Tag Archives: Frederick Chiluba

In White & Black: Why Guy Lindsay Scott Satisfies Article 34(3)(b) To Stand as President of Zambia

Posted on March 19, 2013 | 6 Comments

Guy Scott1
By E. Munshya wa Munshya
 
Article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia 1991 (as amended in 1996) contains the notorious “presidential parentage” clause, which among other things states that for one to be president of Zambia both parents should be “citizens of Zambia by birth or descent.”
Following questions that have been raised concerning the eligibility of Zambia’s vice-president Hon. Guy Scott on whether he qualifies to hold the office of vice-president or whether he qualifies to stand for the office of president, I wish to conduct an exegetical study of current Zambian constitutional law. This study will show that if Article 34 is read together with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lewanika and others v Frederick Chiluba, Guy Scott and many others racial minorities in Zambia, would qualify to stand for the office of President of the Republic.
 
In the context of a republic such as ours, a constitution is the supreme law of the land. Constitutional supremacy means that the constitution is the tenet by which all institutions of government are governed. It also means that any law made by the legislature that is inconsistent with the Constitution can be struck down. The role of striking down a law that is inconsistent with the constitution is a preserve of the judiciary. In our context, it is the High Court and the Supreme Court that have the powers to declare any given law null and void to the extent that it violates  the constitution. However, the Zambian courts do not have the powers to strike down any article in the constitution. The only power they have with regard to the constitution is the power to interpret it. The courts also have the power to arbitrate on questions of constitutional importance. The extent to which the power to interpret actually goes into questioning or even striking down a constitutional article is a philosophical one. All lawyers and jurists within the common law systems at least would agree that the consequence of judicial interpretation sometimes does go into judicial legislation. In other words, even if judges claim to only be interpreters of the law, the consequence of their interpretation might lead to subtly altering the law. This argument should be left for latter, as it is beyond the scope of present inquiry.
 
The consequence of judicial interpretation implies that a constitution like we have in Zambia is derived from several sources. First, our constitution is derived from a written physical document, which was passed by our parliament in 1991 and amended in 1996. What that document contains is our constitution. However, that document alone does not constitute Zambian constitutional law. A correct view of the constitutional law of our Republic, therefore, should be found in that document as well as rulings of the High Court and the Supreme Court that have interpreted some sections of that constitution. It is important to note here that Zambians should pay particular attention to judicial rulings because they as well as the constitutional document comprise the constitution of the Republic of Zambia.
If someone therefore asks you what the constitution says about “presidential parentage” you would be in order to quote Article 34 (3) (b). However, if you have to correctly interpret this article then you must refer to the rulings of the courts on this matter. 
 
Specifically, then, what this means is that Article 34 (3) (b), the famous presidential parentage clause, should be interpreted within the ambit of judicial rulings. But why are judicial rulings important? First, judicial rulings are important because they become law. In law, through the principle of judicial precedence, when a higher court in a hierarchy rules on a matter all lower courts are supposed to follow that precedence. Consequently, what the higher courts rules on a matter becomes law with regard to that matter under consideration. Second, court cases are important because they show the development of our laws and the constitution. Third, judicial decisions are important because constitutionally, it is the judges who are final arbiters in legal, equitable and constitutional matters. Every lawyer or jurists is supposed to pay particular attention to these rulings.
 
This brings me to Article 34 (3) (b). What it says seems simple:
A Zambian presidential candidate must have both parents who are Zambians by birth or descent.
But the next question is, what does this mean? Well this article can mean different things to different people. This article contains some concepts or ideas that we take for granted but indeed would require a tome to interpret. Concepts such as “parent”, “birth”, “descent”, or even “Zambia” could mean different things to different people. But if we are to remain faithful to the rule of law, then we must defer to the courts a legal interpretation of these concepts. Further, If we are to remain faithful to the rule of law in Zambia then we must take what the courts have ruled on this matter as the correct interpretation of the law.
 
The meaning of Article 34 (3) (b) was adequately provided in the Supreme Court case of Lewanika and others v Frederick Chiluba. In consistent with the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis it is important that lawyers and jurists give adequate respect for this ruling for it helps us interpret the constitution. In fact, Chiluba is a constitutional milestone.
 
The Chiluba case is an important constitutional case. Since the Supreme Court has not reversed it, it remains law and is consequently part of Zambia’s constitutional law. But what was this case all about? In 1996, the Zambian parliament amended the Zambian constitution and among other things included the “presidential parentage” clause in the constitution. At that time, it was widely believed that parliament passed that law to disqualify President Kenneth Kaunda from standing since Kaunda’s parents are believed to have come from present-day Malawi. Indeed in the 1996 elections, Kaunda boycotted the elections and urged his UNIP party to abscond too. Chiluba and his MMD party contested the 1996 elections and other parties that include Dean Mung’omba’s party and Agenda for Zambia a party led by Inonge-Mbikusita Lewanika and his brother Akashambatwa. These elections were conducted on the newly amended constitution.
After the elections, however, Chiluba won. He beat his closes rival Dean Mung’omba by a wide margin. Lewanika and others petitioned the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn Chiluba’s election as president. They contended among other things that Frederick Chiluba could not be president of Zambia because he did not satisfy Article 34 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Zambia. Lewanika and others contended that they had evidence that Chiluba was not born in Zambia and that at least one of his parent (particularly his father) was not Zambian at all.
The ruling of the Supreme Court on this matter is very significant because in it, the court interpreted Article 34. Additionally, in this ruling the court even went to the extent of implicitly taking the unusual route of criticising parliament’s law making rationale and logic. For those who know constitutional law, this criticism is indeed remarkable and quite unusual. But in unpalatable language, a full bench of Supreme Court held that through Article 34 parliament had created problems for Zambians in the future. And considering what is happening now barely a decade after the ruling, the Supreme Court judges indeed were prophetic.
 
First, the court held that a Zambian like Chiluba would still satisfy Article 34 even if he were born in a neighbouring country like Congo DR. If it were shown that Chiluba was a British protected person by the time of his birth and that he “ordinarily” resided in Zambia at independence, he would satisfy the requirement of being a Zambian by birth or descent. Using this rule—it means that all those people like Kenneth Kaunda and Guy Scott who were ordinarily in Zambia at independence and were British protected persons satisfy the requirement of being “Zambian by birth or descent.”
 
Second, the court had identified serious problems with the requirement that a presidential candidate’s parents should be Zambians by “birth or descent”. The Supreme Court Justices remarked that this law would present serious problems for the future. In essence they ruled that, this article couldn’t apply to Zambians whose parents were born before 1964—before there was a Republic of Zambia. Essentially then, people like Chiluba (born 1944), Michael Sata (born 1944), Rupiah Banda (born 1943), Guy Scott (born c.1940) and or Kenneth Kaunda (born 1924) cannot produce Zambian parents. This is because by the time that the parents of these people were born in the 1800s, there was no legal or constitutional entity known as Zambia. As such, Banda, Kaunda, Guy Scott, or Sata cannot produce parents who are Zambian by “birth or descent.” Sata’s father or Rupiah Banda’s father were not born in Zambia, and they were not descended from Zambia—Zambia itself being an entity born in 1964 and whose citizenship requirements were set out in the 1963 constitution.
 
Third, the Supreme Court then addressed a very interesting phenomenon that indeed would apply to Guy Scott. How does Article 34 apply to a white Zambian? In clear language the Supreme Court ruled that satisfying the articles of the constitution have nothing to do with the colour of one’s skin, race or tribe. In fact, the ruling even went to give an example of an ethnic Chinese. Essentially, the court ruled that if a Chinese was ordinarily resident in Zambia in 1964 and acquired Zambian citizenship at independence Article 34 should not bar him from standing for the office of president. Additionally, in a rather comic way, the Chinese example was again used—the Supreme Court painted a hypothetical situation and said that an ethnic Chinese child born in Zambia post-1964 but who gets adopted by black Zambian parents would still qualify since he too can claim that his parents were Zambian by birth or descent. This made the Supreme Court Justices to ask a rhetorical question, so which “parentage” is parliament talking about here? Is it biological or is it adoptive parentage. From the perspective of the judges clearly Article 34 was rather unimpressive.
 
Keeping with the arguments above, it is my conclusion that notwithstanding Article 34, Hon Guy Lindsay Scott can legally satisfy the requirement of Article 34 and can in fact serve as President of the Republic of Zambia. Unless overruled, the case of Lewanika and others v Frederick Chilubais law and therefore applies to Guy Lindsay Scott.
 
The Attorney General of the Republic of Zambia is therefore wrong at law by advising that Guy does not meet the requirements of Article 34. Clearly, if Article 34 were read with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General would come to the same conclusion as I have done.  Guy Scott himself has equally concluded the wrong way by claiming that he cannot be President of Zambia. Nothing is further from the legal truth; in fact according to law he can and does satisfy the requirements.
If Guy Scott decided to run for Zambian president, there should be no law that can bar him. In white and black, a white man can rule Zambia.
Guy Scott2

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Zambian Law, Zambian Politics

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba (Part II): A Turbulent Vice-President

Posted on March 6, 2013 | 7 Comments

Nevers Mumba 2

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Zambian Politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Short Man Who Walked Tall: Life and Times of Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba (1943—2011)

Posted on February 17, 2013 | 3 Comments

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

 Biographers differ about where and when Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba was born. Even his names have raised controversy. Chiluba’s background had been such a thorny issue, that in the 1996 case of Lewanika and others v. Frederick Chiluba the Supreme Court of Zambia was invited to make a ruling on who was Chiluba’s father and where Chiluba himself was born. Before the court were three possible fathers: a Mr. Chabala Kafupi (a Zambian who claimed Congolese descent), a Mr Zahare (a Mozambican), or a Mr. Chiluba Nkonde (from Kawambwa) whom President Frederick Chiluba himself statutorily declared to have been his father.

As for his place of birth, the court heard several conflicting accounts. According to Dr. John Mwanakatwe, Chiluba was born at Musangu Village in Luapula Province. Another account declared that he was born at Wusakili in Kitwe. Some petitioners in the case of Lewanika and Others even claimed that Frederick Chiluba may have been born at Chibambo CMML Mission Hospital in what was then the Belgian Congo. When called to testify about Chiluba’s background in the same court case, William Banda told the court that Frederick Chiluba who was then known as simply Titus Mpundu lived in Mufulira and spoke a Congolese dialect of Lingala.

The court dismissed William Banda’s testimony and ruled in this case that regardless of who was Chiluba’s father, or where he was born, Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba was still a legitimate Head of State and was a citizen of the Republic of Zambia.

This background is necessary in this article to point out how, a man without a clear family history rose up to become President of the Republic of Zambia. And in mourning him, we should all remember, that there are some qualities that made him stand out and made him gain the confidence of the Zambian people to elect him to the presidency in 1991. If there is anything that the life of Frederick Chiluba should teach us is the fact that regardless of our background and our limitations, destiny does not delude those who work hard. The story of FJT Chiluba is a story of how a man in our time lived to overcome his limitations and soared to lead the nation from dictatorship to a democracy.

Clearly as shown above, Chiluba had no rich family history. In death, his father still remains as mysterious as when he was alive. His place of birth is still subject to speculation. The fact that as a young boy he was expelled from a Kawambwa School also shows the kind of limitations that the young Chiluba faced growing up. In a society that looks down upon short statured people, it is clear that his height too could have one of those drawbacks. But the story of Chiluba is a story of inspiration in spite of limitations.

Here a man without High School education worked hard as a bus conductor to read a few A Level courses which he later admitted to have flanked. Additionally, not to be outdone by his many challenges, Chiluba went as far as Tanzania looking for opportunities. When he came back to Zambia in his twenties, he translated the knowledge he acquired while working in the Tanzanian Sisal industry into good use. He used his courageousness and his fearlessness to become a defender of his fellow workers. Through the trade union, a diminutive Chiluba had found an opportunity to talk and walk the tallest.

When Kenneth Kaunda legislated that all trade unions would be amalgamated and controlled from one umbrella body, little did he know that one of the leaders that would use this umbrella body to oust him was Frederick Chiluba. Indeed Chiluba used and enjoyed the visibility that his stature gave him. And as an outspoken member of the unions, it was just natural that the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions would appoint him its leader. The leadership position he held until 1991 when he was elected president of the Republic.

During Chiluba’s tenure at ZCTU Kaunda made several overtures to have Chiluba appointed into Cabinet. However, to his credit Chiluba refused. A man from a poor background was not quick to jump into the opportunities of richness. He did not want to abandon his fight for the workers in order to eat noble bread at Kaunda’s table. Chiluba, a figure of modest history demonstrated to Kaunda that he was a man of steel, and not even Kaunda could bend him. In 1990, Kaunda wanted to exploit Chiluba’s history. He claimed that Chiluba’s history is questionable. To this Chiluba simply responded, “I am surprised that President Kaunda claims that he does not know me…I am surprised that Kaunda claims that I have a questionable background…I am the one whom he wanted to make Minister of Labour, but I said no, Sir!” With these words, Frederick Chiluba demonstrated to Zambians that he had not been dented by Kaunda’s corruption and therefore was ready to lead the Third Republic.

In 1990, choosing a leader for the MMD was not an easy feat. But all sections of the MMD united around Frederick Chiluba. Even many academics in the movement acknowledged the intelligence and brilliance of Chiluba. Chiluba acquired this brilliance, neither in the walls of the classroom nor in the decors of laboratories but rather on the street. It is this courage, this education, and this street wisdom that made Frederick Chiluba fit to lead Zambia’s new political party.

And in consistency with his predecessor, one of the first acts of the presidency was Christian commitment. For Kaunda, three months in power in January 1965, he launched the United Church of Zambia, calling it a “national edifice.” For Chiluba, three months in power he addressed a prayer meeting at State House where he renounced corruption and witchcraft and declared Zambia as a Christian nation. This 1991 declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation is perhaps one of the most far reaching decisions that would long linger in history.

Chiluba was a fighter for worker’s rights as a union leader. He was incorruptible. He refused several of Kaunda’s overtures at corruption. He stood for principles. But history will ponder when he started entertaining excesses. The fact that, after his presidency in 2001, he was found to have had hundreds and hundreds of custom made suits, shoes, and underwear stands contrary to a Chiluba of the 1980s. In death, Zambia should continue to reflect on what may have gone wrong and on how a champion of the poor became so excessive.

If Chiluba defined himself as a political engineer, this was true in practice as it was in theory. A man who failed A’ Levels could still make it in academia. It was Warwick University that saw the potential in Frederick Chiluba and gave him a chance to enrol for a Master of Philosophy Degree. In his dissertation entitled “Democracy: The Challenge of Change” Chiluba explained political theory and committed himself to leave the presidency after he had served 2 terms. He was critical of the “President for Life” syndrome. But a few years before his second term was to expire, it appeared that he too was falling prey to the African disease and a Third Term started to infect a few of his close associates including his party secretary Michael Chilufya Sata.

To his credit however, Chiluba kept his word and left office after ten years. His political geniusness led him to sidestep his popular former vice-presidents Godfrey Miyanda, Christon Tembo, and national secretary Sata to appoint a political nemesis Levy Mwanawasa as his successor. This decision would haunt him for years to come.

Chiluba, a 1980s champion of workers’ rights and a 1990s champion of liberal democracy was under the Mwanawasa administration answering charges of theft. His six-year trial is as much part of his legacy as his other years. No doubt that some Zambians will remember Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba for the charges of corruption he faced more than for the good things he did while in office. The pain of those charges and the embarrassment they brought against his personal integrity has been discussed by many.

Chiluba’s only redemption came in 2008, after the death of President Levy Mwanawasa. Mwanawasa’s successor, Rupiah Banda refused to call Chiluba a thief such that when the courts of law acquitted Chiluba of theft, Banda called him a damn good president. The Post Newspapers felt insulted by Banda’s words and continued to call Chiluba all sorts of names.

In death, however, Zambians should put their political differences aside and unite in mourn the passing of an extraordinary man. A diminutive man who walked among us with extraordinary courage. 

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

“The Declaration of Zambia as a Christian Nation: Blessing or Curse”: What Gershom Ndhlovu Misses About Pentecostals

Posted on February 5, 2013 | 6 Comments

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

The book The Declaration of Zambia as a Christian Nation: Blessing or Curse is Gershom Ndhlovu’s debut book. It is available at amazon.com in kindle edition. It is a book for the modern person in many ways, first, as a publication utilizing modern technologies. And second, by how much it makes use of the Internet and social media for its resources.

For about $12.00, the book simultaneously downloaded to my kindle on all my three devices. The wonders of modern technology had fused with the awes of creative writing employed by Mr. Ndhlovu. I swiftly commenced my reading, switching between devices as time and opportunity allowed.

The publication of this book in kindle format has implications for Zambia. It is limiting to the extent that only those with Internet and a credit card could probably purchase it. This drastically restricts the reach of an otherwise good historical book. Second, this publication goes to show that the leaps towards modern technologies are here to stay. Zambian authors can therefore publish their books in the most inexpensive manner using such devices as amazon’s kindle. As such, Ndhlovu’s work is a mixture, both a blessing and curse.

Mr. Ndhlovu explains the purpose of his book in the last pages. He states that he was motivated to write this book because pastors and politicians who had been abusing the Christian faith to advance their personal agendas had disillusioned him. These pastors and politicians actually sidelined people, obviously like him, who “wanted a secular system of governance”. He then continues to state that he hopes that “the objective of promoting the separation of church and government would have been met by the facts presented” in his book. After reading the book, I have doubts whether Mr. Ndhlovu actually discharges this objective.

I think the book is good in presenting some political history of Zambia. However, even then, the history Ndhlovu presents is not necessarily new. He has repeated much of the same history written by other authors. Where he stands out, however, is when he addressed the story of Anderson Mazoka and the issue of Zambia’s struggle with homosexual rights. For a young nation like ours – the challenge for equality for our homosexual citizens remains a very important matter and Ndhlovu does very well to give this matter some visibility.

My critical review of this book therefore will centre on Ndhlovu’s treatment of the Pentecostal faith. This book on the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation is undoubtedly a book about Zambian politics as much as it is about the Pentecostals as important players in the declaration drama.

First, when Ndhlovu mentions that pastors disillusion him – he has explained clearly which pastors he has in mind: the Pentecostal pastors. As such, in his attempt at perhaps questioning these pastors he mischaracterizes the history and doctrines of Pentecostals. For example, he mentions that Pentecostals seem to have grown in Zambia because people flocked there to identify themselves with the president. As a result, “some clergy became some the wealthiest people in the land through tithes that congregants had to pay and other connections they forged with the government.”

While I am sympathetic with Mr. Ndhlovu’s loath for Pentecostals, I find it rather surprising that he could actually misdirect Pentecostal history in this manner. It is open knowledge that Pentecostalism has grown exponentially in Zambia. But this growth cannot just be attributed to a Pentecostal president. In fact, Pentecostalism was on the increase from the early 80s. It is during KK’s tenure that Pentecostalism saw its most substantial development. Chiluba only brought visibility to Pentecostals, something that never existed under the dictatorial rule of Kenneth Kaunda.

It is common knowledge that there are very few rich pastors within Pentecostalism, especially in Lusaka. However, most Pentecostal pastors remain very poor – as poor as their congregants. Three rich pastors in Lusaka cannot be the standard to measure Pentecostals just as the rich Catholic Bishops should not be used as a standard for all other Catholics.

Second, Ndhlovu does not seem to appreciate the grievances that Zambians had with Kenneth Kaunda’s involvement with Eastern Mysticism. It is not for me to debate the merits or demerits of Zambians’ aversion for Eastern Mysticism. My duty is just to acknowledge this reality. In Zambia, Eastern Mysticism has been associated with religions foreign to Zambia. When Kenneth Kaunda started to experiment with these religions – most Zambians (Catholic and protestant alike) were uncomfortable with Kaunda. This was not just the case of overzealous Pentecostals misunderstanding Kaunda. Kaunda in his own book “Letters to my children” expressed how that he had abandoned his father’s Christian beliefs in favour of a more syncretic worldview. Meeting the Catholic leaders in the 1980s Kaunda even intimated to Archbishop Mazombwe that he had met an Indian spiritualist that had helped him understand God better.

And contrary to Ndhlovu’s characterization, when Kaunda hired the Indian mystics to be his spiritual advisors he fired all Christian advisors. This was most probably very offensive to Zambians and that is why it formed part of the many reasons responsible for Kaunda’s removal. In this case, it was not only the Pentecostals that de-campaigned Kaunda – even his own UCZ pastors were at the forefront in Kitwe in denouncing Kaunda’s sacrifice of the nation’s soul to Eastern religions.

Third, Ndhlovu then goes into theology. He discusses the merits and demerits of the “born again” concept and uses scripture and tradition to explain that evangelicals are probably mistaken in their view of being born again. When writing a book like this, probably Ndhlovu should have kept himself away from engaging in theological disputes. Church practices never make sense. They are not meant to make sense. If he holds that traditional churches are more biblical in requiring “catechism” which the Pentecostals don’t, that argument should be left to theology rather than history. Traditional churches also have doctrines and practices that they hold on to which in many cases don’t make biblical sense. Could we go on to the dogma of Immaculate Conception? Or the dogma of Papal Infallibility? Or even then of other doctrines held by historical denominations. When making arguments for or against the Church’s involvement in politics it is hardly a good strategy to discredit other denominations based on theology. Theology is an uncertain discipline to prove anything.

I must mention though that as a theologian, I found Ndhlovu’s love and treatment of Scriptures to be quite refreshing. His own writing does seem to confirm the idea that many Zambians take Christianity very seriously. It is no doubt that Ndhlovu relies heavily on the Bible to prove his points. Ndhlovu’s love for the Bible and his use of the Bible also fortifies the general view that Zambians are thoroughly Christian and would rely on the Bible to prove anything. If Ndhlovu feels that politicians have abused the Bible – he could also count himself among them. He has clearly relied on the Bible heavily to push his own agenda.

Fourthly, Ndhlovu mischaracterizes history when he claims that Pentecostal churches mostly welcomed the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation without support from other denominations. Eight days after the declaration all the three church mother bodies issued a joint pastoral statement supporting President Chiluba’s decision. The EFZ, ECZ, and CCZ all took the declaration as a step in the right direction. The idea that the mainline denominations were opposed to the Declaration belongs to later revisions of history and not to the events surrounding the original declaration in 1991. Unfortunately, Ndhlovu takes the bait and documents a revisionist narration.

Fifth, Pentecostal churches have been shown in Ndhlovu’s book as being very supportive of Chiluba and of following him blindly. But a critical look at Pentecostals would show that Pentecostals are not a unified body and neither is it desirable that they should be so. To take a few voices and impose them on all Pentecostals is not fair analysis. In any case, it is from the Pentecostal fraternity that Chiluba got one of the greatest opposition. Pastor Nevers Mumba, at a time when it was not fashionable to do so, abandoned the pulpit and directly challenged President Chiluba’s corruption. Had Ndhlovu wanted to present a more balanced view of Pentecostal response to the excesses of President Chiluba he would have also mentioned Nevers as an opponent of Chiluba’s.

A few facts might be in order. Even if Chiluba was of the Pentecostal faith, most in his cabinet were actually non-Pentecostal. Indeed, the Post Newspaper when criticizing Father Chilinda noticed that it is actually St. Ignatius Catholic Church that had produced the most corrupt government officers under president Chiluba. What this demonstrates is that corruption and government excesses should not be portrayed as a preserve of one church or one faith.

Sixth, it is quite disquieting that Ndhlovu does seem to suggest that Pentecostals never supported Michael Sata’s ascension to power. Pentecostals were among the most ardent supporters of the Patriotic Front and many continue to support President Michael Sata today. Like most Zambians, the voting pattern of Pentecostals is very complex and they do not just vote based on faith. Had this been the case, Nevers Mumba would have enjoyed their vote since 1998.

Pentecostals are citizens like everyone else and they do support politicians not only based on faith but also based on their stomachs. They supported Michael Sata because they believed that he would help bring change to Zambia. In fact, one Pentecostal congregation produced 3 councilors for PF in the 2006 elections in Lusaka. Among these was the mayor of Lusaka. In fact, Lusaka at one time had two successive PF mayors of the pentecostal faith.

A book like Ndhlovu’s is a good start for history. It has lots of positives. But the Pentecostal story needed a response and I hope my critique above will help strengthen the very ideals that Ndhlovu wanted to promote. I highly recommend Ndhlovu’s book and look forward to further dialogue with him on some of these matters.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Zambian Political Theology

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Toxic Roots: Why Zambians of Congolese Origin Hide their Heritage

Posted on August 26, 2012 | 2 Comments

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

To treat a topic of this nature, a definition of terms is in order. Being of Congolese origin or heritage is a complex notion. However, in this article I use it to describe Zambian citizens with sufficient Congolese connections such as culture, tribe, family, and origins. I do not wish to use this term to describe the Luba-Lunda migrations, but to latter migrations of peoples at least after the 1950s.

Two of Zambia’s neighbours have left an indelible mark on Zambian culture and national identity. These two countries are Malawi and Congo DR. In an earlier article, I had already pointed out the influence that Malawi and her diaspora has had on Zambian political and cultural life. It is time, therefore, for me to turn to the Congo.

The Congo DR shares a 2000-kilometer border with Zambia. None of the other eight (or nine) neighbours comes close to this length. Additionally, over half of Zambia’s urban towns are within 200 kilometers of the Congolese border. Zambia shares more tribes with the Congo than any other neighbouring country. The ethnic groups that are found on both sides of the border stretch from Mwinilunga to Mwansabombwe. Among these ethnic groups are the Lunda, Luvale, Kaonde, Lamba, Lala, Ushi, and the Lunda (Kazembe). The Bemba language, spoken in more provinces of Zambia, is the staple language for much of the Congo’s Katanga province. In fact, Katanga’s major city “Lubumbashi wa Ntanshi” is a Bemba term. Historically, many Zambian tribes claim Congolese origin. That is most of them are descended from an ancient Luba-Lunda Kingdom. These tribes are as sparse as the Bemba in Northern Province to some Lozi speaking peoples within Western Province.

However, in spite of all these realities, it is quite surprising that not many people in Zambia publicly admit to Congolese heritage, origin or connections. I will begin by taking politicians as an example.

When President Frederick Chiluba was running for the presidency in 1990, he was asked whether he had any Congolese connections. His answer was to the effect that his only Congolese connection was that of ancient African history, in which his people, the Chishinga migrated from the Luba-Lunda empire to their current location along the river Luapula. By giving this answer, Chiluba refused any modern Congolese connections. He instead used the same ancient argument that his only connections to the Congo belonged to the 1800s.

Notwithstanding this position, however, any person who has been to Musangu or to Mwense cannot be surprised at just how close these places are to the Congolese border. And indeed, any serious student of history will discover that Chiluba’s refusal to be connected to the Congo is a serious inconsistency. Chiluba did have the Congolese connection which he refused to admit to. But why did he? This article seeks to provide part of that answer.

President Levy Mwanawasa was born of a Lenje father and a Lamba mother (Mama Miriam Mokola). For many Zambians, they may need reminding that the Lamba people exist in both Zambia and the Congo. In fact, the Congo has more Lamba speaking peoples than Zambia. The Lambas occupy much of the Congolese pedicle and they stretch from Lubumbashi down through the pedicle to Sakania. In Zambia, the Lamba are mainly on the Copperbelt.

In Amos Malupenga’s biography of President Levy Mwanawasa, he neglects to mention any Congolese connections that Mama Miriam Mokola had. The only Congolese reference that Malupenga alludes to in his book is that the young Levy was flown to Kinshasa for medical attention after a burning accident he suffered as a child. However, throughout his life, Levy Mwanawasa refused any Congolese connections. But I should here provide a few hints that may indicate that Mwanawasa too had clear connections to the Congo, which he refused to admit to.

Mwanawasa’s mother lived in the Congo after she got divorced from Levy’s father. And he, as a student at Chiwala, did visit her on the other side of the border. Malupenga mentioned nearly all the places Mama Mokola lived in, except for one place. According to Malupenga, Mama Mokola lived in Ndola, Mufulira, Ndola rural and “another village which now has ceased to exist.” It is a village without a name. Malupenga conveniently, left out the name of this village, either because he was not told about it (it was hidden from him), or knew about it and chose not to mention it for some reason. I submit that this village has disappeared from Malupenga’s book because in reality it is on the other side of the border-it is in the Congo. This village should in all probability be between Mokambo and Sakania across the border.

The reason why Malupenga did not mention the Congo is because the Congo is a toxic heritage. Many Zambians of Congolese origin simply refuse to be connected to the Congo. That is they do not want to admit to this heritage publicly.

Additionally, the fact that the young Levy was flown to Kinshasa gives the idea that his family should have been connected to the Congo more than we are made to believe. No Zambian, without sufficient connections to Kinshasa would send their child to seek medical attention in Kinshasa in 1960. As such, Levy Mwanawasa did have sufficient Congolese connections.

In the 2006 elections, the MMD featured two very interesting candidates. One is Jerry Mukonkela for Chingola and the other is Goodward Mulubwa for Matero. Mukonkela was more forthcoming about his “Congolese” accent. A Lunda with strong Congolese heritage, Mukonkela spent some time defending his “Swahili” accent and refusing any connections to the Congo. Goodward Mulubwa also faced the same situation. A successful businessman, he addressed the Congolese suspicions by refusing any link to the Congo. From his name, you could tell he is Ushi from Luapula Province.

The above-mentioned denials typical of politicians are also true for many Zambians from different strata of society. But why do Zambians of Congolese origin or connections refuse Congolese identity. The answer is steeped in history and in the Kaunda Era demonization of everything Congolese. The following paragraphs provide part of the answer.

The first reason is with the way imperialists partitioned Africa and the identity they fostered upon Africans. Armed with a stencil and a ruler, junior Belgian and British civil servants drew a map of Africa, and then demarcated it according to their wishes. They divided up families and did not care about how the new borders would impact on a nephew east of the Luapula River. In the modern geo-political states, this demarcation has caused a false sense of citizenship that has frequently led to African tribes perceiving their own tribesmen as foreigners simply because Queen Victoria and her counterpart King Leopold II decided so. This matter requires further exploration latter.

The second reason has to do with what happened at independence. Zambia’s independence came at a time that the Congo was at war. Congo DR got her independence from Belgium in 1960. However, just months into her independence the Southern Province of Katanga seceded from the mainland, and declared independence. Katanga Governor Moise Tshombe’s military and political prowess provided a serious conundrum for Northern Rhodesian Prime Minister Kenneth Kaunda.

Kaunda believed that Tshombe had recruited his soldiers from tribes that would constitute a future nation of Zambia. If left unchecked, this would bring instability for a newly independent Zambia. Additionally, Whites in Southern Rhodesia wanted to create a federation of three countries: Southern Rhodesia, Katanga and Barotseland. Kaunda was already dealing with the Barotseland crisis and did not want any further complications. Cleary in such a political set-up there was no way Kaunda was going to be friendly to Tshombe and his Katangese agenda. These political issues would create serious suspicions on Kaunda’s part for everything Katangese or Congolese. He became suspicious of his northern neighbour such that after Zambia’s independence, Kaunda’s government would treat the Congo as enemy number one.

The third reason came as a consequence of Kaunda’s policy towards the Congo. He would treat the nation itself as an enemy. Ironically, he never extended this enmity to Malawi. Could it be that he was kinder to Malawi because they were his kith and kin? What should surprise most historians is that while KK was maintaining such animosity towards Congo, his Malawian counterpart was partnering with Apartheid South Africa. In spite of this partnership between Kamuzu Banda and the South African regime, not once did Kaunda treat Kamuzu or Malawi as an enemy.

In promoting anti-Congo policies, Kaunda ostracised many Zambians of Congolese origin. Following the enactment of the 1966 National Registration Act, many Zambians of Malawian origin easily acquired green National Registration Cards. However, this was not the case for those Zambians with Congolese heritage. Additionally, Kaunda deployed an active army on the Congolese border. There were more soldiers at Konkola, Mokambo and Chembe than those stationed at Chirundu to fight Ian Smith’s incursions into Zambia.

The National Registration Act of 1966 and its implications upon Zambians’ self-identity of citizenship should be the focus of another study. Suffice here to state that the Act itself got so misunderstood that even those who qualified to be citizens of Zambia could not do so because of this misconstruction. Zambians of Congolese heritage were the biggest casualties of this Act. It is therefore interesting to note that the Supreme Court used Chabala Kafupi’s testimony in the Lewanika v Chiluba to clarify the Act. In essence a Congolese born Chabala Kafupi who claimed to be Chiluba’s father qualified for Zambian citizenship not because of acquiring an NRC, but on the basis of his being present in Zambia at independence. It is quite unusual that Mr. Chabala Kafupi of clear Congolese heritage mustered enough strength to state this fact in the Supreme Court. But he is the exception.

The fourth reason was that Kaunda enacted an economic embargo against the Congo and consequently against the Lambas, the Ushis, the Lalas and the Lundas and their relatives across the border. Instead of encouraging trade and commerce between the Congo and Zambia, Kaunda banned the export of goods to Lubumbashi. The only, way out for Zambians to profit from lucrative business between Congo and Zambia was by “smuggling through Bilanga.” This was a dangerous way of doing business as many Zambians got killed by Kaunda’s soldiers. It is for economists to calculate how much money Zambia could have made out of trade with Congo. It is only now that government is exploiting the Congo’s business potential.

Fifth, Kaunda deployed a severe academic embargo upon Zambians. Children in Zambian schools were taught very little about Congo DR. In fact, some Zambians were shocked to learn in 1986 that some Congolese are Bemba speaking. This was when Zambia played Congo in a football match in which one of the Congo players was named Kasongo Kabwe – a typical Bemba name. It is no doubt that to date very few in Zambia know that Bemba is one of the Congo’s widely spoken local languages. In fact, only two radio stations in Africa broadcast in the Bemba language – ZNBC and Radio Congo.

Kaunda’s academic embargo also manifested itself in William Banda’s testimony against Chiluba in the famous Lewanika and others v Chiluba case. Chiluba’s connection to the Congo may have been undeniable, but then Banda went for the overkill in the testimony. Banda told the Supreme Court that he had known Chiluba as a young man who hailed from Congo and spoke the Lingala language. Banda’s testimony was probably both true and false. He might have been right that Chiluba may have had sufficient Congolese connections, but by claiming that Chiluba then spoke Lingala, he fed into a false assumption that all Congolese speak Lingala or that all Congolese are “Kasais”. Indeed if Chiluba had those Congolese connections, they could have been derived from the Bemba speaking region of Katanga near the Luapula River and not anywhere near Kinshasa where Lingala is the staple language.

But William Takere Banda is not alone in this misconception of everything Congolese. Here are some facts that might be helpful. The Bemba language is one of the widely spoken languages in Katanga. Bemba speaking peoples, however, have experienced serious problems in terms of political or cultural progression in the Congo. To date Lunda Bululu is the only Bemba speaking person to have ascended to the position of Prime Minister for the Congolese republic. In Katanga itself, Moise Katumbi is the first Bemba to be governor. Before, Katumbi, Bemba-speaking Kunda Kisenga Milundu served as Katanga deputy-governor in a power sharing government after the death of Laurent Kabila. It is now becoming a possibility that Katumbi might as well be the first Bemba-speaking President of the Congo DR.

The sixth reason why Zambians of Congolese origins deny their heritage is purely as a result of prejudice and delusions. Some in Zambia characterize all Congolese as “Kasais”. Just how Bemba speaking or Lunda speaking Congolese came to be understood as Kasais in Zambia should deserve another historical analysis. However, it should be sufficient to note here that while in Zambia, some people mistake all Congolese as Kasais, Kasais in Katanga find it difficult to integrate among the Bemba and other Katangese tribes.

Indeed, some Katangese people regard the Kasais as enemies and vultures. This idea is definitely repugnant. The anti-Kasai sentiments culminated in the 1990s when Katanga governor Kyungu wa Kumwanza, enacted the “Kubatelemusha” doctrine where the Kasais were ordered deported back to Kananga and Mbuji-Mayi. Many Kasai women and children lost their lives during this ethnic cleansing. Wa Kumwanza has to-date not answered for this crime. Some of the Katanga tribes with strong anti-Kasai sentiments are Bemba speaking.

However, while some Bemba-speaking tribes are prejudiced against the Kasais in Katanga, when the same Bemba-speaking Congolese cross the border into Zambia, some Zambians do not differentiate between them and the Kasais. As such, the prejudice against the Kasai has been exported to Zambia, except that in Zambia, every one with sufficient Congolese had been for many years characterised as “Kasai”. It is this anti-Kasai sentiment from Katanga that got fed into Zambia. This characteristically led to Bemba speaking Zambians of Congolese origin to deny any Congolese heritage so that they are not characterized as “Kasai.”

Let me digress here to address the issue of anti-Kasai sentiments in Katanga. Obviously, the Kasai people have strong ethnic patriotism. Even in Katanga they still look to their Kasai regions with nostalgia. Of all the tribes in Congo, the Luba-Kasai are the most travelled both within and outside the Congo. The Ba Yuda du Congo singing group paints the Kasai region as “the blessed land subdued with good rain.” The singing group also casts, in the Luba (Kasai) language, the Luba-Kasai as the “bantu ba bulayo”. Which means a people of promise. The extent to which this patriotism leads to anti-Kasai sentiments in Katanga deserves another analysis. However, it is interesting to note that in spite of the Congo’s instability, no Luba-Kasai has taken to arms to rebel against the government in Kinshasa. As such, the peaceful nature of the Kasai shouldn’t be doubted. Interestingly, of all the Congo’s warlords none is a Kasai. In fact, even when they had the numbers and the infrastructure to lead a successful rebellion in Kinshasa, no Luba-Kasai has ever exploited this channel. In the recent elections, the Kasai Ettiene Tshisekedi lost an unfair election to Joseph Kabila, and yet Tshisekedi never agitated for war or violence against Kabila.

The challenge therefore for the Bemba speaking Congolese is to begin changing their attitudes towards their Kasai counterparts. As these attitudes in Katanga change for the better, this will get fed into Zambia as well. The people of Katanga shouldn’t give into the Wa Kumwanza ideology, not now and not ever.

Back to Kaunda’s attitudes towards the Congo, by the time he had realised that he was too ruthless against the Congo it was too late. Zambians had lost faith in him. But in spite of the general negative against the Kasai, Zambians loved the music done by one of the Kasai’s most famous sons – Luambo Makiadi (aka Franco). It was in the waning years of his rule that Kaunda invited Luambo Makiadi to come and visit Zambia so that KK can benefit from Franco’s popularity. For his part, Luambo Makiadi did not disappoint. His dancing queens and princes penned a song for Kaunda in Swahili, asking Zambians to vote for KK. Franco sung, “President Kaunda, papa wa oliya” – the father of peace.

After Kaunda left the presidency, President Frederick Chiluba succeeded him. Chiluba’s sufficient Congolese connections are obvious as testified to by a Mr. Kafupi (and by Mr. William Takere Banda. Mr. Kafupi claimed to have been Chiluba’s father and his resemblance with Chiluba was unusually striking. With this heritage, one would have expected a change in attitude towards the Congo. But Chiluba, in spite of his clear Congolese connections, refused to normalise relations with the Congo. It was still a toxic heritage.

Psychologically then, Chiluba had internalised Kaunda’s aversion for the Congo such that he too started acting like Kaunda. First, Chiluba refused to admit to have ever been to the Congo. Second, he even rejected a Mr. Chabala Kafupi a Zambian of Congolese heritage who claimed to have been his father. Third, in spite of his village being just a few hundred meters from the Luapula River and consequently from the Congolese border, Chiluba refused to have ever seen or grown up in the Congo. Fourthly, Chiluba cleared the few Zambians of Congolese heritage still serving in Kaunda’s government.

Chiluba, however, softened latter in his presidency towards the Congo. Moreover, the fact that he openly embraced current Katanga governor Moise Katumbi and granted him both asylum and a Zambian diplomatic passport goes to show that Chiluba was tired of hiding his Congolese heritage. The choice of Mwanawasa could have also played in this redeemed attitude. Chiluba as president had information about the full heritage of candidate Mwanawasa. He chose to go with it because Congolese heritage should not be despised any more.

In the age of T.P. Mazembe Football Club and in the days of open business between Lubumbashi and Lusaka, attitudes towards the Congo are changing. Zambians of Congolese origin, who had been living in shadows and fear, have started to openly embrace their heritage. Indeed this is good for Zambia and for the identity of perhaps a million of her citizens. It shouldn’t hurt to be a Zambian of Congolese heritage. It has definitely stopped to hurt for a Zambian citizen to openly embrace those family members separated from her simply because King Leopold and Queen Victoria had so decided. Zambians can do nothing about the past, but for the future they are hurriedly affirming: toxic no more.

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,