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

Guy Lindsay Scott

Never in the short history of our republic have we had a vice-president who is as marginalised as Guy Lindsay Scott. Effectively, this Patriotic Front government has managed to reduce the vice-president of our republic to a non-entity. As if it is not enough that Scott has no clue of much of the stuff happening in a government in which he is number two, the Speaker of our parliament ordered him to release a statement about the whereabouts of President Sata. The people of Milenge would call this “uku tumfya”. Kutumfya to ask Scott to release a statement when the gentleman is in the dark, as always. The statement Scott released to parliament is notoriously honest, scandalously ironic and goes to prove just how out of the loop Scott has been. That Scott has not resigned in spite of this rampant snubbing deserves an analysis of its own. But it certainly takes a lot of steel to be a Veep in a cabinet, which shamefully ostracises you.

Scott supplemented his parliamentary statement with a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview he had on Wednesday June 25 2014. In this interview he accused a “small tribe in the south of Zambia” as the source of lies, innuendo and rumours about President Sata’s health and controversial visit to Tel Aviv. Without, dwelling too much on the demerits of his insult of this “small tribe”, it seems that Dr. Scott seems to project his own insignificance in the Patriotic Front on to others.

Guy Scott, in spite of having the Zambian constitution on his side, has never acted as president. Foremost, the job of any vice-president is to act as president in the absence of a president. Additionally, a Veep is supposed to manage an executive transition in the event of a vacancy in the office of president. As an acting president, a Veep is supposed to call for fresh elections within ninety days. It is quite fascinating though that Scott has never, at any time, fulfilled his constitutional job description. Sata always leaves power in the hands of Dr. Scott’s unelected juniors. This should hurt. An explanation has been cooked up, that tries to justify this disregard of procedure by stating that Scott cannot act as president because he is a muzungu. I have searched the constitution of our republic, and it does not bar a Whiteman from acting as president. The decision to sideline Scott within the realms of the don’t kubeba power structure does seem to me that it is informed by racism or tribalism. What else could explain this clear preference for black Zambians over a white one? The irony is that this very tribalism that victimizes Guy Scott is the same one he is projecting on to others when he characterises those wanting information about his boss as a “small tribe” from the south of Zambia. This is the problem of racism and tribalism: it turns its victims into vicious tribalists themselves. The only way to help Dr. Scott, perhaps, is for the PF government to stop its policy of a racist embargo on Scott solely because of the colour of his skin.

It was on Sunday, June 22 that Hon Mwansa Kapeya released a government statement explaining that President Sata had arrived in Israel at “the invitation of President Shimon Peres.” This was surprising because the trip had not been previously announced. In fact, Kapeya seemed to have released the statement only after rumours had surfaced about the whereabouts of President Sata. Kapeya stated that Sata left Zambia on Friday June 20. So between Friday and Sunday, there was no word from the government about Sata’s whereabouts. This was a serious lapse in the judgment of presidential handlers. An invitation of our president by the president of Israel should never be a secret.

Kapeya also stated that Zambia’s Honorary Consular-General Ms. Ronit Hershkovitz received President Sata. This should make this trip quite official and it buttresses the reasons why the Zambian public should have been informed of it in the first place. After this statement from Kapeya, social media went into overdrive particularly when it became apparent that Peres would in fact be in Washington, DC and not Tel Aviv to host Sata. The response from Kapeya was to threaten jail for those doubting Thomases. Kapeya enjoys jailing, it seems.

And then parliament intervened. It was a Member of Parliament from Southern Province who raised a point of order requesting the Speaker to direct the PF government to clarify this Sunday statement. This honour fell on the leader of government business in the house – the vice-president. Unsurprisingly, Dr Scott’s statement seems to have contradicted Kapeya’s central assertion:

Unfortunately, it is also asserted that he is doing this at the invitation of the Israeli President Mr Shimon Peres. This is misleading because President Sata is not there on a State Visit but on a Private Working Holiday…Sata will be combining sight-seeing, relaxation and business meetings.

Scott then concluded by stating that this is all he could say without entering “into the fantasy world of the Zambian social media and its necrophiliac correspondents and editors.” Obviously, Scott is very ruthless with words. He is of British heritage after all. It is sarcastic that he could label social media in these insulting words when his boss runs a very popular Facebook page that has nevertheless not been updated for weeks. Sata’s Facebook page came with a lot of cimwela and was a reliable source of ZNBC main news. Surprise, surprise, Guy Scott today calls social media “necrophiliac”.

After this statement in parliament BBC asked him about whether President Sata has cancer. He answered, “I can’t know because I am not his wife”. Asked further about the rumours about Sata’s health, Scott answered it is only a small tribe in the south stoking these rumours.

It makes no sense to discriminate against Guy Scott – Munshya

Guy Scott could be right, he has no idea about President Sata’s health. In fact, he has no idea about many things going on in government. The reason is not really because he is not Sata’s wife. But rather that, in spite of being a vice-president, he has been erroneously marginalised based on the colour of his skin. While Scott salutes his unelected subordinate Kabimba as acting president in Lusaka, I hope Scott’s boss enjoys his time in the Jewish state “sight-seeing, relaxing and having business meetings”. The Jewish state has confirmed that President Sata is in Israel at the invitation of President Peres. This is a welcome reprieve coming half a week later. Nevertheless, while all this is going on, I hope Scott will not think that the health status of President Sata is a manufactured rumour by a small tribe. If that were the case, all of us, will then be that small tribe. Scott should make no mistake, if this small tribe decide otherwise come 2016; he and his boss will never go sightseeing in Tel Aviv at taxpayers’ expenses. Never again.

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

At the age of 50, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Mumba Malila is one of the youngest Zambians to have ascended to the apex of our courts. We should heartily congratulate him for this feat. Called to the Zambian bar in 1989, Malila’s twenty-plus years of experience as a lawyer place him in a very rare class. There could have been no one better qualified to take up this position than this gentleman. We should commend President Sata and all those concerned for having made this selection. With a swift ratification through parliament, there seems to have been consensus that Malila was the right person for the job of Supreme Court judge. I find several things that stand out with the choice of Malila.

Supreme Court of Zambia

Mumba Malila still has about 15 years to contribute to the life of the Supreme Court before he can consider obligatory retirement. In fact, while Zambian judges are constitutionally supposed to retire at 65 (Article 98[2]), the same constitution provides for a presidential retainment of a judge beyond retirement age. Since most Supreme Court judges do stay on after reaching the retirement age, Malila could possibly have more time at the court beyond 2030. This might help provide the stability for a court that sees far too many changes in judicial personnel. There is no doubt that the Zambian Supreme Court needs some stability. And this stability can best be achieved by hiring much younger and more vibrant persons. This relative young age also means that Malila begins his job with some level of the necessary independence and certain security of tenure. Since he will not be a subject of a judicial contract at least until after he reaches 65, he could serve far much more independently than his colleagues most of whom have already reached retirement age. The Zambian legal fraternity should expect no less independence from Malila. He takes on a huge role. He has huge expectations hoisted upon him.

Justice Mumba Malila SC

As a Supreme Court judge, Malila should have the freedom and the necessary independence to promulgate human-rights friendly values in the developing jurisprudence of our nation. His most crucial contribution to our nation was when he served as the second-ever chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Zambia (HRC). President Levy Mwanawasa appointed him to this role in 2004 replacing Justice Lombe Chibesakunda who was the inaugural chairperson (1997 to 2004). Previously, Malila had served mostly in commercial law areas. He also had a stint at the University of Zambia’s prestigious school of law. Malila handled his new 2004 role of defending Zambians’ human rights very well. His stint at HRC saw him get elected to become a vice-chairperson of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (serving from 2006 to 2011). He was, undoubtedly, a great advocate for the poor of Zambia. It is therefore, not surprising that President Mwanawasa later promoted Malila from chairperson of HRC, to becoming Attorney General of Zambia (AG) just a couple of years later. It was somewhat our expectation that Malila was going to take his human rights inspired worldview to his new role as Attorney General. But understandably, we all got disappointed.

It did appear like Malila had abandoned his faithfulness to protection of human rights. He started to defend even the most despicable of violations from the Government of Zambia (GRZ). As Attorney General, his major client had become the Government of Zambia and its executive. In fact, as AG he became an ex-officio member of the Zambian cabinet. The Malila who stood for human rights, had become, in my opinion, a part of successive governments which were oppressive of those rights.

We never hesitated to criticize Malila’s service as Attorney General – Munshya

In our writings, both in the Zambia Daily Nation newspaper and on the www.eliasmunshya.org blog, we did express concern at some positions Malila had taken as Attorney General of Zambia. I felt that he had abandoned ordinary and basic human rights in his desire to defend his client, the GRZ, at all cost. For example, we expressed our concerns over his justification for the Public Order Act under the Michael Sata presidency. We expressed our uneasiness over his arguments in supporting the retention of Acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda, even after the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) had expressed their discontent. We disagreed with the position he took in trivializing the genuine concerns that Dora Siliya and others had when a support staffer of the judiciary, called Terry Musonda, purported to issue a judicial judgment. We sharply criticized Malila’s court submissions on this matter. We differed with Malila on many points related to the above-enumerated items. In one of our articles, we had stated that Malila could easily make one of the worst Attorneys General Zambia has ever had. We offer no apologies for so holding at that time. Our criticism was a product of its time. Now however, we must have a relook at Mumba Malila.

Now that he has been appointed as Supreme Court judge, I believe that he will be able to exercise the necessary judicial and institutional freedom necessary for him to return to a more humane consciousness in our jurisprudence. In this new role, he would now be able to retain the independence previously unknown to him due to the precarious nature of his role as AG. His appointment to the Supreme Court provides for him some form of opportunity for penance. Additionally, as a judge, Malila can now freely practice what he wrote in the African Human Rights Law Journal (AHRLJ, 2012). In that journal, he provided a legal commentary on the case of Stanley Kangaipe and Another v Attorney General (2010). What is particularly interesting is the following quotation from his writing:

“…The judicial officer should not be tied to the strict letter of a legislative provision where matters canvassed before him concern important questions of human rights. This is particularly so where the law is manifestly unjust. The judge is urged to approach the provision purposively to place it in comport with the recognised human rights norms and standards. It is only then that the law can remain relevant to new challenges.”

Malila’s position here is consistent with eminent scholar, Professor Muna Ndulo’s argument that “the literal rule of legal interpretation should accede to the purposive rule where matters of human rights and the constitution are involved.”

As such, the greatest hope I have in Malila’s court appointment does not rest on his performance as Attorney General; rather it rests on what he could potentially bring to a Supreme Court deeply buried in jurisprudence less favorable to human rights. We await the emergence of human rights influenced jurisprudence from Mumba Malila, a new judge for a modern Zambia.

This article also appeared in the print version of the Zambia Daily Nation. It appeared on Friday, 11 July 2014 Munshya wa Munshya column features there every Friday.

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

Some Members of Parliament (MPs) are demanding for a pay increase. And our people are quite justified in their outrage. This is even sincerer since there is an assumption among our people that MPs are well compensated already. It is controversial to justify a salary hike for MPs at this time when there is apparently a wage freeze for all public workers. At least, that is the position of the Zambia Congress for Trade Unions (ZCTU). The economic difficulties brought by the no-clue government of Michael Sata affects all Zambians equally. That being the case, it is problematic to insist that MPs salaries should be increased without recourse to all other workers countrywide. There is wisdom in the idea that if MPs want their salaries increased, they should equally fight for all other public workers.

Hon. Catherine Namugala (MMD, Mafinga) believes that the current salary levels for MPs are too inadequate. Zambia’s popular online publication, the Zambian Watchdog, has issued an opinion supporting the salary increase. On the other hand, leader of Zambia’s biggest political party, the MMD, has expressed reservations about this salary increase. While the cost of living has gone up, Dr. Nevers Mumba nevertheless believes that this particular salary demand has come at the wrong time. There are many who agree with him.

There is obviously a legitimate philosophical discussion to be had about salaries, wages and related matters. How much is enough? We could debate for millennia on this. I wish to ague, though, that MPs should be compensated at the same level as cabinet ministers. Harmonising MPs salaries with that of ministers will help remove the incentive that seems to attract MPs towards the carrots dangled from the Executive. In our system of government, it is easy for an executive President to swing candies of ministerial privilege on unsuspecting MPs so as to lure them to her side. If this incentive is removed we would be closer to assuring a truly vibrant parliament. Consequently, harmonisation will create some level of egalitarianism within the august house. It seems, quite unsurprisingly, that some MPs demand for higher salaries because they see that their colleagues in government do seem to have better privileges than they do. As such, viewed from an economic comparative perspective, the floor of the house becomes not just about the political affiliation; it often turns out to be a divided trajectory between the privileged executive members and the ordinary backbenchers that are paid less. There is some sense in addressing this in the interest of democracy.

Hon. Catherine Namugala (MMD) is asking for more money in her pockets

A harmonised salary structure is good for our democracy due to its attractional character as well. The quality of our parliament is dependent upon the quality of the MPs it can attract. If we want to attract more vibrant citizens, we should be able to pay a just wage for those we wish to attract. There is some argument by some of our people that only those financially successful in life should be able to aspire for parliament. This thinking is abhorrent to democratic principles. Parliament should not only be a place for the filthy rich. It should be a place for the ordinary citizen. Restricting leadership only to the rich has the consequence of confiscating governance from the ambits of ordinary citizens into the hands of the privileged few. In order for parliament to be a place for vibrant young professionals, it should be able to compete in the marketplace for that talent. While it is true that there is some level of personal sacrifice that goes into aspiring for parliamentary leadership, we should not make it more difficult for younger women and men to want to aspire for parliament due to an archaic and unworkable salary structure.

Harmonising salaries in parliament means that the current MPs will consequently get slightly higher salaries than they do now. But that will only be a smaller concern in a bigger picture: the picture of raising the profile of an MP to that of cabinet minister, at least in the salary and wages sense. Consequently, instead of thinking of such a salary hike as being a burden, we should look at good pay for MPs as the needed investment in our democracy. We cannot afford to have MPs’ independence sacrificed by sectarian interests falling from the dangled carrots of the executive. Most of the opposition MPs who crossed to the executive branch could not have done so, had they not had the financial incentive to do so. To reform parliament, we must be willing to think outside of the box. Salary harmonisation is such thinking.

Salaries for Zambian MPs need to be harmonized with that of cabinet ministers – Munshya

Harmonising MPs pay with that of ministers is good for its impact on the hospitality expected from MPs. In a nation like ours, MPs are not only political representatives; they are also expected to provide financially for some of their constituents. This is perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the role performed by MPs. And when MPs try to explain this reality, we should listen to them and dialogue instead of dismissing it.

Traditionally, tribal leaders such as chiefs and village heads, provided hospitality from the resources gathered from their subjects. So the quality of hospitality was dependent upon the goodwill and generosity of the public. In our modern society, however, the reverse seems to have happened with regard to political leaders such as MPs. Some members of the public expect the MPs to leave some financial help each time they visit their constituencies. This help can range from basic assistance of the vulnerable to helping out at funerals. And many are the funerals among our people. We are a suffering nation and we must all sympathise with each other. Members of Parliament who are not responsive to these needs are usually labelled as selfish, even if they have no personal resources to help. Most of these MPs do not simply have sufficient resources from which to assist all the needs in their constituencies. Until our society changes the narrative of the roles MPs should play in the constituencies, we have a duty as a people to listen to MPs like Namugala who try to explain how difficult it is for MPs to be able to provide for so many of our people. I believe most MPs want to help from their own personal funds, but can’t afford to do so. While there is no way that our government can make all MPs afford to help as much as they would like to, we should sympathise with those MPs who try to explain their plight. Harmonisation, in my opinion, while not being the magic bullet to resolve this financial problem, would go along way in helping our democracy.

While I am not too sure about how much is really enough for an MP’s pay, I am very sure that harmonising their salaries with that of cabinet ministers will be a good idea for our democracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘Should Zambian MPs get a salary increase?’ Elias Munshya Blog (July 28, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

 The Zambian state has a legitimate interest in enforcing the law. The state is well within its powers to try and apply immigration laws. Those who are in our country illegally should be made to account for their abuse of the law. I do support the Zambian state in its desire to bring some sanity to our borders and ensure that those who visit Zambia do so in compliance with our statutes. However, in enforcing the law, it is important that the state acts fairly, proportionally and reasonably. Those who exercise power have a duty, both fiduciary and constitutional, to be sensible. A democratic state, like ours, that chooses to enforce laws must do so within constitutional boundaries. The state has an obligation to pay attention to the rule of law each time it conducts an operation of such magnitude as the one conducted by police and immigration this past weekend. Statutory powers should not be taken as a license for mischievousness on the part of those who wear state uniforms and carry machine guns.

Police and immigration officers went to two churches in Lusaka and conducted what they claimed was an operation aimed at arresting “illegal immigrants”. The two churches raided were having regular worship services on a Sunday. The first church is located in Chibolya and the other one is located in Kabwata. According to the Immigration Department spokesperson, they conducted this operation in churches because “churches are harbouring ‘illegal immigrants’”. Notwithstanding, their official duty as law enforcement agents, I find their action of raiding churches to not only be ridiculous but actually absolute nonsense. There is no justifiable reason why the immigration department should raid worship services in Lusaka on the pretext of arresting illegal immigrants. It does not make any sense. The action by police and immigration was excessive and lacked any constitutional justification.

This action by police is a violation of the freedom of worship. The fact that armed paramilitaries decided to enter sacred spaces of a people worshipping God is a serious assault on the liberties of our people. It is drivel to claim that the state can send soldiers to the churches just because those congregations have some illegal immigrants worshipping. There are other ways through which police and immigration could arrest illegal aliens. They could arrest them on the streets, in the markets and in many other places. Police could just go to Soweto Market and find numerous illegal Chinese aliens selling tomatoes, chickens and “chibwabwa”. However, police breaking into churches in order to commit this sacrilege is morally wrong.

President Michael Sata of Zambia

It is telling that, police raided churches of the poor of Kabwata and Chibolya. From the names of these congregations, it does appear that they are independent churches. They do not belong to the mainline traditions. There have been insinuations by some Zambian government officials threatening to close these churches. The idea that smaller churches mushrooming in our compounds should be banned and closed, is itself a serious violation of the liberties that our people have to worship God in the churches they choose. I find it unacceptable for the state to use its power to order citizens which church they need to attend. We do not need government to tell us which church is better than the other. Government has no role whatsoever in adjudicating competing religious doctrine. It does appear that these armed officers chose these small churches simply because they could get away with it. They targeted the poor. There is no way they were going to enter a Roman Catholic parish and do what they did. I appeal to the PF government to guarantee liberties for our people. If indeed, there is any problem with some doctrines being taught in these new churches, it should not be the government’s role to decide for Zambians which doctrines they should embrace. The pretext that they are going to be closing churches and banning ministries belongs to the old and tired times more barbaric than ours. Kaunda effectuated an embargo on the registration of new churches. We all know the kind of government Kaunda led. It was a dictatorship whose philosophy has no place in our modern democracy. We refuse for the PF government to return this country to the days of “by air” militias.

If some of the members of these churches have committed a crime, please arrest them. You can arrest them in their homes, on the street, or at their work places. Please do not go and disrupt a church services and check NRCs of those in attendance. This is not the Zambia we expect.

Raiding churches is an assault on liberty – Munshya wa Munshya

Immigration action over the weekend will send chilling effects to church leaders. It will also arouse suspicion among church members. Pastors, elders, deacons and ushers in the churches should not be checking for passports before they receive new members. Pastors should not be immigration officers. The accusation that the church is harboring illegal immigrants is equally absurd. How can these two churches that in fact meet in rented community halls “harbor” illegal immigrants? Where do they harbor these immigrants? Is it on Sundays for 3 hours? How does having immigrants in church on Sunday, in a rented community hall, amount to harboring “illegal immigrants”? Police and Immigration should not be accusing the church of this serious crime, especially, not under these circumstances.

Churches in our country should continue to receive people in their services. Grace Ministries Mission International should continue breaking bread with all believers without the fear that soldiers will break-in to intimidate innocent worshippers. The pastors of Pentecostal Assemblies of God (Zambia) assemblies should not be asking members about their nationality or whether members have an NRC or not. The ushers of St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s churches should not have to check someone’s passport before they let them take Holy Communion at the altar. Equally, those churches in our compounds, mushrooming as they are, should have the liberty on Sundays to meet and dance with others without being suspicious of each other’s origins and nationality. There is already enough suspicion between Guy Scott and Mulenga Sata over the nationality of Mulenga’s mother. We refuse that the PF should spread this umulomo to the churches. In the church, we kneel and dance together as one people redeemed by Christ. If immigration officers want to arrest someone, they can do so, somewhere else, and not in the church.

I urge the so-called church mother bodies to stand up for religious liberty. She who assaults liberties of these small churches will one day also assault liberties of the so-called big churches. Injustice to the little among us should be regarded as injustice to all. It is in this respect that we should all condemn the action of the police and immigration officers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘Assault on liberty: Why Immigration Zambia was wrong to raid churches’ Elias Munshya Blog (August 1, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

There is no evidence to suggest that Nevers Mumba had, two weeks ago, approved of the action by MMD party cadres to sing lyrics mocking the disability of Hon. Nickson Chilangwa. In this article, I make no such allegation against Mumba. However, that unfortunate event provides us with an opportunity to address such issues. Chilangwa has lived with a slight physical disability since childhood. He limps in one of his legs. Mumba was addressing a political rally in Luapula Province when this happened. Chilangwa is a Member of Parliament and senior PF party leader in Luapula.

In responding to the cadres’ behaviour, Chilangwa expressed regret that Mumba could allow such terrible scorn at a political meeting. He also mentioned that he has learned to overcome stigma associated with his disability. This week, MMD Secretary Muhabi Lungu exonerated his boss, stating that Mumba is of such good character that he could not possibly have mocked a Zambian based on their disability. I believe him. However, the fact that a few rogue cadres could use Chilangwa’s disability as a mocking point deeply disturbs me. Our nation needs to move beyond stigma of the disabled. Zambia is one nation. In this nation we have people living with different challenges and yet they are all part of the tree that keeps the roots of our nation vibrant.

Academia refers to this kind of stigma as “Ableism”. According to Carmelita and others (2010) ableism is -

“an all-encompassing system of discrimination and exclusion of people who live with developmental, medical, neurological, physical, and psychological disabilities”.

Schwarzbaum & Thomas (2008) defined ableism as a “negative judgment about the characteristics and capabilities of an individual with a disability.” According to J. Mung’omba (2008), Zambia is home to over 256,000 people living with some form of a disability. About 5% of these live with mental disabilities.

Hon. Nickson Chilangwa, MP

Ableism could be attributed to our traditional worldview, which regards suffering in general and disability in particular as bad omens. Such suffering is usually blamed on the spiritual world. It is, therefore, not surprising that a Zambian would seek to “establish communication with the spirit world” to manipulate it in order to “bring security in a dangerous world” (Turaki 2006). Both Gray (1990) and Kunhiyop (2008) acknowledge that Africans’ conception of evil takes it as that which destroyed life, health, strength, fertility and prosperity. Suffering at both personal and community level was believed to be evil, and was mostly attributed to lack of adherence to taboos and rituals. It was believed across tribes that non-adherence to strict religious ritual would naturally invite the wrath of the gods and, therefore, cause untold suffering. The consequence of such a worldview translates into “ableism”. Unfortunately, each time a person living with a disability is mocked; we give credence to such ideas, which belong to a generation more barbaric than ours.

Ableism could also be attributed to scarcity of economic resources. Zambia has a population of 14 million living in an area of approximately 750,000 kms². The gross domestic product of Zambia stands at $20 billion. Following the 3-years of gross economic mismanagement by President Sata and his crew, we could be talking of lower figures by next year. With so many people chasing so few resources it is clear that those living with disabilities become the casualties of this stampede for resources.

Zambians need to address some disturbing beliefs that perpetrate ableism. Some of these beliefs are a combination of tradition and plain nonsense. For example, albinos just on the basis of their skin disability are quite mistakenly considered to have some extra-spiritual powers. In neighbouring Tanzania, ritual killers, believing that albino body parts can be used to make someone rich, have murdered albinos. Even though this situation has not reached this level in Zambia, it is clear that there is a general stigma attached to albinos perpetrated by myths that don’t make sense.

“We will build Zambia together as one people, regardless of our physical abilities or disabilities” – Munshya

Hon. Chilangwa as a person living with a slight physical disability has done well for himself. He is a faithful member of the United Church of Zambia. He also runs successful businesses. He is living his great potential as a member of parliament. Nevertheless, our parliament should continue advocating for legal reform in this area. J. Mung’omba (2008) does cite the Persons with Disabilities Act (1996) as one of the most forward-looking legislation. However, we must not stop there, we should also work towards reforming laws such as Article 65 (1) (b) of the Constitution which disqualifies a candidate who is “under any law in force in Zambia, adjudged or otherwise declared to be of unsound mind”. While the constitution does not define “unsound mind”, this phrase could be used against some people faced with even mild mental illness.

The impact of ableism is obvious. Just like other forms of prejudice, ableism discriminates against citizens. It makes the majority feel that they are superior. It leads to all forms of unfair treatment of the “other”. Zambia is celebrating 50 years of political freedom. But what value is this political freedom if, 50 years after independence, we would still be mocking some among us simply because they do not share the same physical abilities as we do?

Ableism causes the nation to not use the full potential of its citizens. People who live with a disability are as gifted, in so many ways, as anybody else is. The consequence of discrimination is that the society would not benefit from their talents and abilities.

Ableism also leads to discrimination in education sector. In spite of poverty, most children in Zambia do get into grade one. However, many of these grade one spaces are designed for able-bodied students. In addition to the fact that there are no suitable facilities for use by the people living with disabilities, there are not enough spaces in schools that would be more geared towards teaching children living or born with disabilities (Nabuzoka & Rønning 1997). Failure in the special education sector means that young children are left without an education, critical to their service to the country. Once you add stigma to this mix, schoolyard bullying becomes even more lethal. We must end stigma against our people.

Chilangwa is 45 years old now. He is a senior leader of our country. He has overcome the stigma in many ways. Mocking him should not be justified in our society. He is an inspiration to all young people. If we are to build Zambia, we will build it together as one people, regardless of our physical abilities. It is one Zambia, many abilities!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias (2014), “Limps of hope: Hon. Chilangwa, stigma and hope for Zambians living with disabilities”, Elias Munshya blog  (8 August 2014) (www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

When Wynter Kabimba got implicated in the oil scandal in 2012, we called upon President Sata to suspend him so that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) could freely investigate the matter. Sata said no! In 2013, when Wynter stated that the PF would rule for over 100 years, we expressed our concerns at the dictatorial and undemocratic tendencies that started to develop in him. Sata looked the other way. When Wynter stated that Zambians wanted to return to a one party state we gave our opinion. We stated that Wynter was getting it wrong on democracy. We again called upon Sata to fire him. But Sata instead, promoted Wynter and left him to act as President. When in June 2014, Wynter claimed that he had smuggled Kenyans through Nakonde to rig the 2011 elections in Sata’s favour, we said his statement was a falsehood and absolute nonsense. By this time, Sata was nowhere to be seen. He had gone AWOL. We said what we said and we still do believe that Wynter Kabimba’s politics were repugnant to democracy. We stand by what we said about Wynter, but there is more that must be added: Wynter was only but a minute symptom of a grander disease. Firing him does not heal the disease; it only postpones it to another day.

Kabimba and Sata – the good days

Kabimba has been fired not as a way to stump out corruption in Sata’s crooked government, but rather to entrench corruption. Ever since President Sata assumed power, he has never acted, not even once, to stump-out corruption. Instead, Sata has both tolerated and exacerbated corruption. Sata has not acted on several allegations of corruption involving his officials. A publication has shown us evidence of questionable deposits into the bank account of one of Sata’s many sons. Sata has not acted to stop the rampant corrupt dealings involving the Road Development Agency (RDA) that operates from State House. Several ruling party stalwarts have illicit RDA contracts. GBM is alleged to have been a principal supplier of goods and services to the Ministry of Defence, the same ministry he served as minister. In 2011, at the onset of the don’t kubeba government, Apollo Enterprises, a company belonging to Finance Minister Alexander Chikwanda was, without tender, given the contract to rehabilitate State House. Chikwanda never declared interest. Chikwanda is also alleged to have shares in a company supplying Zambian mines in 2014. While these allegations have not been proven in court, it is prudent to have police investigate them. Nevertheless, when the allegations were revealed about Chikwanda’s involvement in these illicit contracts, the result was a witch-hunt that led to the dismissal of Kabimba. Sata acted against Kabimba to protect the corruption of one against that of the other corrupt. This makes the sacking of Kabimba to be an activity of the corrupt against the other corrupt. It is not a fight between good and evil but rather a fight between one set of evil against another set of evil.

President Sata must resign for the same reasons that he has fired Wynter Kabimba. The problem with Wynter is not his alone. President Sata himself created them. What is even more painful is that in firing Kabimba the president has not moved to change the corrupt system that breeds the Kabimbas of this world. The president has gone on to unilaterally choose a new Secretary-General in a way that is repugnant to democracy. Wynter has gone the same way that he came. Without changing the system, we have no guarantee that Edgar Lungu will do anything different from what Wynter did. President Sata has changed the personnel, but he has not changed the system that is responsible for breeding the mayhem. I cannot celebrate the dismissal of Wynter simply because, his replacement comes with the same platform and template that gives way for undemocratic tendencies. The firing of Wynter removes a person called Wynter but retains the same corrupt template in its place.

Sata should resign because, in neglecting to give reasons why he fired Wynter, he has created an avenue for gossip and wanton political recklessness. Under the Sata presidency, State House has been reduced to an orgy of gossip, misinformation and “chilande lande” with no one seeming to be in control. I am surprised that the President chose to fire Wynter through a press statement without caring to let the nation know reasons why he was fired in the first place. Wynter was the Chief Executive of the ruling party. He was a senior cabinet member. He has acted as President of our republic. Surely, for a person of such stature, the president owes a duty to explain to the nation why he decided to drop him. President Sata should not be running our country as if it is his own village or household. He needs to know that Zambians want to get answers from him. He needs to talk to us. He needs to answer questions from the press. He cannot just wake up one day, fire Wynter through a press statement and hibernate back into oblivion.

After the fall of Wynter several ruling party cadres are now claiming that life will be better for them. Some in Kaoma are even saying that it was Wynter that led to their poverty. GBM led a march in Kasama to celebrate the dismissal of Wynter and pledged unwavering support to President Michael Sata. What a reversal! Isn’t this the same gentleman who in 2013 claimed to have fallen out with Sata based not on Wynter but on Chitimukulu Kanyanta-Manga?

By the actions of the Patriotic Front cadres, it does seem as if Wynter was the President who made all the decisions. If indeed, even a portion of all these power-allegations against Wynter were true, then they are a damaging indictment against the judgment and leadership of President Sata. How is it that President Sata allowed an unelected Kabimba to have so much sway over what is constitutionally supposed to be done by a president? Surely, it cannot be Wynter’s problem alone. Could it be that the president is unfit to rule? From the Post editorials, it appears like they are willing to unleash the truth about the state of President Sata’s perceived “weaknesses and failings”. But Zambians of course know that there is something fundamentally problematic with the health and wellbeing of the President. Firing Wynter does not solve the problem of President Sata’s own inefficiency and unsuitability to hold office. Firing Wynter has not resolved any problem. That which is a problem with Sata cannot be resolved by firing a person other than Sata. Sata has failed Zambia, and Wynter was only a symptom of the wider failing of the leadership of Zambia’s fifth president.

President Sata should resign – Munshya

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias (2014). “Sacking Wynter Kabimba: Implications for Sata’s presidency”. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (1 September 2014)

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

This republic we now call Zambia is a product of several currents. As we celebrate 50 years of its existence we must look at all the stories that could help us navigate through these currents so that we can learn from history and not repeat mistakes from that history. Fifty years after our independence, there is no issue that could potentially divide our nation more than the contentious Barotseland Agreement of 1964 (BA 64). Nevertheless, as contentious as it may be, we would be doing a great disservice to ourselves if we do not confront this story. The BA 64 and the role of King Mwanawina III in the formation of our nation are important Zambian stories. Discussions on the BA 64 have dwelt on its formation in 1964 and its abrogation months after independence. However, in order for us to understand the role, if any, it played in the making of our nation, we must situate it within its own context and milieu.

King Mwanawina III

The Supreme Court in the case of Lewanika and Others v Chiluba (1998) paid some cursory attention to the fact that the homeland we now call Zambia pooled several territories administered by the British prior to 1924. Northwestern Rhodesia, Barotseland and Northeastern Rhodesia combined to form the British Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia administered by the British Colonial Office. In the treaty-making system, the British South African Company (BSAC) identified powerful chiefs, signed agreements with them and then used those treaties as the basis for colonialism. By far, one of the most powerful empires in what would become Zambia was Lewanika, whose Lozi Empire covered parts of present Namibia, Angola and Zambia prior to 1924. As such, it was quite natural that the BSAC’s desire to legitimize its colonial crusade involved signing some kind of a treaty with Lewanika. By the time the British Crown commenced its direct rule over Northern Rhodesia in 1924, Lewanika’s Kingdom was somewhat definable. During the struggle for independence, Mwanawina III was the Litunga of Barotseland. He reigned from 1948 to 1968.

President Kenneth Kaunda and King Mwanawina III

Both before and after 1924, when the British ruled over a unified Northern Rhodesia, the Litunga maintained some level of autonomy. This autonomy, however, was a two-edged sword. A Litunga would be influential only to the extent that the British permitted him to. As such, the Litunga’s power was simply an extension of British rule. Even though the British had early treaties with the Litunga, the only thing that seems to matter for them was that they had a dominant king whom they were “protecting”. The subtlest effect of this “protection”, however, had to do with how the British extended this protection to the rest of the Rhodesian territories. While the less powerful kings and traditional rulers still exerted some moderate influence over their areas, Litunga was more formidable over his areas due to the direct consent of the British. This became the dominant political perception of Litungas and the times they lived in. It was certainly so, for Mwanawina III who reigned during the difficult time of the dawn of independence. Barotseland subjects, had by the 1950s come to perceive and begrudge their king not as a liberator but as a collaborator with the British. At one time, the White settlers of Southern Rhodesia were even considering a federation of sorts involving Rhodesia, Barotseland and Katanga. Rumours of such maneuvers were damaging to the standing of Mwanawina III among his people. This became one issue Kenneth Kaunda exploited during the 1964 elections.

Sensing the changing tide for independence in what would later be called the Republic of Zambia, the British decided to side-step King Mwanawina III and gave in to popular demands for native direct rule for all territories in Northern Rhodesia including Barotseland. By the 1950s when Kaunda led the splinter group away from the ANC, there was clear consensus that it was he and his more radical group that would best epitomise and actualise the dream of freedom for all blacks in Northern Rhodesia. Indeed, in the elections of the Barotse National Council itself, Kaunda’s UNIP soundly defeated political parties that were aligned to the ruling aristocracy of the Barotse nation.

However, the greatest historical mistake Kaunda ever committed was misinterpreting the meaning of this win in Barotseland. The reason why the BA 64 will continue to haunt Zambia is closely connected to the way UNIP’s win was taken both by the British and by Kaunda himself. For sure, Kaunda interpreted his win in Barotseland as a sign that the people were solidly behind him to push through an independent nation while ignoring Litunga Mwanawina III. The British too, fearful of UNIP and its mandate were reluctant to side with Mwanawina. Indeed, the king of the once great Lozi Empire was now in a corner. He had no political capital and his British backers had abandoned him. It seems Kaunda had the support of the people of Barotseland, but Mwanawina III still had the throne. A compromise had to be forced. It is this compromise, which would continue to haunt the new nation 50 years after its independence.

The story of Zambia is incomplete without Mwanawina III – Munshya

What can we learn from the context surrounding the Barotse negotiations? First, Kaunda should have treated Mwanawina III more like a partner than as a minor. Truly, Kaunda had the people, but it was naïve of him to push through some changes without having recourse to Mwanawina III’s genuine concerns. Second, KK should have known that winning elections in the Barotse National Council did not mean that the people of Barotseland had decided to do away with their king or their customs. Third, KK should have been more humble after winning and he should have used that leverage to come up with an agreement that was more acceptable to the Litunga and through him, the people of Barotseland. Perhaps KK should have been open to the idea of either federalising or even prevailing upon the British to grant Mwanawina III some boosted autonomy. It has been 50 years since the BA 64 and yet the question of Barotseland still haunts our young nation. Nevertheless, King Mwanawina III remains one of the important figures in Zambia’s history. He was a king, in Zambia.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation:

Munshya, Elias (2014). The King of Zambia: Mwanawina III and the making of a new nation. Elias Munshya blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (October 12 2014).

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

The campaign time has come in earnest. It seems all the parties now have a general idea of who is going to be their presidential candidate. It is game on. Without being sub judice, it is clear that after the discharge of the injunction against Rupiah Banda, the ECZ and several other interested parties almost certainly are taking him as the MMD’s presidential candidate. We, however, await the determination of the final matter to know for sure whether Nevers Mumba will bounce back to lead the MMD into the by-election.

Zambia Decides

By far the winner on the campaign trail so far has been Hakainde Hichilema. Time has worked to his advantage. While the PF and the MMD were embroiled in bitter internal wrangles, HH had the time and support from his caucus to take his “Zambia United” tour across the breadth and depth of our country. This tour had taken him to Solwezi, Nakonde, Kapiri Mposhi and Kabwe. He has also been to Chama, Isoka and Kasama. If there is any candidate that has had a head start to this campaign it is Hakainde Hichilema. The infighting going on with his competitors has helped him sharpen his message. Those discontented with both the PF and the MMD have expressed support for Hichilema’s candidacy. Some MMD Members of Parliament such as Felix Mutati have now pledged to help campaign for Hichilema. It does look like this election will be his to lose.

Even though Hichilema’s campaign has had all these strengths, his fragilities are also quite enormous. Hichilema only campaigned with his wife once: during the launch of his candidacy. And that was the last time we heard of his wife. In Zambia, most successful presidential campaigns must greatly rely on the help of spouses. The Hichilema campaign team should find a way of involving his wife. If she cannot address rallies, they should at least find a way to take of lot of pictures of her with her husband. It is not necessary for her to talk or to address masses like her husband, but it will be good for the optics of Hakainde Hichilema to have Mrs. Hichilema appear with him. Generally, Hichilema appears stiff and rigid on the campaign trail. He has tried to loosen up a bit by biking along other supporters in Chipata. He has also been pictured dancing to some tunes on rallies. That is positive and helps shed off the stiff, business-like and serious appearance.

As stated earlier, the other thing HH needs to work on is to make more appearances with his wife. This is important to the electorate who for some reason still highly regard family unity. The second reason is that spouses somehow humanize candidates. There is something that a spouse brings to a campaign that a candidate cannot. When we look at Michael Sata’s campaign, his wife Christine Kaseba helped humanize him and brought support on her own. Chiluba had Vera during his 1991 campaigns. And so did Levy Mwanawasa, have Maureen, during his 2001 campaigns. I just hope that Hichilema will make his wife a little bit more visible. She has a lot to add to the campaign.

Mrs Lungu addressing a rally in Mongu alongside husband

PF presidential candidate Edgar Lungu has already identified this reality and has his wife by his side during campaigns. She spoke at Edgar Lungu’s rally in Mansa making her husband to quip, “this woman could as well grab my Chawama seat”. That exchange of words can only work to the advantage of Edgar Lungu. It shows that they both as a family are ambitious and want to rule the nation. It also shows that both Edgar and his wife are susceptible to the temptation and trappings of office: a reality that rarely works against any political couple. Spouse involvement in politics also gives the people something to talk about apart from the real boring issues. In politics real issues could be monotonous, repetitive and uninteresting. But what can never be boring is the accent of a wife of a presidential candidate. People would like to gossip about how a spouse wears her Chitenge and how she does her Brazilian hair. They want to talk about how she looks and what she says. In the end, such talk only goes to humanize candidates. It also translates political rhetoric into a more common conversation. And today, between Hichilema and Lungu, Lungu looks more human, and casts a common man image to the electorate. In the ballot box, people would more certainly vote for a candidate they feel identifies with them. Hichilema has a lot of good things going well for him. But he needs to repackage his optics and his wife and family could help him do that.

Hakainde Hichilema

Another matter of great interest is with regard to “tribal perception”. When Lungu went to Mansa, speakers included Kalaba, Inonge, Bwalya and Lubinda. When Hakainde Hichilema spoke in Mumbwa and Kabwe campaign speakers comprised Maureen Mwanawasa and Charles Milupi. That being the case, it appears like Lungu has a more diverse team than HH appears to have. This is not a matter of factual reality, but a matter of perception. And perceptions do matter in Zambian politics. Hichilema needs to deliberately diversify the team he takes on his campaigns. When he went to Muchinga this week, he appeared with Felix Mutati. But he needs to do more than just appear with Mutati. Diversity must appear sincere on HH’s part. It should not appear like he is just trying to work with Mutati to win votes. There has to be some changes in HH’s campaign team to show that he is willing to genuinely work with other political players, particularly those coming from the Northern-Muchinga corridor. The Hakainde campaign team should ask themselves, why is it that in spite of a lot of hard work in this area, his party and campaign still gets perceived as regional or tribal? They need to quickly work on some optics. In Kasama when he visited the Chitimukulu, it was very disappointing that no one came to HH’s defense on time. By the time Mutale Nalumango was responding, it was already too late and Father Frank Bwalya had already taken over the narrative reinforcing the idea that UPND had lied about the Chitimukulu endorsement. What HH needs is a quick response team that handles sensitive tribal issues, especially with regard to Northern-Muchinga-Luapula corridor. This corridor could prove decisive for HH. If he cannot find those that can willingly work for him, he can at least hire someone to do that for him.

This campaign period will be about real issues. But sadly, it will also be about feelings, perceptions, and other irrelevant things. A candidate wins not because they have handled huge issues very well. Candidates win because they connect with the voters sometimes at very personal levels. It is in this regard that we must caution those that are underestimating Lungu simply because he did terribly during the Radio interview. Lungu might not be the best speaker, but if he were able to connect with the common man on the street, it would be difficult to beat him. With good management and change in optics HH could as well become that inspiring politician demanded by the common man and woman.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation:

Munshya, E. (2014). Hakainde Hichilema, Edgar Lungu and the Politics of Contrasts and Comparisons. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org). 13 December 2014

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

 There is no legal framework upon which cabinet could fire Guy Lindsay Scott as Acting President of the Republic of Zambia. Guy Scott can only be fired if a question about his mental capacity or physical capability has arisen. However, as a people, we are perfectly in order to request that Scott recuses himself from acting as executive head of our republic considering how he has bizarrely failed to unite his party and the nation with it. Political settlements are a legitimate part of governance. Zambia is neither a “legalcracy” nor is it a “technocracy”, but a “democracy”. Politicians should be able to talk to one other, pressure each other and, within limits of the law, make deals for the good of the country. It is in this vein that we should welcome the decision by cabinet ministers to try and negotiate for an exit strategy for Guy Lindsay Scott.

Guy Scott of Zambia

I am asking Scott to resign on the basis that he has failed to provide leadership to our country. Scott has sabotaged the ruling Patriotic Front and with that has also sabotaged good order for our government. Some of our people are downplaying the significance of the wrangles in the ruling party. I am of the view that wrangles in the PF do have national security implications. We cannot just treat the PF as any other club. It is a party in government. As such, it is important to know that what happens in the PF could potentially affect the good order of our nation. Scott has failed to provide leadership in his party and this will spillover to the nation. How could Scott claim to preside over millions of Zambians, if he cannot preside over a simple affair of leadership selection in his own party?

Some are arguing that it is the ministers who should resign and not Scott. This argument is very laughable. Scott tried to fire Lungu while Sata’s body was still lying in state. This backfired upon him. He had offended the good sense of Zambian tradition. We gave him a benefit of doubt. We hoped that he would come around. And then the inevitable followed. He lost nearly all the PF’s Members of the Central Committee. Then he lost support for the PF ordinary members who went to Kabwe and elected Edgar. He also lost support of the PF parliamentary caucus. Scott has now lost support of cabinet. How does a guy continue to preside over national affairs when he has no moral authority?

I am aware though that the opposition parties are in support of Guy Scott. This is understandable. But the opposition needs to be cautioned that supporting Scott in his rampage to sabotage the Patriotic Front is insincere and could plunge our peaceful nation into chaos. Scott should not think that our country would go to elections without PF. It is ridiculous to exclude the PF in the elections just as it would be ridiculous to exclude any other party from participation in elections. This is why Scott’s letter to the Electoral Commission of Zambia and to the Chief Justice asking her not to receive Lungu was in bad taste. It was an assault on democracy. It was an act that has the potential to inflame tensions in the nation. It was a provocative act. Scott should go ahead and hate Lungu all he wants, but in so doing, he should not mortgage the good peace we have enjoyed since independence.

The signs were all clear for all to see. It was only Scott who was blind to this reality. Lungu may have his own weaknesses and he definitely has questions to answer to the people. Nevertheless, after the passing of President Sata, MCCs, MPs, and several cabinet members rallied behind the leadership of Lungu. Clearly, had Scott been a good leader and a good reader of national moods he should have sensed that. But instead of facilitating a fair process for the adoption of a candidate, Scott went on create chaos and mayhem all aimed at frustrating Edgar Lungu. And at whose expense? At the expense of the nation’s peace and good order? Scott cannot make choices for the Zambian people. Zambians will elect a leader of their choice on 20 January 2015. We do not need Guy Scott to tell us why Lungu or HH are preferred candidates. We can figure that out on our own. Scott though has a duty to be sensible and reasonable so that he doesn’t cause unnecessary chaos inspired by his diabolical disgust for Lungu.

Guy Lindsay Scott

Scott is now changing stories. He is claiming that all of his cabinet colleagues are on him because he has refused to abuse government resources for campaigns. I should reluctantly state this to Scott: “Kabepeniko bambi.” Scott is not acting this way because he wants to preserve government resources. Scott is behaving this way because, in spite of repeated indication from the Patriotic Front, he has chosen to sabotage Lungu’s candidature for reasons best known to himself. This is ridiculous. A presidential transition is a very delicate time and moment. We do not need sabotage but unity. To claim that ministers should not use their government vehicles is not only silly but also laughable. During by-elections ministers do use their government vehicles to campaign. Why should that be different now? Wasn’t Scott using state resources when he campaigned in the Zambezi by-elections? What about during the Livingstone by-elections didn’t Scott and Sata’s ministers use their official vehicles? What has changed now? Perhaps, what has changed is Scott’s desire to block Lungu at any cost. Scott should know that it is only the people of Zambia who can stop Lungu. Come 20 January 2015, the people will decide. Lungu could go ahead and use his government car. But the ultimate decision remains with the people on 20 January 2015. Scott should not play with the minds of people like “utwaice”. We have issues with theft, corruption and nepotism. For him to inject it while he fights a senseless war in PF is in bad taste.

In 2011, Rupiah had all the cars and the cash. And what happened in the elections? He was don’t kubebad. We Zambians have this matter in total control. Scott should not use legitimate concerns as a façade to hide his own contempt for a leader the PF has chosen for itself.

Munshya wa Munshya

Scott has no confidence of the PF’s MCCs. He has no confidence of members of cabinet. He has no confidence of the ruling party’s parliamentary caucus. He has lost control of the ruling party. This makes him a ruler with legal power, but no political or moral authority.

The only confidence he seems to have at the moment is from opposition parties. And that, by itself, speaks volumes of why he is giving us so much drama. Scott should save us the drama and resign. If not, he should then lead us peacefully so that we can subject both Lungu and Hakainde to the will of the Zambian voter.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation:

Munshya, Elias (2014). Guy Scott must resign: Here is why. Elias Munshya blog. (www.eliasmunshya.org). 18 December 2014

Note: These are full constituency results from the few constituencies collated so far. We are using the following sources: The Post Newspaper, Flava FM and Radio Mano. We are only using those provisional results at constituency level and we will be updating as we go. It is too early but a pattern is showing already. Note that we do not have the new Muchinga Province below.

Please note that the totals above may not be accurate. I will be taking some time to do the totals intermittently.

Disclaimer: These are not official results of the Electoral Commission of Zambia. I do not guarantee the accuracy of these figures.

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

President Lungu

For someone who took almost three weeks to announce the cabinet, it is rather surprising that this cabinet has very few surprises. Unprecedented in the history of our nation, Edgar Lungu becomes the first president to take 19 days to announce a full cabinet. What is equally unusual with Lungu is the fact that by the time he was taking his oath of office, he had already worked for about three years as a minister and as a Member of Parliament. So Edgar Lungu was much more familiar with more MPs than any of the previous presidents. Kenneth Kaunda had known and personally worked with most of the people he appointed as ministers in 1964, but he never took long to identify a cabinet. Chiluba had a fleeting personal knowledge of the MPs, and yet he appointed cabinet just a day after he assumed power. Mwanawasa appointed a full cabinet within days. He most certainly retained Chiluba’s ministers, but added a few individuals here and there. Rupiah Banda in 2008 also kept Mwanawasa’s cabinet but appointed a full cabinet just days after taking the oath. President Sata took slightly a week to form his team.

We can only speculate as to why Lungu took 19 days to form his full team. But looking at the ministers, it becomes quite apparent that the team offers nothing new. With the exception of a few faces, this team remains hugely uneventful.

Emmanuel Mwamba

By far, the most daring of these appointments is Chishimba Kambwili as Minister of Information. Kambwili has not fared very well in ministries that have to do with tact and diplomacy. His first job as Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2011 ended in disaster. His stint at Labour was equally uninspiring. During the run up to the elections late last-year, Kambwili stormed ZNBC studios to protest ZNBC’s editorial choice. This was when Kambwili was Team Guy Scott and not Team Edgar Lungu. It is quite surprising that President Lungu has found Kambwili suitable to take over this portfolio. The selection of Kambwili though might be sending a message that Lungu is willing to put a fighter at information who will dictate news and information for the 2016 election cycle. Kambwili has several strengths. He is a great organizer, having created the Team7500, which served as his own campaign team for Lungu in the just ended election. In addition, Kambwili has turned out to be good with social media. In fact, he used his page on Facebook to organize this Team7500. For sure, both the PF and its government would do with a good social media strategy in this age where news is being dictated by likes, tweets, hashtags and shares.

Vincent Mwale – Youth and Sport

Kambwili’s appointment is also quite ironic. During the PF squabbles, Kambwili was quite outspoken about his disapproval of Lungu and his team. In fact, the storming of ZNBC happened during that same time. On the other side of Team Lungu was Emmanuel Mwamba, a social media and public relations guru who castigated Kambwili for intimidating journalists at ZNBC. Many expected Mwamba to play some role in Lungu’s government with regard to information, news, or public relations. It is ironic that Lungu has completely sidelined Mwamba, but goes to appoint Kambwili as Information minister. This is the same Kambwili whose behavior towards journalists was anathema to Lungu’s PR team led by Mwamba.

Vincent Mwale has been a very consistent figure in MMD politics. It is rather startling that it has taken him over a decade to be recognised as Cabinet Minister material. He has been an MP under four of Zambia’s six presidents. It has taken Lungu to recognize his leadership abilities by appointing him Minister of Youth and Sport. This is quite a great choice. I just hope that Mwale will take his zeal to cabinet just like he worked tirelessly as chair of the public accounts committee of Zambia’s parliament.

Given Lubinda was almost certainly going to bounce back. As a cunning politician, he changed sides quickly when it became apparent that Lungu was going to be the PF’s nominee. He campaigned vigorously for Lungu and he has been rewarded with a strategic portfolio – Agriculture. He takes over from one of the most inefficient ministers in the history of Zambia. Lungu has done well to do away with Wilbur Simuusa.

Michael Kaingu has been appointed Minister of Education. In 2011 Sata merged this portfolio with higher education, science and vocational training. As such, it is a huge responsibility for Kaingu. This gentleman seems to be a hard worker and he is likely to do well at education. However, his role in the MMD squabbles creates a doubt in my mind as to his judgment and character.

Lungu stated at one point that he was going to split some ministries. It seems he has backpedaled. It doesn’t make sense to have one minister take care of Works, Supply, Communications and Transport. This ministry needed to be split. I just hope that the President will go ahead with plans and streamline this ministry. Yamfwa Mukanga is a good choice for this portfolio. Education, higher education, vocational training, and science is one other ministry that needs splitting.

The following portfolios should be merged: Gender, Traditional Affairs and Community Development. They take up too much space and could be better streamlined. From the address of President Lungu it appears Professor Nkandu Luo might not take up the Gender portfolio. If she declines, it will mark a remarkable fall for a woman who was the rising star in the PF government. Her fight with Bashi Lubemba has had an effect on her plummeting relevance.

This cabinet has six women out of 21. This makes it one of the least gender-balanced cabinets in our history. It is remarkable though that the Vice-President is a woman. It has about 9 Bemba-speaking members. This makes the Bemba-block the most powerful chunk in the cabinet. It has four Easterners and three from Barotseland. Even though it has about 50% Bemba representation, I have no issues with its tribal composition. The PF remains primarily a Bemba-speaking party.

Munshya wa Munshya

Lungu has taken a very comfortable posture. He has not stretched nor challenged himself. He is a lawyer and it seems this has come through the choice of cabinet, bizarrely risk averse. He has fired almost all of the ministers that did not support him during the PF squabbles. He has taken an adversarial stand. This is a bit concerning to me. As president, Lungu needed to appear like the big man that he is by absorbing a few of the ministers from the camp that did not support him. It is woeful that Kapeya, Chenda, Simuusa and Sichinga have not been retained. We know Lungu is the boss, but appointing an “adversary” would have shown his true greatness. For now, Lungu took 19 days to come up with a cabinet that lacks both imagination and ingenuity. But it is too early to tell how this team will perform. I wish them all the best.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation: Munshya, E. (2015). “No Creativity, No Imagination: My reflections on President Lungu’s cabinet.” Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org). 12 February 2015

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

As a constitutional democracy, our republic must be led and controlled by both the written constitution and the unwritten spirit of constitutionalism. It would be ridiculous for officers of the state to go on a rampage abusing their discretion simply because the text of the constitution so says. It is dangerous to read or apply the text of our constitution without regard to important principles that undergird it. It would be wanton recklessness for our people to do stuff simply because the constitution says so. It can never be justified to do injustice to another simply because the rote text of the constitution so says. Beyond the written text, we must adhere to common sense, common sense of justice and the call of sanity rationed by a command of justice.

There are a number of officers in our republic who have been given the sacred duty to exercise discretion for the good of our democracy. This is a sanctified calling. It is a huge responsibility. Discretion is not an opportunity for selfishness, nepotism and tribalism. For example, the Head of State has discretion to choose a cabinet of her choice from among the Members of Parliament. She also has been given the discretion and prerogative to elect 8 individuals who should become members of our national assembly. The Head of State also exercises numerable other prerogatives. Indeed for our democracy to work, prerogatives must be had. Cabinet ministers also exercise some prerogatives. In some cases, these prerogatives are quite wide and often ambiguous. The Attorney General does have powers and prerogatives within her jurisdiction and so does the Director of Public Prosecutions. When it comes to the Zambia Revenue Authority Act, the Commissioner General has the prerogative to alter, change or make exceptions to taxes imposed on individuals, companies or corporations. Wouldn’t it be offensive to common sense if the Commissioner-General used this prerogative to exempt her personal companies from paying duty? If the Commissioner-General can’t be allowed to abuse her discretion in that manner, how on earth did Bo Mutembo get the guts to believe that he could walk into our sacred chambers and stop the prosecution of a case involving his own alleged criminal activities?

The exercise of state power, discretion, and prerogative is not just limited to the texts that empower these individuals. The exercise of these prerogatives is tied to the spirit of the constitution and the rule of law under whose guidance the said texts predicate. Several principles undergird the exercise of the prerogatives or discretions of state power. The first principle predicates from the idea that any officer of the republic should exercise her powers to the furtherance of the interests of the republic. Second, any one exercising state prerogatives should recuse themselves, if the exercise of their prerogatives will directly impact on their personal interest. Now there is no law that should actually say so in order for this presumption to be valid. There are so many presumptions at law that we take without having to demand that they be written before they are valid. To demand that everything in law should be written first before it takes effect would be tantamount to threatening our democratic civilization itself.

Bo Nchito has been accused of heinous crimes against individuals and the state. That being the case, we must follow through the law and let the courts deal with these cases. If not for any other reason, it should be offensive to public morality for a DPP to enter a nolle in a case that involves his or her own alleged crimes. The letter of the text of the law has given powers to the DPP to discontinue prosecutions of any criminal matter. But the law never envisaged a situation where the DPP would discontinue a matter that involves her own alleged personal crimes. However, in the specific case of Mutembo Nchito, we all should be patient enough to hear what the Magistrate Court will finally rule on the matter.

Nchito should stop hiding behind bombasa – Munshya wa Munshya

When people demand that Bo Mutembo should account for his alleged criminal activities, they should be taken seriously. Mutembo and his cartel did well to go beyond the business of running a law firm to the business of running airlines. Good for them, they diversified. However, we should be firm in our demand that those who want to run airlines, law chambers or mines should do so with a specter of integrity. Regardless of how many airplanes you acquire, if you are using stolen money, it cannot be good for the county. As we used to say in Chiwempala, “zimya neighbor” using “indalama isha kwiba” does not help in the long run. Here is what Bo Mutembo should do. Stop hiding behind the bombasa of nolle prosequi. We have had presidents in this country whose bombasa got stripped and they had to account for their alleged crimes. These presidents commanded our soldiers, ruled over the police, and all the million guns in our country quivered at their signature. What makes Bo Mutembo think that he could get away from the people’s process using a “nolle”? There have been great men and women in this country who have had their day in court. Bushe bena tabali bantu? What makes Mr. Zimya Neighbour think that he can get away with these allegations? The best way to beat these allegations is not by all this “nolle” nonsense, but rather by accounting to the people of Zambia. Zambians have some questions. Bushe indalama sha ndeke shali sha kwiba? What about the court judgment, did you falsify it? When you became DPP did you know that you had stolen “katundu” from the Zambian people? When trying to convict Chiluba and his friends, did you cook some evidence? These are some questions our people are asking. And it is only right that they get an answer even if that answer has to be whispered in court. Bo Mutembo, please save us the drama and take off that bombasa, tafiweme!

President Lungu

President Edgar Lungu is now Head of State. He should act quickly in matters that threaten national integrity. It is not right for His Excellency to ignore this matter when there is some evidence, at face value, that suggest some crimes may have been committed by the occupant of a constitutional office. President Lungu should not be ruling through “slow motion”. There are decisions in this country that must be made before making trips to Addis Ababa, Cape Town or Mfuwe. If he can’t act on this serious matter, we should all doubt his seriousness to fight corruption and rein in a cartel that went berserk dogging allegations of crimes, theft, and corruption.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation: Munshya, E. (2015). “Indecent Discretion: Why Nchito’s “nolle” defies both law and common sense”. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) February 2015

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

President Lungu in exercise of his power has appointed a Mr. Likando Kalaluka as Attorney General of the Republic of Zambia subject to parliamentary ratification. This last week, a parliamentary committee met to scrutinize the appointment. It has been common practice that the committee would invite submissions from the Law Association of Zambia (LAW). The LAZ is a statutory body created to regulate the legal profession. More than that though, LAZ is also a “fellowship” of some kind that advocates for lawyers’ interests.

LAZ Vice-President Linda Kasonde presented to the committee what she stated to be the LAZ’s position over the appointment of Mr. Kalaluka. According to her, the Council of LAZ (which is a highest management committee) would not support President Lungu’s nominee. On close scrutiny, it has emerged that she might have presented to parliament views that are at most not representative of the Council of LAZ. There is doubt about whether indeed what Ms. Kasonde presented are the views of LAZ.

Ms. Kasonde in her submission to parliament did rightly state Article 54 of the Constitution of Zambia and the role of an Attorney General (AG). An AG is an ex-officio cabinet member and principal legal adviser to the Government. Government in this case includes all the three branches and their subsidiaries. The qualifications for appointment to the office of AG are that the candidate must be qualified for appointment as Judge of the High Court. This means that for a person to be appointed as Attorney General they must have been member of the Zambian (or any other commonwealth bar) for at least ten years.

Linda Kasonde – LAZ

Being Attorney General also comes with some bells and whistles: the AG on appointment becomes a “leader of the Zambian Bar”, and gets automatically conferred with the “status” of “State Counsel”. The most ridiculous aspect of Ms. Kasonde’s submission to parliament showed itself in the way she mistreated the subject of “State Counsel”. According to her, Mr. Kalaluka does satisfy Article 54 of the constitution to be Attorney General since he has been practicing for the past eleven years. Nevertheless, she feels that Mr. Kalaluka cannot be appointed AG because he does not have the necessary experience and respect to be a “State Counsel”. I must respectfully differ with Ms. Kasonde here. She conflates issues. In fact, she uses very selective and at most wrong law and authorities from other commonwealth jurisdictions. Mr. Kalaluka is not being appointed to be State Counsel, he is being appointed to be Attorney General. The test, therefore, that he must meet is not the test for State Counsel, but rather the test for Attorney General, which is ten years at the bar and “some respect”. In her submission however, Ms. Kasonde goes to use authorities that have to do with being conferred the status of “State Counsel” and completely ignores both convention and custom with regard to appointments of Attorneys General in the commonwealth. The authorities that Ms. Kasonde uses on Queensland, Scotland and British Columbia are irrelevant here. Here President Lungu is appointing a quasi-political officer known as Attorney General.

Perhaps a little tutelage can do for Ms. Kasonde. The role of Attorney General is a both quasi-political and political appointment. It is a politician (a President) who chooses the individual to be the principal legal adviser to government. This person as per constitution must have been a member of the bar for at least ten years. It so happens that this political individual appointed to be AG must be conferred the status of State Counsel as an auxiliary consequence of the political appointment. This role is not strictly a bar seniority position. It is a political process tampered by at least 10 years of experience.

If we went by Ms. Kasonde’s reasoning, then we must be using army procedure when electing a president since a president also becomes Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. This is a ridiculous submission to say the least. When Zambians are electing a president, they are electing, not a soldier, but a civilian who after receiving the oath of office assumes auxiliary functions of Commander. The president of the republic becomes a commander, just as an AG becomes leader of the bar and gets conferred the status of “State Counsel”.

Ms. Kasonde mentions that Mr. Kalaluka is a man of integrity, he has good character but for his “lack of relevant experience” he would be suitable for office. Bo Kasonde might need reminding that these are the qualities we need in an AG: a person with good character and integrity. She also submitted that Mr. Kalaluka needed a “little more experience”. Isn’t this insulting? Kalaluka has been a member of the bar for eleven years. He has appeared in all levels of court. He has an LLB from UNZA and an LLM in disability law from Ireland. How then does, according to Ms. Kasonde, he not meet the requisite experience? All those who have been at the bar for over ten years should really question Ms. Kasonde’s thinking here. Today it is Kalaluka and tomorrow it could be anybody. I cannot possibly stomach this kind of reasoning from Ms. Kasonde.

Ms. Kasonde then alludes to the position that a group of State Counsel took over Mr. Kalaluka. According to her, several individuals currently holding this rank do not support Mr. Kalaluka. While I really do understand their concerns, I do not believe these concerns are fatal to a political decision such as this. They just do not want an eleven-year call to join their ranks. But these lawyers need to separate their own sectarian interests from the whole. State Counsel are advisory and are consulted from time to time, but they do not make decisions for the Law Association of Zambia. And yes, as AG, Mr. Kalaluka would become a leader of the entire Zambian bar including these very State Counsel, but that is a political role. A republican President, who otherwise has never even held a gun, does by virtue of the political office become a commander of all the guns held by our armed forces. It would be ridiculous if soldiers objected to this and stated that they would only “respect” a Commander-In-Chief who knows how to shoot and kill the enemy.

Munshya wa Munshya

In making the discussion above, I have made it clear that the sentiments that Ms. Kasonde purported to present to parliament were actually her own. I am skeptical if these sentiments are indeed representative of the LAZ Council. To this I must now turn. The current term of the LAZ Council comprises sixteen members: President Chisanga, Vice-President Linda Kasonde, Secretary Likando Kalaluka, and members Mr Mwenya, Mrs. Yangailo, Mr. Mwitumwa, Mr. Lisimba, Mr. Tafeni, Mr. Muyatwa and Mr. Dzekedzeke. Others are Mr. Mwiche, Mrs. Kateka, Mr. Banda, Mr. Mwitwa, Mr. Sikaulu and Mr. Chulu. Apparently, the Council must meet regularly to make decisions on day-to-day decisions for the LAZ. Once a republican President nominates an Attorney General it is general practice that the nomination is given deference. LAZ does routinely support these appointments. As for Mr. Kalaluka’s appointment, however, it seemed to be a little complicated. Obviously, Ms. Kasonde convened a LAZ Council meeting but they could not form a quorum. So she innovated to have the meeting vote by “e-mails”. According to her letter sent to all members of the Zambian bar, the vote went as follows: Mwenya, Tangailo, Mwitumwa, Lisimba, Tafeni, Muyatwa, and Dzekedzeke were in favour of having Mr. Kalaluka as AG. The following voted “no”: Kasonde, Mwiche, Kateka, Banda, Mwitwa, Sikaulu and Chulu. This means that the vote was a tie, seven were for the resolution and seven were against the resolution. After noting that the vote was a tie, Ms. Kasonde decided to use a very controversial provision in LAZ rules to vote again (twice) so as to break the tie. And she voted again against the resolution to support Mr. Likando Kalaluka. There is a lot to be said about this controversial provision (SI 155 of 1996).

From this voting pattern, I have some questions, and please indulge me. As you can see from the foregoing, the president of LAZ Mr. George Chisanga decided not to vote. He abstained. Mr. Kalaluka too was asked not to vote because he was the subject in the proceedings. It appears to me that Ms. Kasonde should have recused herself as well since she obviously was patently against Mr. Kalaluka. She shouldn’t have voted twice. Having regard to all these issues, I am of the view that this “e-mail” voting was patently unfair and appears not to have been a correct reflection of the sentiments of the members of the LAZ Council. Controversially, I am shocked that Ms. Kasonde went ahead to make presentation to the parliamentary committee inspite of the obvious confusion inherent in this process.

Another disturbing pattern of the vote is that mostly, it is Bemba names that were against the resolution. I do not want to accuse the Bemba members of the LAZ Council to be tribalists, but they might need to explain this. How come it is Kasonde, Mwiche, Kateka, Mwitwa, Sikaulu, Chulu and Banda that are against Kalaluka? Did tribe play a role in this? Interestingly though, Mr. Kalaluka’s CV we have obtained seems to indicate that his languages are English, Lozi and Nyanja. Conspicuously missing from this is Bemba! Interesting. Nevertheless, Bemba-speaking citizens of our republic need to really create a space where we can in unity discuss this idea that we are the centres of this nation while others are only but peripheral. And going by the voting pattern, I call upon our people to realise that merit should not include “tribal” merit. As an Aushi, I must state here it is not in the interest of our shared Bemba commonwealth that we should as a people become insensitive to the interests of other citizens. Zambia is for all Bembas as well as Lozis. President Lungu nominated a Lozi citizen of our republic to be our government’s chief legal adviser, it is only right that we give great deference to this nomination.

Mr. Likando Kalaluka has satisfied all the requirements for appointment as Attorney General of Zambia. I appeal to our parliament to ignore the submissions given by Ms. Linda Kasonde and ratify this appointment. There is a lot of work to do, and the sooner Mr. Kalaluka starts the better! As for Ms. Kasonde, she perhaps might need to read a little more about what obtains in British Columbia, Scotland and Queensland about Attorneys General, and not just about “State Counsel”.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here are the two documents Ms. Kasonde submitted to parliament and a letter she wrote to the LAZ Council after using their name to attempt to derail Mr. Likando Kalaluka’s nomination. Judge for yourselves.

LAZ SUBMISSION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF AG

LAZ MEMORANDUM ON APPOINTMENT OF AG 18.03.15

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

The wisdom of the ages is strikingly clear. According to Pope Celestine I, “we are deservedly to blame if we encourage error by silence.” The manifestation of tyranny is always subtle. Oppression, no matter how heinous, usually does have trifling beginnings. Those who end up being oppressors frequently never plan to. They become tyrants by the deafening silence of the disaffected. When the state acts to violate the inviolable rights of its citizens, it usually does so by abusing legitimate legal power. State violation of human liberty, is rarely about whether the state has the power or authority to punish the wrongdoer but about the processes followed when punishing such a wrongdoer. It doesn’t matter the motives of the state, if its actions have the effect of eroding constitutional liberties we must as a people hold such a state to lawful accountability.

President Lungu

To keep good order in our republic, security agencies must be allowed to use force, but this force must be reasonable. The nature of humanity sometimes calls for the use of force more often than satisfies our comfort. The Zambian state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that those that live in Zambia, citizens or otherwise, follow the law in the conduct of their personal affairs. To keep the peace is a sacred duty of citizen and alien alike. However, if peace is threatened, or if criminals begin abusing the peace of our country, then the security agencies are justified in taking appropriate and reasonable action to redress the harm. The key here is that force must be both “appropriate” and “reasonable”. The use of police power should be balanced by a respect for constitutional liberties. It is these constitutional liberties that act as a milieu in checking the abuse of state assets. Our constitution stipulates what the state can do and cannot do when it is using force. Police cannot just begin shooting thieves on the streets; neither should they mount roadblocks anywhere and everywhere.

In Zambia’s constitutional structure, bullets and bombs held by our militaries cannot be triggered or activated without consent from our elected politicians. Patience is the virtue of force. Bullets have no minds of their own. Bombs would love to boom, but before they do, the decision to have them explode must be made by rational civilian representatives. Soldiers, paramilitaries and all the forces in our country are under civilian supervision for political accountability. The Zambia Police and the Zambia Immigration are accountable to our elected officials, and the elected officials are, in turn, directly accountable to the civilian population. To abuse the military, the police or the immigration officers is an insult on the revered integrity of the Zambian people. Zambia is a democracy; it is not a military dictatorship and neither is it a police state. Both the President of our republic and the Minister of Home Affairs are directly accountable to the people in the way the security forces deploy force. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, just as there is no such thing as absolute state power. To deviate from our democratic system is to invite danger and court trouble. After defeating the Kaunda dictatorship in 1991, our people should not accede to the return of despotism.

Police Inspector-General Stella Libongani

In meeting a legitimate state objective, Zambia’s department of Immigration and Police over the weekend raided a church service and detained its worshippers. Congregants of the Swedish Pentecostal Church were to be released only after they showed their immigration status. Apparently, the police and the Registrar of Societies had been closely watching this church. Listening to the immigration department spokesperson, you would see that the state did seem to have a genuine objective in trying to stop illegal immigrants. But this is only but a part of the story. The state as, I have mentioned above, has a duty to be reasonable, proportionate and sensible in the way it deploys force. What is offensive with the action of the police is the chilling effect that such operations have on the constitutional liberties of the people. The Zambians’ freedom to worship is sacrosanct. Sending armed police to a church service is disproportionate and, at worst, unjustifiable in a democracy. Couldn’t the state have found a better way to address the illegal immigrant problem than raiding a church while a service is occurring? A typical church service in Zambia doesn’t last more than four hours. Couldn’t the police have waited until the service was over?

Munshya wa Munshya

The police command have a choice about how they will use their arresting powers. The police power of arrest or detention is not a demon that manifests at an inappropriate time demanding a knee-jerk reaction from officers. It is not an uncontrollable beast that can only be tamed after it has drunk the blood of its victims. Rather, the power to arrest is to be deployed in such a way as to accord and respect basic liberties of the people. Respect for basic human liberties makes legal state action lawful; any disrespect for liberty makes legal state action unlawful. If the police have a choice between arresting people before, during, or after a church service, both common sense and law demand that they do so in a way that is least disruptive of constitutional liberties. The police must be sensitive to what we hold dear as a Christian nation. Church services are cherished by the soul of this nation. There is absolutely no justifiable reason, no existential threat, which a church service poses that should justify a paramilitary invasion. To say that the police can follow crimes wherever they want, whether it is in a church or otherwise, is plain nonsense. The police are constitutionally constrained in the use of power. They can’t just show up anywhere and everywhere in the name of policing. They should not just enter any church and disrupt a service on the pretext of arresting illegal immigrants. Immigration officers cannot just be detaining people simply because they have a legitimate reason to do so. It is liberty that gives legitimacy.

If a church service of the Swedish Pentecostal Church is not respected today, there is no guarantee that a mass celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church will be esteemed tomorrow. I request President Lungu and his cabinet to direct the police to delicately balance the use of force against the constitutionally enshrined respect for religious expression.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation:

Munshya, E. (2015). Liberty Defiled: President Lungu must stop police from invading church services. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) 10 April 2015

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

Truth is the greatest antidote to error. The pain of truth is far more desirable than the comfort of lies and deception. It is better to build a continent or nations on a foundation of truth than try to build a people on false assumptions. For many years, Africans have been trying to live under a false conjecture that they are a united people. The pressure to try and appear to be united manifests itself in the senseless penchant for blood. What we see in South Africa today is terrible. But it is not new. Africans all over the continent have been butchering each other like senseless beasts. We must not pretend like South Africa is the only problem. The very foreigners being butchered by South Africans have been butchering one another in the countries they come from: Somalia, Congo, Rwanda, and Eritrea to mention a few. An answer to the problem of Xenophobia in Africa requires some honest soul-searching. It must demand some analysis, some deep questions. We must earnestly abandon, the false philosophies of a “united” people and adopt a worldview that is more attuned to African realities.

Munshya wa Munshya

Just a few months ago, the people of South Sudan, fresh from independence, started to slaughter each other. The Angolan government has taken an anti-Congo stance that is so ridiculous that it has led the Ba Kongo people into a senseless xenophobic hatred between those that belong to Angola and those that belong to the Congo-Kinshasa. In the 1990s, Katanga governor Kyungu wa Kumwanza introduced the kuba telemusha doctrine in which the Luba-Kasai were ordered deported from Katanga so that they could return to their native Kasai region. The Bemba-speaking peoples of Katanga were among the people groups that participated in this ethnic cleansing. To date, Wa Kumwanza has not answered for his crimes. In Cote D’Ivoire, there is always a tension between northerners and southerners and between those that believe are genuine Ivorians against those believed to be of foreign origin. We have no space here to mention the struggles of Rwanda and Burundi. As for Somalia, the country remains ungovernable today due to the various warlords that have each claimed a chunk of the capital and the territory. In fact, someone has observed the more ethnically homogenous an African society is, the more likely it is to face serious political instability of murderous proportions. In Central African Republic, the Africans are killing each other, tribe against tribe, religions against religion, and vice-versa.

Cecil Rhodes is the patron saint of Pan-Africanism

To address the issue of all this xenophobia, Africans must adopt new ways of thinking. The philosophical underpinnings and aspirations of the African continent must begin shifting. Africans must give up the burden of trying to be united. They must admit that they are diverse and different. The aspiration of being “one and united” people has created such a psychological obstruction for the African mind. From the time Cecil Rhodes proclaimed a united Africa from Cape to Cairo, Africans have not given up on this Rhodesian dream. The African needs some truth. And acknowledging that we are not “one” is the first step to healing. We are different. We could have the same colour of skin, and live on the same geographical mass called “Africa”, but we must acknowledge that we are a divided and diverse peoples. This acknowledgement has got to be the new foundation upon which we could build new stories and narratives that would help rather than distract Africa. The more we tell each other that we are “one” people, the more conflicts we have. Let us give up this lofty dream that is so unrealistic. Let us accept and embrace our differences no matter where those differences come from. Diversity and difference is, to some extent, socially constructed. As such, it does not matter how we classify ourselves, once we acknowledge these classes it could be the beginning point for healing.

President Zuma

After we acknowledge how different we are from each other, we must then, ask ourselves, how should I treat the person who is different from me? Should I kill another simply because they are different from me? Does “difference” provide me with a reason to kill another? There is power in “difference”, regardless of how we have come to conceptualize that difference. But the acknowledgement of difference must submit to higher values. And these values have more to do with how I handle the person that has been labeled or the person I have labeled as different. We need a philosophy of hospitality: an attitude to the strangers.

We need to realise that people do not need to become like “us” in order for them to escape our killing. The problem in South Africa is not the “us” problem, it is the issue to do with how different South Africans should treat the many different Africans, and how the many different Africans should treat the South Africans. Should they kill the other simple because she is the “other”? Africans need now embrace Post-Africanism. In Post-Africanism, we are not afraid to embrace difference.

As a post-Africanist, I am delivered from the burden of trying to push unity upon a continent that has never and would never be united. Instead, post-Africanism reaffirms the truth from Jesus Christ: “do unto others what you would love them do unto you”. Post-Africanism acknowledges the diversity of the African peoples. It sees this diversity as a strength not a weakness. It sees tribes, nationalities, and shades of blackness as a true strength of the African peoples. Post-Africanism then challenges these different peoples, to treat each other with utmost respect and love for the other. Doing so is truly liberating. You are no longer trying to force unity. You are no longer trying to disingenuously claim “oneness” with a people that are different from you. Instead, post-Africanism takes you towards hospitality. It makes you treat a Somali, a Bemba, a Xhosa, a Barotse, a Biafran, a Shangaan, a Kasai, just like you would want to be treated. It is this post-African hospitality that might just help and save Africans from butchering each other to extinction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

We all must congratulate the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Zambia for its one-millionth baptism. Since its establishment in Zambia, the church baptized its one-millionth member in April 2015. While this feat has not been easy, it has demonstrated the resiliency and faithfulness of one of Zambia’s most widespread churches. The celebrations themselves were politically marred by a miscalculation of who should have greeted whom, and who avoided greeting whom. But beyond that, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church must be celebrated and commended.

Members of the SDA can be found in business, politics, government, science, health care and other aspects of our national life. In spite of a very socially and politically active membership, what is really surprising with the SDA church ecclesial leadership is just how it has managed to stay apolitical and politically ambivalent in a nation that has increasingly blurred the church-state divide. Why is it that in spite of its political clout, the ecclesial leadership of the SDA has stayed above the political fray?

The role that the Christian churches have played in the life of Zambian nation has only come to considerable academic attention very recently. Perhaps due to Marxist philosophies of the first and second republics, Zambian academics did not pay much attention to the role that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, had played in the life of the nation. Unlike its neighbours, it is curious to note that Zambia’s first public universities completely ignored faculties of theology and religion. After the fall of Kaunda, however, the critical role that the church has played in the political processes of Zambia is now being taken seriously academically.

The academic study of church-state relations in Zambia has very frequently been evaluated mostly from the perspectives of the Roman Catholic Church (through the Zambia Episcopal Conference), the evangelical churches (through the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia) and the other mainline denominations that are members of the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ). Specifically, when church-state relations are discussed in Zambia, they are often discussed in the context of how the political establishment has related to the Catholics, the evangelicals and the CCZ. At least three religious organisations have been ignored: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the SDA, and the New Apostolic Church of Zambia.

According to Dr. Isaac Phiri (1996; 1998; 2001), the church in Zambia becomes more politically active to fill an occasional void left by a weak civil society. What drives the Zambian churches’ tone in their dealings with the state according to Dr. Phiri has got to do with whether there are other voices that are speaking for the population or not. If there is a vibrant civil society, the Zambian church does not routinely participate or interfere in politics. Dr. Phiri’s thesis could be true if applied to the political participation of the so-called mother bodies: the EFZ, the ZEC, and the CCZ. Dr. Phiri’s dissertation did not explore the reasons behind the apolitical stance taken by either the Seventh-Day Adventist Church or the New Apostolic Church. The SDA church does not concern itself with political matters even when there is a weak civil society, like other churches routinely do. We must investigate why this is so.

To be very clear, the SDA has been involved, very heavily, in providing solutions to the social-humanitarian issues affecting Zambians. They have erected schools, built hospitals, directed HIV/AIDS interventions and initiated several other initiatives. A few years ago, the SDA even established a university, now called Rusangu University. This goes to show that the SDA is quite aware and very involved in the social-humanitarian issues affecting Zambia. But what is lacking in the social-humanitarian stance of the SDA is the church’s complete apathy towards the political question. Why don’t SDA leaders use their numbers or political clout?

Politician and businessman Hakainde Hichilema is a member of the SDA church

Roman Catholics have undoubtedly openly used their political clout to influence politics in Zambia. The ZEC issues pastoral letters frequently. From the Kaunda days to the present, there is no doubting the political weight and influence of the Church of Rome. The noisy Pentecostals have made their clout felt as well. With the new phenomenon of the Major Prophets, Pentecostal preachers have acquired new levels of political outspokenness keen on changing the political landscape of Zambia through national and trans-national political “prophecies”. The same can be said of members of the CCZ. Member denominations of the CCZ have very frequently made their minds known about politics. What you will never hear is the political opinions from the SDA church leaders, why is it so?

Some answers to this question could be found from the central teachings of the SDA church. While the SDA’s 28 Statements of the SDA’s Fundamental Beliefs call for a church that is acutely aware of its evangelical, missionary and social-humanitarian mandates, there is no clear direction of how the church should respond politically within the 28 Statements.

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church

However, the official church document on church-state relations appears to address this political question quite adequately. It states the following: Adventists “must remain ever mindful of the dangers that are associated with religious influence on civil affairs and assiduously avoid such dangers. When Adventists become leaders or exert influence in their wider society, this should be done in a manner consistent with the golden rule.” The official document continues to state that the Adventists “should not, however, become preoccupied with politics, or utilize the pulpit or our publications to advance political theories”.

President Lungu greets Edith Nawakwi at an SDA event

It appears that the SDA church leaders in Zambia have followed the official church document on church-state relations to the letter. Their absence from the political fray has definitely been deafening. In spite of the temptation for the church to stray into the political arena, the leaders have exercised a lot of restraint. The official document does seem to suggest that the SDA church could speak out only if religious liberty is at stake. With one million members on its books, the SDA church has demonstrated that a church can exist and have tremendous political clout without having to fray into the political arena. There is more to church life than political involvement. If the Catholic Church and evangelicals have shown a more politically involved consciousness, it is fascinating to note the SDA model that has remained apolitical. Zambia is bigger and greater because of the religious diversity in the nation. In that sense, the SDA should be more than welcome to the table of our national conversations even if they will have nothing to say when the political dialogues get boiling.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation:

Munshya, E. (2015). Converting 1 Million Baptisms Into Votes: An analysis of the political theology of the SDA Church in Zambia. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (7 May 2015)

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

Munshya wa Munshya

The honorable Dr. Joseph Kasonde was born in 1938, his youngest counterpart in the legislature, Hon. Dawson Kafwaya, was only born in 1984. Between these two years is a spectrum of the ages of the current members of the Zambian parliament. Perhaps the most dominant myth to grace our politics in Zambia, is this persistent notion that “tired”, “old” and “finished” politicians rule our republic. This myth drives some of our youth to desire a political revolution that will usher in the “young” generation. There is no doubting that the Zambian population is very young. Our median age is 16. With a life expectancy of about 50, improving from the time we got serious with condoms, over half of Zambians are below the age of 20. At my age, I am older than about 75% of all Zambians. Some Canadians find it rather amusing when they learn that at my young age, I am quite a madala in Zambian terms.

The greatest threat to our national development is neither old age nor young-age, but it is theft, bribery, corruption and nepotism. It is ridiculous to think or even imagine that our senior citizens of our republic are the main reason why we are not performing well as a country. The call for a younger political generation is insufficient, by itself, to take us to the Promised Land. Zambia needs a balance of age so that the promise of youth is balanced by the strength of old age. Our problem really is not that we have too many old people in our politics; in fact, we do not have too many old people in our politics. We probably have very few of them.

When some Zambians demand for young people to take over our politics, it is important to define what “young” means and what is “old”. I will take it that all those born in the decade of Zambia’s independence are young, while those born before independence are “old”. If we used this as a mechanism, we will find that in actual fact, the Zambian parliament is relatively young.

Of all the 159 Members of Parliament in Zambia, I had age data access to about 132 of them. Only two of the 132 MPs were born in 1938: Alexander Chikwanda and Dr. Kasonde. They are both 77 years old. Members of Parliament born in the 1940s include: Wina (1941), Lingweshi (1941), Lungu (1943), Willombe (1943), Scott (1944), Kazabu (1945), Chanda (1946), Chituwo (1947), Kawandami (1947), Kaunda (1947), Limata (1948), H. Mwanza (1949), Kapaya (1949), Mooya (1949) and Phiri (1949).

Members of Parliament born in the 1950s are twenty-six. I will mention only but a few. Chifumu Banda, Mutale, J. Lungu, and Shamenda were born in 1950. They are 64 years old. Imenda, Kazunga and Luo were born in 1951. Kaingu, Yaluma, and Muntanga were born in 1952. Katuka and Chipungu were both born in 1953 while Simbyakula was born in 1954. Munshya, Muchima, and Lufuma were born in 1957. The following five were born in 1959: Mutati, GBM, Mwimbu, Matibini, and Matafwali.

Dr. Joseph Kasonde

From the figures I have presented above, only 43 of the 132 MPs, I analysed, were born before 1960. Contrary to some perception that we do have a lot of “old” people in our politics, a bulk of Zambian politicians are actually, 50 years old or younger. They were born after 1960. Specifically, fifty-five of the current MPs were born in the decade between 1960 and 1969. Thirty-three were born in the 1970s. Dawson Kafwanka of Solwezi is the only MP born in the 1980s. Born in 1984, he is the youngest member of the current national assembly. Additionally, Kafwanka is the only MP who does not meet the requisite minimum age to qualify as a presidential candidate. In Zambia a presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old.

Those born in the 1960s have the distinction of being politically vocal and controversial. Another analysis should be done as to why this is so. It is from this group where we find the most presidential aspirants. I think this is the group that feels like they are “true” Zambians mostly born after independence. Simuusa (1962), Lubinda (1963), Mukanga (1965), Nkombo (1965) and Kambwili (1969) have all been floated as possible presidential contenders. It remains to be seen how far this group will go. All of Zambia’s presidents so far, were all born before 1960: Kaunda, Chiluba, Levy, RB, Sata and now Lungu. Presidential contenders Hakainde Hichilema and Nevers Mumba were both born after 1960.

Members of Parliament born in the 1970s look like they will shape the future of Zambian politics. It is from this list where we have the likes of Cornelius Mweetwa (1976), Miles Sampa (1970), Harry Kalaba (1976), Levy Ngoma (1975), Dr. Chilufya (1972), Habeenzu (1973) and Vincent Mwale (1978). It is also quite interesting to note that ten youngest members of this present parliament are either ministers or highflying members of their party parliamentary caucuses.

Dawson Kafwaya

In addressing the age of MPs, we must deal with the longevity of individual MPs in parliament as well. Experience is important for an institution such as the National Assembly. The Republic of Zambia is only 50 years old, and yet most of the MPs we actually have in parliament have only been in parliament since the year 2000. In our desire to push for youth, we must not neglect the importance of institutional memory. Chikwanda was an MP for a few years in the 1970s and apart from him, no one of his current colleagues have that distinction. Our parliament is not only young, but it could also be short on institutional memory. Scott and a few others were MPs in the 1990s, but that is just about it.

From Kasonde to Kafwaya, we need to take our national rhetoric beyond the age of our politicians to asking important questions about integrity, values, and commitment to liberties. I really do not care how old an MP is, as long as they will not steal from the tax payers. Theft, and not age, is my greatest concern about politicians. And as one prophet said: “age aint nothin’ but a number.”

 E. Munshya, LLM, M.Div.

Hakainde Hichilema can be quite upsetting sometimes. Just when President Lungu is trying to settle in his presidency, there appears Hakainde Hichilema making it difficult for President Edgar Lungu to shine. Just a few days after an increase in the price of paraffin, petrol and diesel, HH took it upon himself to “rub it in” by going into our compounds and meet the people that are directly affected by the increase in fuel prices. Hakainde Hichilema’s message seems to be simple; he is going into Bauleni, Kanyama and Mandevu to try and explain to the people what his UPND party stands for and what it can do. He is also claiming that he is visiting compounds to get in touch with the alleged suffering of ordinary citizens. Doing so does seem to be a great effort on his part. He has to leave the incredible comfort of his multi-billion-kwacha house to visit with the everyday people.

Hakainde Hichilema 

Hakainde’s visits are quite damaging to the “Ifintu ni Lungu” government. In fact, regardless of who was president, it would still be hard and challenging for them. But unless HH commits a crime, he has every right to visit any compounds in our country. HH has every right to go to Milenge, visit Mongu, cycle in Chadiza, drive in Chazanga, or “gandula” in Katete. Zambia belongs to HH as much as it belongs to President Lungu. President Lungu does not own Zambia more than HH does. As such, it is quite ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable for the Zambia Police to use force to prevent HH and his sympathizers from going to meet with ordinary people in the compounds. With due respect to the Police commander of Lusaka, she was wrong to hold that HH needed police clearance to go to Mandevu. Actually, not even the Public Order Act gives police the powers to stop a citizen of our republic from visiting Chawama, Bauleni or Kanyama. Requiring police permission to go to SOWETO market belongs to the old and tired regime more barbaric than our times.

Lusaka Police Commissioner Charity Katanga

The said police commanding officer is not a typical “kapokola”. She is an educated young woman with academic and professional credentials that are an envy to many. And yet in spite of all these credentials she still went on to infringe the free rights of a citizen of our republic. Zambia is not a police state. Zambia is not a military state. We do not need permission from the security forces to enjoy the liberties of “amayendele”. I must appeal to the Lungu government to be reasonable in the exercise of their power. Just a few weeks ago, the Police and Immigration Zambia raided churches and disrupted worship services in the name of enforcing immigration laws. I objected to that action. Today, they are now stopping citizens from visiting compounds unless they have prior police permission to do so. We all should find such action to be absolutely unacceptable in a free nation. Abena Zambia tebasha iyo who need to check in with slave-masters before going to the market to buy tomatoes.

Democracy flourishes in an environment of voluntary competition. Politicians must market themselves freely. It is the people of Zambia who would ultimately pick the winner. While we can only have one president at a time, this should not be taken to mean that once a person becomes president, they must then infringe on the rights of others to aspire for the presidency. As long as Zambia remains a democracy, we shall always have people envying Plot 1. That is a fundamental issue we cannot derogate from. For people to wish they were in Plot 1 and for people to aspire for Plot 1, they must do so in a way that is both democratic and reasonable. As such, the police services should not be seen as hindering that natural democratic liberty.

Zambia isn’t a police state – Munshya

If we are saying that we are One Zambia One Nation, there is no better way to demonstrate our unity, than by giving space to each other. Even if it inconveniences us, democratic ideals must be followed to the letter. This is more reason why we should all express our displeasure at some innuendos from the ruling party that seem to suggest that Zambia should become a one-party state. Wynter Kabimba as Secretary General of the Patriotic Front several times intimated that Zambia was going to become a one-party state. But where is Wynter now? He is promptly head of a political party called Rainbow Party. I wonder what could have happened to the colours in his Rainbow had the PF remained the sole party in our republic. Just as we condemned Wynter then, we do condemn senior members of the PF who are currently promoting a one-party state. This perhaps could explain the reason why the police are so hard on Hakainde Hichilema. Is it a plot to usher in a one-party state?

Munshya wa Munshya

I believe very sincerely that Zambians do not want a one-party state. I believe that Zambians want to listen to all politicians so that they can make up their minds about whom to vote for. I believe that all this talk about a return to a one-party state is nothing but noisy hullabaloo that would lead to nowhere. I also believe that once we hold true to our promise of democracy we will find it appropriate to let politicians campaign freely without let or hindrance. I have great faith in the Zambian people. In next year’s election, the people of Zambia will be given another opportunity to choose a leader. This year, they went for Lungu. And I am one of those that supported Lungu’s candidature. This is how democracy should work. I trust the people of Zambia to make an informed choice about their future next year. In order to do so, the people of Zambia should be allowed access to Hakainde and to the many others aspiring for the presidency. Chaining HH just doesn’t make sense at all. The Police should respect the Zambian people to make informed choices about their future. We don’t need ba kapokola to make choices for us or to prevent us from making a particular choice. Long live our republic, and may God bless it faithfully.

E. Munshya, LLM, M.Div.

Kuli ba Kaunda, Intanshi mutende!

Kenneth David Kaunda

Thank you for the speech you gave on Africa Freedom Day, 25 May 2015. On that day, the president of our republic, Edgar Chagwa Lungu decided, for some reason to give you an honour and recognition of “Founding Father of Zambia”. I am still not too clear about what that means exactly. I have always thought that you are the father of Zambia, to some extent. You helped lead this Northern Rhodesia to independence, combined it with Barotseland and named the territory Zambia. For that, I thought you needed no formal recognition since history itself will always recognize you as deserving of that honour. I am also reminded that it is actually the MMD’s Levy Patrick Mwanawasa who honoured you with the highest honour in our land by conferring upon you the distinction of Grand Commander of the Eagle of Zambia, First Division. In that regard you stand in a class of your own.

Munshya wa Munshya

Many received your May 25 speech with a lot of joy and gladness. For those of us who hold African traditions dearly, we interpreted your speech as a way to bless your children. We took it as a way to bless your grandchildren and speak well of their future. Literally, at 91, Ntambalukuta you belong to the top 0.1% of our population. God has been good to you. For some evangelicals, your speech was also intercessory. You stood in the gap for Zambia to release “its people and the presidency from every negative forces made against Zambia.” You also submitted “souls now living and those that will be born later to the salvation and Lordship of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Father.” These are very deep words. They are very powerful. To me you sounded like you have now returned to the faith of your father, David, who was one of the first African missionaries to evangelize the modern day Zambia. Even if you claimed in your 1973 book, Letter to my Children, that you found your fathers’ faith not as satisfying, it seems from the 2015 Africa Day speech that you have wholly returned. And for that, I must thank you for making the deep personal recommitment to the God of David Kaunda, that great Malawian evangelist. You, Ntambalukuta, have preached just like David Kaunda would have preached.

The Faith of David Kaunda

Ntambalukuta, perhaps with the awareness of our common mortality, I notice in your speech that you declared, “Zambia shall forever enjoy tranquility and remain a united and peaceful people under the motto: One Zambia, One Nation”. These words are also deep. Well done. You see, perhaps, that the greatest legacy you want to leave for Zambians is that legacy of a “One Zambia, One Nation” motto. Beyond, this declaration though, it is important that you try to help the nation settle the Barotseland issue. Do not just make spiritual declarations; it would be good for you to facilitate a peaceful discussion with some of our citizens who believe that you gave them a raw deal in 1965 and beyond.

Without burdening you further, Kanabesa, I would like to ask that you continue to pray for us. I have a few prayer requests to present to you. It is your wish that this nation continues subsisting in peace. You have also prayed that our country remains under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Your speech is very similar to the discourse your successor Frederick Chiluba made when he declared Zambia as a Christian nation two months after defeating you in the 1991 elections. In fact, I am wondering whether you had a little help from Chiluba’s speechwriters.

As a father who fought for independence and ruled our country, your prayers have more gravitas than those done by the many foreign prophets who are ever so eager to drop a few lines about Zambia. So please, Ntambalukuta, pray for us.

• Pray for us so that we are delivered from the spirit of kaloba. Kanabesa, as things stand now, the destiny of this country is being mortgaged at a rate we have never known before. Very soon we are likely to be a Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) again, if we continue this senseless nkongole. Please help us pray for our nation so that we get delivered from the spirit of shylocks.

• Pray for us so that we stop leaders from stealing. Our country has never lacked prayer warriors. We have plenty of them. In fact, by use of television satellites we have preachers beaming live prophecies meant for the president and his cabinet. More than just these prayers, Kanabesa we need deliverance from theft and corruption. Help us pray that President Lungu will not steal money from the treasury. Please help us pray that President Lungu, his cabinet and their children will not help themselves freely from the sweat of taxpayers. Kenneth Kaunda, pray for us.

• Ntambalukuta, you have declared great unity and freedom for Zambians. There is a demon we need deliverance from that is closely connected to your wishes. It is known as the “Public Order Act”. Kanabesa, I do not need to preach to you about it, because this is a spirit you know very well. In fact, you inherited it from the colonialists. You used it very well through your time as president. Your successor, Chiluba, also used it against you. The current president, and your son, Bo Lungu is still using it greatly to curtail the free exercise of constitutional liberties. Bo Hichilema, another of your sons, cannot visit Milenge or Kanyama without a police permit from Bo Libongani. Please pray for us, as this is unacceptable. I hope you too will realise how unjust it is for Zambians to get permits to visit Bauleni.

• During the 2015 Good Friday weekend, police futilely invaded church services in Lusaka searching for “illegal” immigrants. We protested against this action. Please pray for us that President Lungu will respect constitutional liberties, particularly the freedom to worship the Lord to whom you have dedicated this country. Arresting illegal immigrants while they are worshipping is an abuse of state power.

I have a lot of prater requests, Kanabesa. But for now, let me end here and continue working for the great future of this country you founded. In a little way, by asking the presidency to adhere to the rule of law, I feel like I will be making real your wishes and your prayers for a greater Zambia. Ntambalukuta, pray for us.

Naleka nine,

Munshya wa Munshya

Ntambalukuta

E. Munshya, LLM, M.Div.

There have been reports that single mothers are having a hard time obtaining National Registration Cards (NRCs) for their children due to the demands by some registration officers for details of the father of those children before they are issued NRCs. The Non-Governmental Organisation Coordinating Council (NGOCC) has rightly observed that such demands by some registration officers are not only illegal but also disenfranchise a generation of voters. While it is true that it is only a few registration officers guilty of these illegalities, I believe that even if we had one case, it would still be one case too many. In modern Zambia, there should be no reason why mothers should be denied to register their children simply because they do not or cannot supply the details of the father of those children.

Edith Nawakwi

I do believe that some registration officers could have fundamentally misunderstood our current laws. According to our current laws, both the mother and the father are equal before the law as far as the family is concerned. Women are no longer legally subservient to men. As such, the father is not legally more of a parent than a mother is. Any woman who is a mother or guardian of a child has all the rights that a man who is father has over that child. These rights include the ability to obtain NRCs for their children. As such, for NRC officers to demand that a mother produces a letter or proof of paternal parentage goes against the current law.

According to the ruling of Lewanika and others v. Chiluba, a National Registration Card does not confer Zambian citizenship. The card merely registers Zambian citizenship. That being the case, when interpreting who and how should one obtain an NRC we must go to the constitution and find out how one acquires citizenship. Children born of a Zambian father or mother become citizens of our republic. In the case of women, it really does not matter the citizenship of the man who made them pregnant. A Zambian woman, who bears a child fathered by a Malawian, transmits Zambian citizenship to that child. When the time comes for the registration of that child, the mother could go to the NRC officers, swear an affidavit and have that child obtain their NRC.

Perhaps the most significant case that dealt with this issue is Nawakwi v. Attorney General (1991). Let me restate some facts. Ms. Nawakwi applied for the renewal of her passport. That passport had endorsed in it the names of her two children born out of wedlock. When she had applied for this original passport, the NRC officials made her swear affidavits whose effects were to make her appear like a secondary factor with regard to her legal rights. At the time of renewing that passport, the NRC officers asked her to produce written consent from the fathers of the children and swear more affidavits to that effect. She refused and commenced legal proceedings.

The ruling of Mr. Justice Claver Musumali was clear. Zambian law should recognise single parent headed families. The demand by the Passport Office for a father’s consent was illegal and Ms. Nawakwi did not need permission from the biological father of these children to put them in her passport. Justice Musumali did not have choice words for the Zambian government. He stated:

It is not at all justified … for a father to treat himself or to be treated by the institutions of society to be more entitled to the affairs of his child/ren than the mother of that child or those children.

Musumali then rightly declared, “the mother is as much an authority over the affairs of her child/ren as the father is.” These words from the Nawakwi case are powerful to shatter any doubts from a few NRC officers who are blocking women from obtaining NRCs.

Munshya wa Munshya

I must then add another dimension to this discussion. Zambian peoples are quite diverse. Patrilineal tribes in Zambia derive inheritance and the family tree through the father. Matrilineal tribes, on the other hand, derive inheritance and the family tree through the mother. With such diversity, it is ridiculous for NRC officials to insist on the identity of fathers only at the expense of mothers. To be clear, matrilineal tribes do not have family names, in the same way, as patrilineal tribes do. In patrilineal tribes the practice is that all children are given the last name of the father and that name becomes the family name or the surname, as the case may be. It is this last name through which “patrilineals” can know their clan and their family tree. In matrilineal tribes, this is not the case as the last name of a person has very little to do with the clan or the family tree to which that individual should belong. For example, patrilineal families from the East could sustain the last name of “Jere” derived from the father. That Jere name in fact could go on to tell you the clan of the person. It is not so among “matrilineals”, since you cannot tell someone’s family tree simply by the last name. The family tree and clan are derived from the mother. So in Luapula, there is no such thing as “Munshya” being a clan or family name, it is simply a name. For one to figure out a clan, they must ask the mother of Munshya. A last name in Luapula doesn’t mean as much as it does among patrilineal tribes. When obtaining NRCs, therefore, there is likely to be confusion when a mother from a matrilineal tribe shows up with her children all bearing differing “surnames”, even if they have the same biological father. This could be bewildering to NRC officials, but it shouldn’t. It is cultural reality for most of our people.

I appeal to all of our citizens, far and wide, women as well as men, to do the right thing and register their Zambian children freely and without fear. To the great women of our country, feel free to exercise the liberties afforded by your sacred citizenship to transmit it to your children without recourse to the men who made you pregnant. To the NRC officials, keep doing a good job, but for those officers who are unsure of the law, read Nawakwi again and let the women obtain NRCs for their children.

President Lungu greets Edith Nawakwi