politicians. Mwanawasa’s response to this criticism did not help matters. In Ndola in 2003 when he was asked to respond to the anti-Bemba criticism Mwanawasa is reported to have said that he made no tribal exception to the fight against corruption because “corruption stinks.” These remarks became folder for opposition leader Sata.

“Mwanawasa”, Sata claimed, “had insulted the Bembas.”

In a flurry of arrests and detentions, not even Sata was spared from Mwanawasa’s anti-corruption fury. Sata got arrested for theft of a motor vehicle in 2002. As this is going on – president Chiluba, now facing corruption charges, had abandoned his MMD membership to become a member of Michael Sata’s Patriotic Front. Sensing a tribal revolt, Mwanawasa needed a Bemba vice-president to show that he indeed was not as nepotic as his critics were suggesting. That Bemba vice-president was going to be Nevers Mumba a native of Chinsali.

At the time Nevers was assuming the Vice-Presidency in 2003, He was basically destitute. He statutorily declared a house in Texas to be his only meaningful asset. He owed a mortgage of thousands of dollars on that house. The only other asset was Chishimba Farm in Chinsali. Among other sources of income, Nevers had declared was “honoraria he receives when he speaks in conventions overseas.”

How Nevers got himself to this destitute situation has been explained in a previous article. Suffice to mention here that when Nevers entered politics in 1997, he had lost everything by 2001. Chiluba squeezed any value out of Nevers. He had lost his house, his friends, and some closest to him even suggested he was about to lose his family. The price Nevers had paid for politics was just too high. It is this kind of personal sacrifice that should make critics of Nevers Mumba to reflect and realize that Nevers was not into politics for the money. He had invested far too much than he had earned back by the time he was being appointed vice-president. It should not be hard to notice the dedication to the nation Nevers exhibited, even at the price of personal sacrifice.

If anyone did not believe in miracles, they had to. Nevers Mumba, a boy from Chinsali, and a preacher who had abandoned the pulpit and lost everything, was now going to be the second most powerful person in the country. As vice-president he had clear chances of assuming the presidency one day. Im keeping with his motto, Zambia was going to be saved and what had been a remote possibility was now within reach.

In appointing Nevers Mumba – President Mwanawasa was very optimistic. “I have appointed you”, Mwanawasa told Nevers, “because you and me share a common dream for a corrupt free Zambia.” If there were any doubts about the other reasons why Nevers had been appointed – his itinerary in his first 90 days would show. Nevers travelled to meet the Bemba chiefs and addressed their misgivings about the insults that had been attributed to President Mwanawasa. With Nevers as vice-president, Mwanawasa had a Bemba confidante who could buttress any tribal accusations against government. A preacher with a likeable and handsome personality meant that Nevers was going to be the public face of President Mwanawasa’s government. And indeed it took only a few months for Nevers’ star to rise and for President Mwanawasa to realize that the Nevers he had appointed was actually far more ambitious than he had initially thought.

Those close to Mwanawasa would whisper to him about the ambitions of Nevers Mumba. To resolve these difficulties, Finance Minister Ng’andu Magande and Home Affairs Minister Ronnie Shikapwashya would be Mwanawasa’s kitchen cabinet while Nevers was left enough rope to politically hang. Nevers’ inexperience was proving a liability to him. He became politically reckless in amassing lots of political support from the grassroots MMD branches at the expense of his aloof boss. As a likeable person, it was far much easier for ordinary MMD members across the country to meet Nevers than it was for them to meet President Mwanawasa. Perhaps the greatest asset Nevers had from his background as a preacher was his way with people. The star of Nevers had started to rise and the MMD was now perfectly in his control. With a president Mwanawasa that is struggling with health issues – it is Nevers who became the defacto leader of the MMD.

But not for long, for that rope had now drawn close to suffocate Nevers politically. And the crowd was gathering to watch him hit the ground.

It was around September 2004. Nevers had been vice-president for about 15 months. The main opposition party that was threatening the MMD was Michael Sata’s Patriotic Front. Using the levers of power that had remained intact within government and on the grassroots – the PF was growing in popularity by the day. The prosecution of President Chiluba had gathered steam. President Sata saw Chiluba’s prosecution as a general strategy by Mwanawasa to weaken the Bemba-speaking political aristocracy. Indeed, MMD structures in Luapula and Northern Province had started to crumble. Frederick Chiluba had made his political opinions clear – he was in support of Michael Sata, the man he had dribbled in 2001. Patriotic Front cadres would provide escorts to Chiluba each time he appeared in court. At one time after returning from a South African hospital, Chiluba greeted the gathered PF cadres with the “Donchi Kubeba” salute.

MMD branches in Ndola had organized a “Meet the Vice-President Dinner” to raise funds for the party. That September, Mwanawasa had travelled to New York for a UN summit. At home it was Nevers in charge. Mr. Mukutulu Sinyani, the director of the Drug Enforcement Commission had gathered some information that Katanga businessman Moise Katumbi was channeling money through the Congolese border to fund political activities of an opposition party. It did not take rocket science to know that it was President Chiluba, Michael Sata and the Patriotic Front who were the beneficiaries of these monies. That evening, Sinyani briefed the acting president about that information. More than anything else, what Nevers did with this information spelt immediate political doom for him. It set off events that would eventually lead to his dismissal.

Zambia shares thousands of kilometer borders with the Congo DR. It is a porous border to say the least. You can smuggle nearly anything along this long border. From the time Zambia got its independence juggling security for the nation in view of Congolese instability has been a delicate balancing act for any president. The reports Nevers got that evening from Sinyani are by no means isolated. Each president has had to deal with security issues arising from the Congo DR. As such, any issue that comes from Congo DR deserves wisdom and diplomacy to resolve. This is the wisdom and diplomacy Nevers had lacked that September.

At the MMD dinner dance held at Savoy Hotel, acting President Nevers Mumba made some usual political statements aimed at the opposition and then he added:

“Government has information that a particular opposition party is receiving dollars through the Congolese border.”

This statement started a flurry of events so fierce that Nevers could not control them. As Nevers finished speaking to the MMD, it was morning in New York, and President Mwanawasa was about to meet President Joseph Kabila to discuss issues of mutual importance. President Mwanawasa was supposed to meet Kabila at 13:00 Eastern Time.

In Zambia that evening, Congolese Ambassador Dikanga Kazadi reacts swiftly to Nevers Mumba’s accusations. Kazadi’s message is channeled to President Kabila in New York. The Zambian government is accusing the Congo DR of meddling in its internal affairs. Mwanawasa gets the information too that morning. This was going to create a diplomatic standoff.

“The Congo DR having itself been a victim of foreign military interference cannot interfere in Zambia’s internal affairs,” screamed Ambassador Kazadi.

Nevers’ words had exposed his lack of diplomatic skills. His recklessness towards the Congo was going to be his downfall.

In New York, President Mwanawasa gathers his team and comes up with a strategy. An apology to President Kabila would be in order and the two presidents should continue to commit themselves to dialogue on issues of mutual importance. Mwanawasa had redeemed the recklessness of his vice-president. Nevertheless, back home in Zambia, security services are on high alert and Ambassador Kazadi found an opportunity to speak even more. Those baying for Nevers’ blood within government had something to work on. With this weakness they could make Mwanawasa fire Nevers Mumba – but the problem was that Nevers had done a good grassroots organization. The MMD grassroots was firmly in his charge.

While Mwanawasa is still in New York, Vice-President Mumba does something unusual. He summons the press and cabinet to his Government House. On the agenda are the preparations for the 40^th Independence Anniversary. Those close to the workings of government notice how unusual it is that a Veep should address the nation when the president is away. Nevers was not going to takeover the government, he was simply announcing preparations for the independence celebration. Mwanawasa while away is informed of this, and his inner circle wonder why Nevers had gone this far.

In Nevers’ mind, government should continue to function even in the absence of the president. As such, since he is part of the government he saw no reason why he could not brief the nation about independence celebrations that would be held in a few weeks time. Except that, Nevers was not going to be part of that celebration. Not as vice-president anyway, because by then he would be fired.

The same month of September – a few days’ latter Mwanawasa returns back to Zambia. At Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, Nevers Mumba is on hand to receive President Mwanawasa. Nevers is looking flamboyant wearing dark eyeglasses.

Mwanawasa’s first words off that plane were to address the litany of diplomatic missteps his Vice-Presidents had made. The words of the vice-president were regrettable, Mwanawasa said. He also mentioned that he had to personally apologize to President Kabila over that misunderstanding. With dark shaded glasses Vice-President Mumba looks down as he listens to the president berate him. A few minutes latter he sees off President Mwanawasa and returns to his Mercedes Benz car waiting for him.

Nevers had been leader of the Christian movement in Zambia. He was the boss for a long time. He was the one to berate his juniors. But as vice-president, he had a very temperamental boss in Mwanawasa. And protocol demanded that he had to defer to his principal. But on that day, a journalist asked Nevers about his reaction towards President Mwanawasa’s sentiments. Whether Mumba had misunderstood the question or not, we may never know. This is how he answered it nevertheless.

“I am not embarrassed by this, the only embarrassment might have been for the other side.”

The “other side” here might only mean the parliamentary opposition of the Patriotic Front.

The next day, this answer made headline news in the Post Newspaper. Realizing that he had been misunderstood and probably misquoted in the report, Nevers wrote his boss apologizing for the misconception. But it was too late.

Mwanawasa had already found an unassuming Augustine Festus Lupando Mwape Katoloshi to be Nevers’ replacement. Lupando Mwape had been fired as a cabinet minister a few months into the Mwanawasa presidency. He was one of those Bemba leaders Mwanawasa thought had maintained allegiance to President Chiluba. This time that he was appointing Lupando Mwape as vice-president he had just reinstated him to a junior position of Provincial Minister.

And yes! Mwanawasa had done another miracle. He had gone for another political non-entity to be vice-president. The reign of Nevers Mumba as Zambia’s vice-president had come to an end.

But the temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba continued. Discussions of the next segments in Nevers’ life deserve another analysis.

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div

Our republic can have no better politicians than the promise epitomised by young and educated leaders such as Hon. Lucky Mulusa. We are better and we will better as a nation if people of Mulusa’s calibre are encouraged to participate in politics. They bring a breath of fresh air to the political scene. When dinosaurs, that have no idea of modern economics, represent a generation of politics it is vibrant people like Mulusa that the nation can fall back on. However, in order to help Mulusa live up to his potential greatness we all have seen in him, it becomes important, actually critical to ask ourselves, has he become unlucky. This question is necessary now, especially in view of the unnecessary squabbles currently prevailing in the MMD. I am of the opinion that Mulusa is likely to emerge damaged after this debacle. He must quickly reevaluate his role in the confusion. Otherwise, he could lose the little respect he currently has in the minds and hearts of some Zambians. I say so for several reasons.

The people Mulusa seems to have joined in fighting Nevers Mumba have played him. I seem to get Mulusa’s argument. He believes in the potential and greatness of the MMD. He believes that the party can do better but cannot do so as long as Nevers Mumba continues to be at its helm. However, this message of his love for the MMD now has been overshadowed by the fact that the other rebels are alleged to have had secret meetings with State House and with senior Patriotic Front leaders. In fact, Hon. Chituwo has confirmed that he had such meetings and so has Hon. Kaingu. We are not privileged to know the motive for these meetings, and the gist of these meetings could be removed from the problems in the MMD. However, these meetings create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of some Zambians and some MMD members that the Patriotic Front is actually sponsoring the people fighting Nevers. The real casualty of such perceptions is actually Mulusa himself. I doubt whether he knew of these meetings. If he did know about them, but nevertheless, went ahead to scheme with Siliya, Kaingu, and Chituwo then I would doubt his judgment. However, if he had no idea that the PF leaders were meeting his colleagues then I would doubt his political competency. Dora and her colleagues have played Mulusa and his message has now been so mired in quagmire that it will take some more work for him to redeem himself. He could be running out of luck.

The timing is not right for Hon. Mulusa to lead a rebellion against Nevers Mumba. This is barely 2 years after the MMD lost power in 2011. Having the MMD begin fighting now will only weaken it further and make the death of the MMD inevitable. Lucky Mulusa does seem to still have some more fighting to do, but beginning them this early will only finish him.

Hon. Lucky Mulusa

Hon Mulusa does seem to be making several enemies at the wrong time in his political life. In times like this, he needed to be a little bit more strategic. He has now aroused the Nevers Mumba group. He has equally roused the UPND. In addition to that I understand that online, he has raised the ire of the zambianwatchdog.com website. These are too many battles to be fighting for any one man. You cannot take on so many people at the same time and expect to come out alive politically. For his part, he has also taken issues with Muhabi Lungu. Fighting Muhabi is bad strategically for Mulusa. Muhabi has several things going well for him. First, he has been public and political life longer than Mulusa. Zambians got introduced to Muhabi at a time when he was a sharp talking defender of the then UNIP President Kenneth Kaunda in the mid-1990s. Second, Muhabi being Easterner comes from the only province proving to be the stronghold for the MMD. And for the MMD to survive they need a regional base just like PF and UPND do have regional bases. For any political party in Zambia to become a national party, it must first be able to command an unwavering regional support. PF have their Northern-Luapula corridor and the UPND have their Southern region. The MMD must have the Eastern Province. Otherwise, they are toast. Third, Muhabi Lungu has actually worked for both Rupiah and Mwanawasa governments crafting the very policies that Mulusa is claiming made the MMD great. Fourth, Muhabi has taken on a different approach to the MMD problems. Every one with half a brain knows that the MMD has declined and is likely to decline further. However, the solution to these problems does not lie with fighting Nevers Mumba but with working with Nevers Mumba. Any MMD member who wishes to see the MMD rise again should try to work with Nevers and supplement his weaknesses. This is exactly what Muhabi is doing. To see Mulusa begin fighting Muhabi does not make sense. Some Zambians could as well ask, Muhabi we know, what about this new guy? Is he “a John come lately”

Nevers Sekwila Mumba

Hon Mulusa is not making sense politically when he claims that Nevers is irrelevant to the MMD because he caused the party to lose a ward election in Mpulungu in February. According to Mulusa, he believes that the MMD should be able to do well in the North because Nevers comes from there. The problem with the MMD is that they have a very popular opponent in the PF’s Michael Sata. Sata, in spite, of the economic failure in Zambia still remains a very formidable and personally popular candidate in the North. Currently, there is no politician who can dislodge Sata from the North. This is not Nevers’ problem. Additionally, Mulusa alleges that since Nevers is not that popular in the North this should be the reason to leave the MMD presidency. I doubt this kind of reasoning. Nevers Mumba is MMD president because he went to the convention and overwhelmingly beat his rivals. Those elections matter just like any other elections do matter. To claim that Nevers has never won an election when the guy had just beaten five other contestants in 2012 does not help Mulusa with his argument at all.

If Hon Mulusa believes that only parliamentary elections are the real elections, may be this is the time to doubt then whether Mulusa himself has lost relevance since the last time he ran for parliament, his seat was nullified due to electoral corruption. There is a lot Mulusa can offer Zambia. But this route he has taken will only lead to his political demise. My advice? Mulusa should cool down. Take it easy and fight for the people of Zambia instead of fighting Nevers Mumba. Mulusa has already done some remarkable things in both parliament and outside it. These are the kind of fights; they want him to continue championing.

Many Zambians do not believe that Nevers Mumba is the greatest of their problems. The greatest problems for Zambia are things such as the value of the Kwacha, out of control inflation, the stolen constitution and corruption perpetrated by the party in power. That being the case, the perception that it is the Patriotic Front sponsoring the anti-Nevers campaign in the MMD does not augur well at all. Nevers and the MMD needed an enemy to fight, and they have just been given that punching bag – the so-called anti-Nevers group. They will now use these anti-Nevers individuals as whipping boys (and girl) for the broader campaign to highlight the misdeeds of the Patriotic Front. This message might resonate with Zambians and entrench Nevers in the minds of many Zambians even deeper. Hon Mulusa’s star should shine, but if he continues on this path, he might just run out of political luck. Or may be Lucky Mulusa has already become unlucky!

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

We have lost a legend. A legend among us has left. A true Zambian icon has passed away. A great man has gone ahead of us. He was 78. He has gone to rest in eternal peace. For these three days, we have mourned together as one nation and we will continue to do so. The man who helped bring us together through the passion he had for Zambia and for football has united us, once again, as one people in mourning him. It is such a huge loss for our country. Our generation will dearly miss one of the greatest sons of this country. What made Dennis Liwewe great is not so much about his voice, but his passion. As a child growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, my mind is forever etched with his passion that blurted each time the Zambia national team played football. That passion was infectious. That passion expanded the imagination of young and old alike.

I grew up at a time when we had no Internet and certainly, no twitter. Televisions were also difficult to come by. The only reliable media we had, at home, was my father’s yellow ITT radio held together by a blend of tired wires. On that radio, we found a way to follow the Zambian national team each time they played at Independence Stadium. Dennis Liwewe brought those matches alive to my young ears. With him on the radio, I felt like I was right there in the stadium watching the game with him. That is perhaps one of the things by which I will remember him.

Dennis Liwewe
Picture source: postzambia.com

A legend, like Dennis Liwewe, lives on in the memories of those people he touched while on earth. He lives on through those who knew him at a more personal and intimate level. In writing this today, I should honour the way those close to him are remembering him. I should honour the way his family are remembering him. However, in addition to the fact that Dennis Liwewe was a family man: a father, an uncle and a grandfather, he was a legend too. Those of us who never even got to meet him personally still do have our own memories and unique ways in which we experienced his legend. And it is these varied and diverse memories that make the man a true Zambian legend. Mr. Liwewe will live on through the memories of those people who never met him, but nevertheless got impacted by the passion of his life.

From Dennis Liwewe’s life we learn several things. First, we learn that regardless of one’s station in life, passion is an important element in living. It has been mentioned above that Mr. Liwewe was passionate. And he lived his passion. His passion was infectious. We saw it. We felt it. We heard it. He made us to live his passion. He made us to experience his passion. Building this nation, calls for a people that are more passionate for their country. Additionally, passion means that one puts the interests of the nation ahead of anything else. Nothing demonstrates passion more clearly than what someone does with his or her time. For Liwewe, it was time well spent doing something he had always loved.

Second, Mr. Liwewe’s life teaches us that one can make a huge contribution to a cause without necessarily being the central player in that cause. Liwewe loved football but he was not a great football player himself. And neither did he need to be. He never played for the national team. Yet, he still inspired many in the national team to play their best. He was a great source of pride and inspiration. Over his career as a commentator, he was the mentor of several young players. He was not that kind of mentor who went to the dressing rooms with the players. He was not their coach. His presence and his passion were enough to inspire greatness in the young players. Zambia is better and greater due to the inspiration so many of us got from the life of Dennis Liwewe. This nation will do better if it continues to draw inspiration from the life and times of Liwewe.

Third, Mr. Liwewe helps us to realize that life is not just about politics. At a time when our country has become too politicised, it is refreshing to note that someone could be a symbol of unity across party political lines. I do not know about others, but speaking for myself, I never heard Liwewe take a partisan political stance on any subject. We can learn from Dennis Liwewe that we can all be passionate about our country without necessarily throwing ourselves into the frenzy of political divisiveness. There is a life without politics, just as there is still life after politics. Perhaps, the cadres who are busy fighting each other and killing each other could learn from the life of Liwewe that we are, in fact, just one people in a country that is in love with its football.

Pafwa abantu, pashala bantu is a saying that expresses the important duty that each departed person leaves for others to do. Dennis Liwewe did his part and played his role. He lived passionately among us. He showed us the way. Nevertheless, after he passes on, it now falls upon those still living to carry on with his good work. This good work does not necessarily mean we all must become radio commentators, but rather that we should do our best to be that true expression of humanity. We should embrace others as well as embrace the unique gift endowed by our Creator. When all is said and done, it is that which is done for the good of others that will truly matter.

May Dennis Liwewe’s soul rest in eternal peace.

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Several judges of the High Court of Zambia have been quite consistent and clear with regard to the evidence the prosecution needs to provide when proving the age of a minor in defilement cases. In following the 1973 legal precedence of the case of Phiri (Macheka) v. The People most judges have gone to hold that “age should be proven by one of the parents or by whatever other best evidence is available.” This case has formed an integral part of Zambia’s evidence law.

In a criminal case, the State has the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of a case. Main elements of most criminal cases hinge on at least two components: the prohibited act (called actus reus) and the required mental element (called mens rea) that goes with it. In the case of child defilement, the prosecution must prove that an accused had sexual intercourse (the act) with a child and did this intentionally (the mental element). As mentioned earlier, the prosecution that must prove that (1) sex took place, (2) it was with a minor, and (3) the accused did this intentionally (s.138 of the Zambia Penal Code). It would be beyond the scope of this article to analyse each of these elements in detail. I should leave that to a university course in Criminal Law or Evidence Law. However, I just wish to deal with one element involved in this section: proof as to age of a victim.

The Law of Evidence deals with how a party can prove its case before an impartial tribunal. There are several sources of Zambian evidence law. I will mention only those relevant to this article. The first one is statute law. For example, CAP 43 of the Laws of Zambia (The Evidence Law Act) contains some guidelines with regard to evidence law. Second, most of the penal code provisions do come with some guidelines of how a particular offence can be proven. The third source of Zambian evidence law is the common law. By this we mean the law that has come to us through the history of precedence as interpreted by the judges. In fact, a bulk of what constitutes evidence law today comes from this area of law. It comes from what judges have ruled about what can be admitted and what cannot be admitted in court. The fourth source of evidence law is the trial judge or magistrate who is expected to use discretion to admit or reject some evidence if they will be prejudicial, or if the evidence will put the administration of justice into disrepute.

With specific reference to defilement cases, it is settled law, through the 1973 precedence that in proving the age of a victim, the testimony given by a parent in court “is conclusive unless evidence to the contrary is adduced” (Justice Siavwapain Tembo v. The People [2011]). It cannot help an accused to simply dispute the testimony given by a parent of a victim while failing to adduce contrary evidence. When a parent to a victim of defilement testifies in an open court that a child is indeed a minor, any one wanting to challenge this testimony must, through cross-examination, discredit this testimony, or should provide contrary evidence. Failure to do so, unfortunately, could lead to a conviction.

While I cannot deal with the specific issue regarding the conviction and appeal of Mr. C. Dimba, who has been slapped with 18 years for defilement, it would be interesting to see how the judges will handle this appeal. As widely reported in the press, the convict is appealing on the basis that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence with regard to the age of the alleged victim. At the centre of this appeal is the denial, by the appellant that the victim is actually not a minor. The convict does not seem to deny that sex took place. Second, he does not deny that he did it intentionally. What he denies concerns the exact age of the victim. Without doubt, age is an essential ingredient of the offence of defilement (Mulonda v. The People, 2004). As such, what is at issue in this appeal is what weight if any, the trial court should have given to the testimony rendered by the parents of the victim in an open court. Again, this issue could hinge on how the Supreme Court will relate facts of this case with precedence already in place. Basing this appeal only on the reliability of a parent’s testimony is a very difficult proposition.

There have been comments about how that, in order to convict Dimba, the court must have been provided with “documentary” evidence about the age of a victim. Some are even suggesting that a medical or scientific proof should be provided to substantiate the age of a victim. This is where we need to differentiate reality from the fiction we find in Hollywood dramas such as “Criminal Minds” and stuff like that. In my opinion, all this obsession with scientific evidence is not as reliable as that provided by a parent of a victim. The viva voce (word of mouth) testimony given in a court of law is more like the golden standard of evidence. The word of mouth testimony given by a witness (the parent) in open court about what they observed with their senses is very difficult to dislodge. In this case, the parents had testified before the trial magistrate that this child was below the age of sixteen at the time this offence took place. You have to have a very strong case to be successful on appeal.

Convicted Musician “General” Kanene

The 2005 reforms to s.138 of the Penal Code expunged the defence of “reasonable belief” from the offence of child defilement. In 2011, however, this defence was reinstated. Parliament did well to reinstate this defence. A person who otherwise is guilty of child defilement could use this defence. It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under s.138 to show that they had “reasonable cause to believe, and did in fact believe,” that the child was not a minor. I think this defence takes care of some grey areas so that only those who are truly culpable should go to jail. However, it is interesting that Justice Mchenga did allude to this when he mentioned in his sentencing that the convict did seem to know that the girl was a minor by asking her “not to come in uniform, but come in plain clothes.” This is a very persuasive finding of fact that could prove critical going forward. I doubt whether this defence could be available to someone who knew very well that a girl was a minor! The more you know, the less likely that you could be successful in raising this defence.

For proof, the testimony of a parent seems appropriate. For punishment, the judges are meting out stiff penalties. For the careless, s.138 should be taken seriously. If they are below 16 years of age and you have sex with them, then you will go in for 15 years and above. That’s the law!

By E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

The question is not really about whether President Sata is sick or not. The question is about how the nation and its political players should conduct themselves in moments of alleged presidential illness. When a president falls ill, or rather when allegations of presidential illness become apparent, we as a people have some choices. Some of these choices are terribly hideous. The first choice is to use the illness of the president as an opportunity for political posturing or partisan cannibalism. The second choice is to deny and deny. And then deny some more. There is a better choice, however. A choice far better than these two choices: a more humane way of doing politics. The rivers of national sanity and morality have never dried up as to deny us the opportunity to be civil when reacting to the misfortunes of our fellow humans. There is a healthier manner of how we should handle difficult issues adjoining a presidential temporal incapacitation through illness.

Levy Patrick Mwanawasa

Political posturing is never in the best interest of the nation. In fact, political posturing during rumoured presidential illnesses, has in the past, led to bitterness, angering hatred and obscene disappointment. For example, during the many illnesses of Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (president from 2002 to 2008), a very verbose leader of the opposition at that time wasted no seconds in using Mwanawasa’s alleged illnesses as a ticket to scorn Levy’s government and leadership. That same opposition leader mustered enough vigour to claim, quite undiplomatically, that when Mwanawasa was examined by doctors in India, “they found that there was no coordination between his brain and his mouth.” These were very harsh and discourteous words to come out of the mouth of an important leader of Zambia’s opposition at that time. What such sentiments went to prove was the unfortunate fact that taking such stances when a president is ill demolishes the good human spirit that should be resident in all of us during the misfortunes of others. Now that there are plausible rumours of the current president being ill, it is incumbent upon us not to treat President Sata, the way a sick Mwanawasa was treated. As the saying goes, “two wrongs never make a right.” We can never triumph over evil using evil.

The best we all could offer during this very difficult time are the finest wishes, extravagant prayers and resilient hope for the full recuperation of President Sata so that he could find the strength he needs and the fortitude he requires to fix the many problems that our country is facing. Zambia currently has a currency that is dropping in value like a ball stumbling from Lebron James’ huge hands. The Kwacha has hit K7 000 (in real money) to the US dollar. Students at the Copperbelt University (CBU) have downed their brains until their meal allowances are increased by at least 45%. They are asking for Ba John Phiri to address them. Roads that were built linking Ndola to Kitwe have developed severe potholes days after the contractors handed over the keys to Hon. Yamfwa Mukanga. Rupiah Banda’s flagship project stadium originally named “disaster stadium” by Ba Chishimba Kambwili is falling apart even before it is officially commissioned. It is still not known when this official commissioning will take place considering that both Kambwili and his boss missed the Sunday expected launch day. Old and finished ZAF aircraft are now murdering our soldiers like roaches. Defence Minister Edgar Lungu spends more time mourning soldiers killed during peace than during war. Our national debt, being managed by Bo Alexander Chikwanda, is rapidly dashing towards pre-HIPC points. PF contracted Kaloba currently stands at $4.5 Billion. Honestly, it will require the steady fortitude of a very fit president to preside over the recovery of this country. That being the case, we all do very well to hope and pray that His Excellency recovers quickly, for great is his work and enormous are his challenges. Some of these economic challenges he created them himself. Fya kuiletelela fye.

Munshya wa Munshya

The other choice of handling the alleged illness of a president does not inspire confidence at all. Even when it is so notoriously obvious that vintu sivili bwino, it is sad that the PF government’s default response to citizens’ concerns over the health of the president is that of don’t kubeba. This is sad. But knowing the vulturistic nature of our politics, PF government is denying it because somehow they feel like the political vultures are already circling. That should not be the case. During this time, the government should genuinely share, with the citizens, the state of the health of the president. And from there, ask the nation to pray and hope for a quick recovery. Stating that the president has malaria or pneumonia should not be taboo for any government. It should not be a taboo topic, definitely, not in our times. In fact, even if the illness were very serious, it would still be in order for a government to inform the nation so that goodwill and prayers are offered in return. Our country has excellent doctors in all hospitals to help when called upon. Great Zambian hospitals such as UTH, Chainama, Ndola Central and Levy Mwanawasa can always send their best physicians to help. Denials are hardly the best policy. Denials become even more ridiculous when evidence, as seen on TV, pictures and face-to-face, shows a complete different story. There is a saying, that “she who hides her illness risks embarrassment in death”. A government should be proactive in communicating such hardships instead of being mischievously secretive.

We should pray for Michael Sata

Zambia is a democracy. We cannot really completely eradicate the politics of opportunism during a trying moment like this one. Already, vultures in the ruling party are positioning themselves for a depraved feast at the slab of misfortune. A wake of vultures is ready. We have heard them in Mpulungu. They are loud and clear in Mufulira. The vultures have started to gather in committees. The wind is growing dark, and the energy is beginning to plunge. There at, perhaps, the allegations of the last breath, the queenmakers are rearranging their ugly seats casting lots and perhaps spreading bones. While we should not be surprised at this behaviour, we should nevertheless hope and pray that they do so in a humane form. There is still a way to transform vultures into doves. There is a way to redeem our politics from that of depravity to that of humanity.

The government of Zambia should be forthcoming with information. This is the best way to lead and to keep vultures at bay. The people of Zambia should also be clear about showing their true humanity. This is the best way to be citizens. The constitution of Zambia should be respected and Cabinet should only act when there is clear evidence of incapacity. But for now, all of us should keep praying and hoping that our problems and the many challenges we face are taken care of in the most humane way. Pafwa abantu, pashala bantu.

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

The nights and days are very cold this month of June. But in spite of this, the leaders of this country did not spare our people in Mindolo another brunt exercise of power. The people of Mindolo woke up, one night, to a colossal noise of bulldozers and graders tearing through the walls of what had made their homes. There was no mercy. There was no pity. And the misery was ruthless. It does seem, as expected, that the government cared less about the plight of our now homeless citizens. These citizens now have nowhere to lay their heads and no place to acquire the comfort of a warm roof. Days after this unfortunate incident, the ruling Patriotic Front, through its Copperbelt leadership, expressed comprehensive ignorance about what happened to the over 300 families of Mindolo. They claim “ta twaishibe” until the minute bulldozers were on the ground grinding down the brittle hedges around fragile homes of our people. We would be more concerned if this were an isolated incident. But unfortunately, denial has become the order of the day in both the ruling party and the government it is claiming to lead. From police brutality to the economy, President Sata’s government has most surely become a government of “katwishi”. Ask them any important question, and their answer comes from a choice of synonyms whose meaning is repugnant to human politesse: don’t kubeba, katwishi and nshishibe.

A few months ago, President Sata’s minister of agriculture had no idea that since his party came into power the price of ubunga had gone up by almost 100%. Typical of a reckless administration, the response from the honorable minister was that of total surprise and unsurprising surly indifference. He had no idea that the cost of ubunga is beyond the reach of many Zambians. One then wonders how this group of so called cabinet claim to be running a nation when they are not in touch with basic realities of how much Zambians are paying for staple food. I would be curious to find out what the minister cooks in his house, since he has no idea how much a bag of roller meal costs. May be he has an incessant supply of chicken and chips beautifully delivered at taxpayers expense. As if that was not enough, when the same gentleman visited cotton growers, he again expressed total surprise at the plight of cotton growers. He claimed “nshishibe”, “nshaishibe” or stuff related to that. Zambia must demand that leaders desist from this katwishi culture.

The leadership of “katwishi” has led us and is leading us into serious economic doldrums. The essence of katwishi finds itself manifested in a government, which has no idea, of how much money the mining sector generates each year. For example, the honorable minister of finance has no inkling of how much money KCM, First Quantum or Mopani make each year. With this obliviousness, the PF government cannot effectively assist the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to tax these companies. When citizens like Pamela Chisanga take up these issues and demand that Mopani pays, the government not infrequently pleads the “katwishi” doctrine. They claim to not know. Sadly, it seems, we have entrusted government to a bunch of persons who are so reckless as to fail to account for the income generated by our supreme natural resources. We need a cure from this “katwishi” syndrome.

Failing to effectively tax the mining conglomerates, cabinet secretary has this week, nevertheless, found an easy way out of this predicament by asking for “nchekelako” from all public universities and colleges. These colleges will now have to remit 60% of their school fee earnings to the ministry of finance. When it comes to mines, the PF gives a katwishi answer, but when it comes to helpless public colleges, it abruptly arouses to suck the littlest blood trickling from the veins of broke public colleges. Zambians should be unanimous to demand better planning from the PF government.

Government of Katwishi

Another manifestation of katwishi concerns the soon-to-be established government airline. Honourable Yamfwa Mukanga has been quite consistent on this one. He claims that the PF government will not rest until a new government-run airline is established. He has since proclaimed that it will be launched on June 30^th2014. Our government has run an airline before. It was called Zambia Airways (QZ). The reason why this airline went into liquidation was that it was a loss-making venture. It had become a personal carrier for Kenneth Kaunda and his UNIP benefactors. Without reasonable profits, Zambia Airways started to extricate taxpayers’ money to keep it in the air. In spite of this overwhelming evidence with regard to the failure of QZ, Mukanga in 2014 wants to add another expense for the taxpayers. I wonder what we shall call this airline. May be Katwishi Airline would be an appropriate name to memorialize President Sata’s popular reference of his cabinet as “useless”. The Zambian treasury is broke. Our kwacha is losing value. We basically have no money in the treasury. The government of katwishi has now mercilessly squandered the little dollars Dr. Rupiah Banda and Bo Situmbeko Musokotwane had left in the Zambian coffers. If we are to follow up on how Sata spent Rupiah Banda’s billions, we would get a hazy answer: katwishi. Since we are broke as a country, it does not make sense that we should be spending billions we do not have to buy planes for a loss-making venture.

Besides, the last time Hon. Mukanga was called upon to appoint a genuine board for a parastatal company, he appointed PF cadres to Zambia Railways. We have been there before. There is no assurance that Mukanga will handle this airline any differently from the way he has mishandled Zambia Railways. He will go on to appoint unqualified PF cadres to run Katwishi Airways and further squeeze the taxpayers. Nothing demonstrates economic folly than going back to the very practices and policies responsible for burying us in the sand of economic stagnation.

Isn’t it ridiculous that when Ms. Mutale Nalumango visited Isoka, and the police abused their power by hounding her out of there, the answer from the police command was “katwishi”? They claimed total ignorance of this abuse of power. Similarly, Nevers Mumba goes to Eastern Province, and the first thing the police do is conceitedly escort him out of Nyimba. When challenged to stop this thoughtless abuse of power, the police command pleaded total ignorance. They said “katwishi.”

Our country can do better. But in order to do so, we might need to deal with the katwishi syndrome. We can challenge this attitude now, and if that fails, we have a good shot at stopping it once and for all in 2016. The katwishi PF-government could think that they are getting away with this for now. But very soon, the Zambian people will show them who is boss. And when that day comes, the Zambian people will be decisive and flawless in rebuffing “katwishi” and all of its pretentious cousins.

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Personal sabotage should know its constraints. But just when you think that stuff cannot get any worse, that is when it usually does. It is one thing to make a small mistake, or perhaps, to misspeak once in a while. We are all human after all. But when you are part of a cabinet handling 13 million Zambians, you must be more careful and more measured, with the class of words you spit out of your mouth. It is no secret that the Patriotic Front (PF) government lacks basic diplomatic skill. Never in the history of our republic have we had such horrendous leaders in charge of our foreign diplomacy and national security. A foreign policy disaster is just being averted by some good leadership skills exhibited by the new minister of foreign affairs. He is trying his best. Harry Kalaba seems to have brought a little bit more stability and better class to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, just when you think we are now having a good handle of foreign policy, someone just manages to sabotage the little effort being done. The story of Kabimba smuggling into Zambia, “Kenyans through Nakonde border” is so diplomatically obtuse that no one in their right mind could ever make such a reckless assertion implicating a foreign country in matters so sensitive.

It could not have come at a more difficult time for Kenya and her people. Kenya is facing multiple problems at the moment. Al-Shabaab is threatening to kill them. In Mpeketoni armed men stormed peaceful football fans and killed several. In the intelligence briefs that Sata should be receiving, he has probably been informed of the Kenyan situation. Kabimba should also be intelligent enough to know that Kenya currently is battling a barrage of both local and cross-border terrorism. We should all sympathise with the good people of Kenya during this difficult time.

President Sata and Secretary General Kabimba

From such a background, it is strange, that Wynter Kabimba would growl about how he smuggled Kenyans into Zambia to do Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT). No mention of another country by a senior cabinet member ever goes without diplomatic consequences. Kabimba’s statement is wrong, confusing and surprising to say the least. I have already explained that this testimony is diplomatically imprudent. How can our Minister of Justice implicate citizens of a sister nation, that he had smuggled them into Zambia to illegally participate in Zambian elections? Who says that? Who in their right mind would even string a sentence together that contains such diseased implications? To make matters worse, Kabimba even mentions that had Rupiah Banda won those elections, he would have sent him to jail as a result of this illegal activity.

Several politicians have jumped on this and are now claiming that Wynter probably did in fact use the Kenyans to manipulate elections to favour the Patriotic Front. For this, the opposition wants Wynter jailed. Opposition parties have a reason to read what they want from Wynter’s statement. But I doubt the veracity of Wynter’s statement. Kabimba seems to be a deeply troubled man coveting absolute power at all costs. Jail should be spared for people more talented than this.

When a smuggler acts as President

It is a notorious fact that Wynter is fighting bruising succession battles within his party. He is trying to threaten those who do not want him at the helm of PF. In fact, some PF members are anti-Kabimba because they know him to be unpatriotic and wearisome. In the Eastern Province, a camp identified with Lameck Mangani, seems to have had little regard for Kabimba. For his part, Kabimba, made no qualms about what he really did feel about Mangani. Shortly after 2011 elections, Kabimba claimed quite audaciously that Mangani was not a member of the PF, but was just an impostor. Strangely enough, he went to anoint this impostor as parliamentary candidate, not once, but twice. After the fights, Mangani has now been fired.

It is during these succession wars and meetings in Chipata that Kabimba pulled a stunt only appropriate for primary school. He knows he lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many PF members. For some reason, he is not just registering as a good guy to replace Sata, either before or after 2016. There is just something that is putting Zambians off about Kabimba. It is to convince one of these doubting groups that Kabimba announced this infamous Kenyan connection.

In paraphrase he stated: “don’t mess with me”. “I am a very senior member of this party”. “ I single handedly made this party to win.” And then he goes offside, “I, in fact, hired Kenyans and smuggled them through Nakonde to do PVT and we won the elections.”

It appears like Kabimba will do anything to try and buy his own legitimacy. He will say anything. He will claim anything. He is willing to do anything. He does not seem to care about the implications of what he is saying, as long as it raises his own bruised profile within the PF. Anyone would know that Kabimba cannot and did not rig the 2011 elections. Certainly, no Kenyan ever rigged the 2011 elections on behalf of Kabimba. Neither Kabimba nor his Kenyan fictitious people have the capability to do so.

In case, Kabimba has forgotten. We need to remind him. The people of Zambia voted for one Michael Sata. Zambians from Limulunga to Milenge chose and gave Sata a strong mandate. Zambians thought that Sata would do them good. He would give them a constitution. They thought he would chase the Chinese invaders. They thought he would make the Kwacha stronger. They thought he would truly be in charge. To their surprise, they are having what in business we call “buyer’s remorse”. You buy something you wanted so badly, and then after you take it home, it disappoints. You then look back and think, “I should not have bought it in the first place”. This is where we are as a country with regard to Bo Chilufya Katongo.

In this buyer’s remorse, Kabimba should not mock Zambians by claiming that it is his Kenyans that brought us Michael Sata. We brought Sata on our own. And we do have a way to get rid of him in the 2016 election. In so doing, we do not need Kabimba’s fabrication. The only Kenyans I have seen, with some real capability over some Zambian men, wear traditional Maasai gear and stand on corners of Lusaka hawking stuff they promise will help, not with elections, but erections. Come 2016, they will be there to sell even more stuff to Zambian men and perhaps women. However, what they will not do is to rig any elections.

Zambians are experiencing buyer’s remorse – Munshya