Tag Archives: Michael Sata

When a Constitution Forgets: A theory of interpreting Zambia’s constitution

E. Munshya, LLM, MBA, M.Div.

11062060_10153304305617390_6028230914922184723_n

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Surprise, surprise. Now that we have read the new constitution we are quickly realising just how much of a blessing, and a controversy it has become. I would be surprised if a constitution did not evoke opposite emotions and everything in between. Beginning from the Grade 12 qualifications to the omission of deputy minister positions, a debate is raging about the true meaning of many articles and provisions in this amended constitution. The battle lines are drawn. Honourable Chishimba Kambwili is undertaking a tour of the country to find out what the people think about the new constitution. Kambwili wants to propose more amendments to the amended constitution after he receives the feedback from the country. Just how that actually works, nobody knows. Current deputy ministers are in some sort of a limbo. They really do not know what it means now that the 2016 constitution has no direct provision of their existence. Civil servants are equally confused. The constitution states that civil servants who want to run for political office must wait three years after they leave the public service to be eligible. His Excellency Emmanuel Mwamba, as an example, cannot run in the next elections due to this ban. Last week I offered my opinion on the Grade 12 qualification. My interpretation of the Grade 12 requirements is that it is actually just for show and practically means nothing much. In view of all these issues, how would the High Court or the Constitutional Court look at these and many other issues? Every constitution should be interpreted within the purview of a certain theory of interpretation. I present one such theory.

Common sense is the first key to constitutional interpretation. Before you go about turning pages of the constitutional text, ask your self a very basic question. Am I willing to use common sense in this task? Without common sense you can not understand, apply or let alone interpret the constitution or anything for that matter. Common sense is the first article of every constitution. It is the foundation that must undergird any constitution. Common sense is the first gift of God to humanity.

The second element is that the text of Zambian constitution must be interpreted within the ambit of general principles of constitutionalism even if they are unwritten. In common language, we refer to the letter and the spirit of the constitution. The letter is the text of the constitution itself, the spirit is a collection of years of mostly unwritten constitutional thinking that go with it. These principles are such ideas such as the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law. These should then take us to the next point.

The third element of constitutional interpretation in Zambia, is an important presumption: drafters of the written constitution cannot “intend” to insult the spirit of constitutionalism. Here is an example. Constitutionalism entails that the Republic of Zambia must subsist as a political democracy and every text in the constitution must be interpreted in ways that affirm this principle rather than undermine it. If the people of Milenge cannot have among them a Grade 12, the article in the constitution that requires Grade 12 certificates must be interpreted in ways that do not defeat the political subsistence of the Milenge District Council. The municipality must survive. If the drafters drafted into our constitution a Grade 12 requirement that is impossible of performance in Milenge, it is incumbent upon the interpreters of the constitution to cure such impossibility, by giving it creative meaning that gives effect to the bigger picture of political and democratic subsistence.

The fourth element might sound counter-intuitive in view of what I have stated above. The words and phrases in the constitution must be interpreted in their natural meaning. We must not add to the text what the text has not included. For example, we cannot impose deputy ministers into a constitution that has deliberately “forgotten” to include them. Deputy ministers are not an integral part of constitutionalism and neither can they be saved by the principles enunciated above. The 2016 constitution has ignored deputy ministers; we should take the text of the constitution as it is, in this regard. Should we then as suggested by Mr. Tuta Ngulube, go back to parliamentary debates to check for the intention of parliament? Answering this question will lead us to the next point.

11402376_10203044859041503_869703191855196185_o

Edgar Lungu

Fifth, the intention of parliament can only be expressed in two ways:  either through the written text, or through the general unwritten principles of constitutionalism. Parliament can never intend to betray constitutionalism; however, its direct intent can only be gleaned from the text of its legislation, not by the debates. It is no use to try and justify the office of deputy minister by going to the debates of parliament during the adoption of the constitution. The text of the 2016 constitution does not provide for deputy ministers. They are not part of the constitution. They cannot be justified as a principle of constitutionalism, so they should not exist in Zambia. President Lungu should fire all deputy ministers as they are in office unconstitutionally.

These principles and many others will be critical to how the Constitutional Court of Zambia  interprets this new gift President Lungu has signed into law. Constitutional interpretation is an orgy of ideas. The principles enunciated above hope to be part of that orgy.

 

Citation: Munshya, E. (2016). When a Constitution Forgets: A theory of interpreting Zambia’s constitution. Elias Munshya Blog (wwweliasmunshya.org) (January 29, 2016)

Zambia’s Sugo Fiasco: Interpreting the constitution’s Grade 12 requirement

E. Munshya, LLB, LLM, MBA, M.Div.

In the recent constitution amendment signed by President Edgar Lungu is a provision that is both absurd and confusing. According to Article 70 (1) (d), a person is eligible to be elected as a Member of Parliament, if that person “has obtained, as a minimum academic qualification, a grade twelve certificate or its equivalent”. This provision has sent shivers and panic, no less, among the very parliamentarians that passed the constitution. Some quarters are even suggesting that candidates should produce their grade twelve certificates if they are to stand for political office. I submit that the Zambian courts will have to provide a more creative interpretation of this provision if we are to avoid the mess it has brought. However, today, I just want to dispel a few fears.

Is grade twelve the academic qualification for political office? No, the constitution is clear; a grade twelve certificate is the minimum academic qualification. So a person does not need to produce this minimum qualification if they have a superior qualification.

Can a person have a higher academic qualification if they did not complete grade twelve? Yes, in fact many of our senior judges, lawyers and senior civil servants in Zambia never completed grade twelve as they never went to secondary school. Kenneth Kaunda trained as a school teacher and yet he did not have a grade twelve education. Frederick Chiluba graduated from Warwick University with a Master of Philosophy degree and yet he never had a grade twelve education. It is possible for a person to not complete grade twelve and yet have academic qualifications that are superior to it. If Kaunda, Mainza Chona or Chiluba were to stand as MPs under the current constitution, they would not have to show a grade twelve certificate, all they would need to show are their tertiary qualifications.

How can a person have tertiary education if they do not have secondary education? This is what confuses many. In the real world, it does not take secondary education to do tertiary education. In fact, Zambian universities and colleges can admit students on mature entry status who do not possess a grade twelve education. Those graduates would still have an education that is superior to a grade twelve certificate and can qualify to stand based on Article 70 (1) (d).

Some institutions demand grade twelve even from those with superior degrees, isn’t the constitution saying the same thing? Article 70 (1) (d) does not state that a candidate must have a grade twelve education as well as other education. It simply states the minimum. It can also be noted that the Article is referring to a “certificate”, and not to an “education”. So it is not asking for a grade twelve education, but a grade twelve certificate. A grade twelve certificate can be obtained without twelve years of education and in fact, even a superior qualification can be obtained in its place. While it is true that ZIALE, as an example, demands grade twelve certificate in addition to a bachelor of laws degree in its admission requirements, this is different from what 70 (1) (d) is requiring. With due respect, you cannot interpret the constitution on the basis of discriminatory practices of bodies such as ZIALE or the Nursing Council of Zambia.

11062060_10153304305617390_6028230914922184723_n

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Can trades certificate and diplomas qualify as superior to grade twelve education? We might have to wait for a court ruling on this one, but the old myth that trades and vocational education is not academic enough has long been dispelled. Vocational training and the trades are as academic as a university education. All tertiary education in Zambia is superior to secondary education. Education in Zambia is roughly demarcated as follows: primary, secondary and tertiary education, in the level of their superiority. 70 (1) (d) makes secondary education the minimum, meaning all those with tertiary education do qualify to stand. To say that a person cannot have tertiary education unless they have secondary education is as ridiculous as suggesting that for one to have secondary education they must first have primary education. There are clear instances where a person without primary education due to circumstances beyond their control would go straight to secondary education. Trades certificates such as diplomas and certificates in plumbing, cooking, and joinery from a recognised institution of training in Zambia is academically superior to any secondary education.

There is a lot to say about the grade twelve qualification. It is absurd and if it came up before the constitutional court, it will be interpreted very liberally so as to allow more people to qualify to stand as political leaders. It is certainly absurd to demand that councillors in Milenge have a grade twelve certificate when secondary school arrived there only very recently. Let us end here for now and see how this sugo fiasco plays out.

Editorial Note: Elias Munshya holds three degrees in law and is currently undergoing the bar admission process in the jurisdiction of Alberta. Those personally affected by the issues raised in this article are encouraged to consult members of the Zambian bar for legal advice specific to their situation.

Citation: Munshya, E. (2016). Zambia’s Sugo Fiasco: Interpreting the constitution’s Grade 12 requirement. Elias Munshya Blog. (www.eliasmunshya.org).

 

I Object: Why Ms. Libongani should not come to Canada as Zambia’s High Commissioner

By E. Munshya, LLM, M.Div., MBA

11062060_10153304305617390_6028230914922184723_n

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

To all police officers, please serve Zambians impartially. Do not shoot the innocent. Do not curtail liberties of our people. Protect President Lungu just as much as you would protect others. If you do not behave well and choose to behave like monsters, note that the world is watching, and politicians will not protect you from the international backlash that will come your way.

Each pound of flesh adorning the skeletons of Zambian citizens is sacred. The blood flowing through the veins of our citizens is precious. The legs of our citizens do not need permission from anyone to crisscross the length and breadth of our sacred soils. Zambians have the constitutionally protected freedom of thought, and the freedom of association. Just as their blood flows freely in their veins, citizens must have the liberty to flow freely from Mongu to Milenge.

Those in power must be accountable to the people of Zambia. However, in a globalized world, accountability goes beyond Zambia’s geography. Leaders in Zambia who cannot be held accountable in Zambia, can be held accountable anywhere else on the planet. You cannot abuse Zambians in Zambia, and hope that you will get away from being accountable to Zambians not living in Zambia. Diaspora Zambians are not just “distant noisy makers”, they are part and parcel of the nation. Diaspora Zambians are as Zambian as those who are at home. If you mistreat Zambians in Zambia surely know that Zambians in the diaspora will hold you accountable.

Ms. Stella Libongani has been appointed as ambassador-designate to Canada after being dismissed as the chief of police. As a Zambian resident in Canada, I object to Ms. Libongani’s appointment. I would request the Canadian authorities to withhold their diplomatic accreditation for this particular ambassador designate.The government of Canada should be notified of the brutality of Zambia’s future diplomat coming to Ottawa who has presided over a police force in Zambia that has not respected individual liberties of our people.

6728621

Stella Libongani

As Chief of Police, Ms. Libongani blocked Zambians from mingling freely. She insisted that Zambians needed permission from her in order for them to buy Chibuku at Chisokone Market. Those who did not get permission from her and her police force were allegedly brutally assaulted, shot at and grievously harmed. Armed police officers stormed into churches in April 2015 to cause mayhem and defile religious liberties. A citizen had his home searched and drugs planted on him during Ms. Libongani’s reign as police chief (she did not plant those drugs, however). While Libongani was police chief, police prevented citizens from visiting Chipata and Chingola, chasing them “nge mfuko isho bapepeka mubwendo”. When asked, Ms. Libongani used the Public Order Act as justification for why citizens of our republic should be chased “nga bakapanga”. Ms. Libongani is very educated. She ought to know that the Public Order Act in its current form does not justify police brutality. Nowhere in the Act, is it required for citizens to get permission from the state before they meet their neighbours in Chiwempala or before they go to Pick-n-Pay to buy half loaves of bread.

A police chief who was allegedly so reckless with the lives of Zambians in Zambia cannot possibly have the legitimacy to represent Zambians to Canada. The United Party for National Development (UPND) issued a statement on Ms. Libongani’s redeployment to Canada. Spokesman Kakoma hoped that Ms. Libongani would now learn from an advanced democracy like Canada how to respect liberties. I do differ with the UPND’s take on Libongani. Ms. Libongani cannot learn in Canada what she failed to learn in Zambia. UPND needs to be consistent in condemning brutality without acceding to President Lungu’s actions of passing the buck onto Canada for unrepentant suppressants of constitutional liberties.

There is nothing that Ms. Libongani will bring to Zambians who live in Canada. She cannot build or inspire confidence in the Zambians who study and work there. I do not in any way speak for all Zambians in Canada, but the thought that a police chief with a record of such grievous brutality will come to Canada should be a concern.

stella-libongani

Trigger happy?

Some are saying that Ms. Libongani was simply following orders in her brutality. If we are to believe that nonsense, then we must be all the more concerned. As an ambassador, she would still be getting orders. If she was not able to say no to illegal orders when she was police chief how would she be able to say no to illegal orders when she has diplomatic immunity in Canada? If she abused the Public Order Act in Zambia, what assurances are there that she will not abuse the law when she is in Canada? While I agree that President Lungu is responsible for all police brutality, he is by no means the only one responsible. Those who have control over state issued machine guns, bullets and bombs have personal responsibility for their conduct. Police officers cannot hide behind the shield of politicians to escape personal responsibility for their brutality. Those who wield guns, are personally responsible for each bullet that spurts from their AK 47s.

I suggest that President Lungu promotes Ms. Musata Kaunda Banda to full ambassador in Ottawa. That will save Zambia a lot of kwachas. Alternatively, Lungu could transfer the diplomat in Nairobi to Ottawa. She can fit in very well as she speaks French and her record at the police was superb. She is evidence that a lady can hold a huge gun but still respect constitutional liberties. Why not bring Muntemba to Canada, and then send Libongani to Zimbabwe? President Mugabe can throw a welcome bash for her.

_____________________________________________________

Suggested citation: Munshya E. (2015). I Object: Why Ms. Libongani should not come to Canada as Zambia’s High Commissioner. (www.eliasmunshya.org). Elias Munshya Blog (11 December 2015)

 

An Open Letter to Dr. Christine Mwelwa Kaseba

 

Kuli ba Mama Kaseba:

Intanshi mutende!

Before I proceed any further, let me state out-rightly what this letter is not about. As a person who strongly believes in women’s rights, I must commend your decision to stand as presidential candidate within days of burying your spouse. Indeed, every woman must aspire to provide leadership to this great country. Your ambition therefore should be encouraged. I also should assure you that your decision to stand has somehow provided that needed courage for all women all over Zambia. Indeed, there is no minimum time required for mourning. There is no one-way of mourning our beloved ones. Usually, traditions have been used to shackle good women, especially after the death of their spouses. Your bravery to provide your candidacy for consideration, therefore, should be commended. I therefore do not condemn you for taking this courageous step. You have done well. I want to live in a Zambia where women will indeed have the liberty to make decisions based on what they feel is right. The time should come when women should stand against traditions that have the potential to subjugate. As a spouse, you have a say in the way you want to mourn or not mourn the departed. While it is true that it has only been a week since your spouse was put to rest, we should commend you for wanting to carry on the legacy that he left behind. And in your own way you have chosen to continue the legacy. And that Ba Mfumu is where I find the problem.

Kanabesa, the reign of your late husband was controversial for our country.  Your spouse presided over a nation that has emerged more tribal and more nepotistic than any other president that has ruled our country. In three years we have accumulated more kaloba in billions of dollars. If this were the legacy you want to carry on, I would ask you to re-examine your heart and think again. Zambians are not naïve; we have seen how that the Zambian diplomatic corps now comprise your relatives and those of your late husband. Surprisingly, there are a number of diplomats whose only credential is that there were at one time very close personal friends of your spouse. I believe that part of the diplomatic corps should be scared now that you are aspiring to replace President Sata. But there is another cadre of diplomats that your candidacy will protect – your relatives and those of President Sata. If you say that this is the legacy you want to carry on, I should be the first one to state that please Ba Mfumu reexamine your decision.

Dr. Christine Mwelwa Kaseba

Dr. Christine Mwelwa Kaseba

From the civil service to the army, and parastatal organs, your relatives have greatly benefited from you being First Lady. Ba Mfumu your actions while First Lady in looking out only for the interest of your family creates reasonable suspicion in my heart that you do not mean well for the future of our country. Do not get me wrong. You do seem to be a great woman. You are educated. You do have a great experience as a medical doctor serving the needs of our poor at the University Teaching Hospital. But when we look at the government and see how many of your bululus are in office, it darkens our hearts and makes us wonder whether your reign will be any different from that of your late husband. As Laura Miti has rightly put it: “I just don’t want anyone from the Sata family. We need to dismantle the nepotistic edifice built in the state by the Sata presidency.”

Michael Chilufya Sata

Michael Chilufya Sata

When your husband was ill, we all saw that he had lost weight and that he was not alert at all. He was visibly sick, very sick. We meant well when we asked that your family consider withdrawing him from power so that he could concentrate on getting better. Who knows? May be he could have lived a little longer had he been away from the pressures of the State office. But our advice was met by repeated injury from yourself and those in his government. Even when he was addressing parliament, as frail as he was, the images of your beaming smile has despoiled our memory. We knew there was something wrong. But your smile tried to cover it all. You should not be blamed for the actions of your spouse, but it certainly creates questions in some of us to wonder what really was going on. As a spouse, were you complacent in keeping your husband going even when he had no capacity to provide leadership to our country? Now that you are aspiring to lead our country, it is in good conscience that we should ask these questions.

I am Ushi from Milenge, and as a people from the pedicle, we all know how widows become the first suspects after their spouses have died. That tradition is deplorable and we must condemn it. We should preside upon families to treat widows with all dignity and respect. As the Glorious Band sang in “Isambo Lya Mfwa”, it is unfair to heap the blame on the widows. That being the case, ba mfumu, we have a few questions that need answering considering that you are putting your name forward.

Obviously, we cannot insist on traditions now, when during illness our calls for humanity and Ubuntu were rebuffed. We cannot insist on a period of mourning now, when even at the time that Michael Chilufya Sata was visibly sick and incapacitated, all we saw was a cadre of people wanting to continue profiteering from the palms of a sick man.

I do not have confidence in your candidature. Your desire is to continue with the same legacy of corruption, nepotism and tribalism started by your spouse. You do not provide anything new and your time at State House as a spouse of President Sata inspires little confidence. You are a woman nevertheless and in a country that has been destroyed by men in power, it might be a source of relief to have a woman in power. But I really doubt if this woman should be you.

For now, I wish you well and hope that all goes well with you and yours. But please if you get elected to the presidency stop nepotism and tribalism and please help Zambia reduce on its appetite for “kaloba”.

Napwa Niine,

Munshya

After the Cobra: What does the law say about Vice-President Guy Scott?

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

Guy Lindsay Scott

Guy Lindsay Scott

The President of the Republic of Zambia, Michael Chilufya Sata has died. He died in a London hospital on 28 October 2014. Sata died the same week that the nation was celebrating 50 years of independence from Great Britain. The question grappling the nation right now is whether the nation’s Vice-President Guy Lindsay Scott satisfies the constitution to be an Acting President for 90-days before calling a special election to replace Michael Sata. The complication with Guy Scott is that his father and mother are Scottish. In fact, Guy Scott is perhaps the only white Vice-President across the African continent. According to the Zambian constitution, one can only satisfy the constitutional requirements to be a presidential candidate if both parents of the candidate are “Zambian by birth or descent”. There are two sides to this issue: those who argue that Scott does not satisfy this requirement and those who argue that he does. In order to shade light on this issue, I must begin with some boring yet important stuff.

Sata and Scott

Sata and Scott

According to both the written and unwritten principles of the Zambian constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court of Zambia are the primary interpreters of the constitution of Zambia. This means that if there is any ambiguity in the constitution we should look to the court’s interpretation for guidance. In this constitutional set-up, the written constitution of Zambia and the ruling of the courts of law, together comprise what we should refer to as “constitutional law”. Constitutional law seldom refers to the text of the constitution alone. In most cases, the constitution is sometimes vague and some concepts such as “parent” or “Zambia” need further illumination and explanation. According to stare decisis, courts are supposed to follow the precedence set by the higher court in a hierarchy. Of principal importance in our judicial system is the idea that the courts of law do in fact play a huge role in interpreting the law and their rulings become binding. In stare decisis, if the ratio decidendi of one case can sufficiently be applied to another case, we have the obligation to follow the ruling of the precedent. With these boring principles in mind we can now turn back to the Guy Scott issue.

The constitution of Zambia is clear. For one to be a presidential candidate in Zambia, his or her parents must be Zambian by “birth or descent”. The question is what does this mean? It could mean many different things to different people. However, if the Supreme Court answers the question of what this means, it should settle the matter. This is because this is the system we have chosen for ourselves. It is our rule of law. It is the way we handle contentious issues. We take it to court and the courts give us an interpretation. In 1998, the Supreme Court answered this same question. In Lewanika and Others v Chiluba, the court was asked to disqualify Chiluba from the presidency because his father was “not a Zambian by birth or descent”. The petitioners presented several versions with regard to Chiluba’s father. There was a Zairian Chabala Kafupi and the Mozambican Jim Zahare. Chiluba the defendant offered an alternative version of his parentage and claimed that his father was actually from either Kawambwa or Mwense. But that is beside the point. The Supreme Court assumed the facts as avowed by the petitioners and ruled that even if Chiluba’s father were a Zairian or a Mozambican; Chiluba would still satisfy the constitutional requirement of having parents being “Zambian by birth or descent”. The ratio decidendi, or the reason for the ruling is based on several principles. First, the Supreme Court erected a wall of citizenship and held that the republic of Zambia was actually created on 24 October 1964. Having been so created on this date, those who were ordinarily resident in Zambia on this day became citizens of Zambia. For such people, there is no need to inquire into the citizenship of their parentage, as none of their parents would qualify as “Zambians” because there was no nation called “Zambia” before that. Second, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement for “Zambian citizenship” might make sense later in the history of Zambia. But even then, it would still create problems for the future of Zambia. Third, the court then dealt with racial issues. They made it clear that an assumption that the constitution deliberately discriminates against whites or Chinese does not make sense. In order for such an assumption to be made, the constitution should explicitly state that. Having explicitly not isolated one tribe or one colour, the court could find no justification in upholding this discriminatory part of the constitution especially as far as presidential eligibility is concerned. Fourth, having been cognizant of the political rhetoric that accompanied the “parentage clause” enactment into the constitution, the court relied on the actual text of the constitution, embraced its absurdities and offered an explanation that was consistent with Zambian history and principles of fairness and justice.

After the ruling in Lewanika and others v Chiluba, the question is whether the ratio decidendi of the case can be sufficiently applied to Guy Scott’s situation. Guy Scott was born in the then Northern Rhodesia, and acquired Zambian citizenship at independence in 1964. Having so acquired that citizenship, there is a legal wall that makes the citizenship of his parents invisible and inconsequential to his legal status as a founding citizen of Zambia. Additionally, even if his parents continued being citizens of Britain, it should not affect his own satisfaction of the Zambian constitution since the “Zambian by birth or descent” requirement does not apply to him and to many others who became citizens of Zambia when the nation was created in 1964. Following the Chiluba case, it is clear that just like Chiluba satisfied the constitution in spite of the possibility of a Mozambican or a Zairian father, Scott would also satisfy the constitution in spite of his British father. The Guy Scott case has facts, which can meet the ratio decidendi of the Chiluba case.

Having offered this legal explanation. I must confess that there is more to life than just law. While Zambia remains a nation ruled by law rather than men, it is incumbent upon the leaders and the people to find a political solution to some contentious issues. Those who do not want Scott to lead a transition should do so without unnecessarily abusing the law as justification. The law is definitely on the side of Guy Scott. I am not too sure though whether the politics are on Scott’s side. I have tried to answer the legal question. I will leave it up to the cabinet and the people of Zambia to answer the political question. At the end of the day, our nation should stand as one during this time of transition. May the soul of Michael Chilufya Sata rest in eternal peace.

Note: Those seeking specific legal advice should consult members of the Zambian bar. I am not a member of the Zambian bar. I am in the process of applying for a student-at-law status in the jurisdiction of Alberta, Canada. I hold an LLB (Honours) from England and have completed all coursework towards the award of an LLM degree from Northwestern University (Chicago, IL).

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2014). After the cobra: what does the law say about Vice-President Guy Scott? Elias Munshya Blog. (found at http://www.eliasmunshya.org) (28 October 2014).

When a Vice-President works in the dark: Guy Scott and the vacuum from Tel Aviv

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

Guy Lindsay Scott

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

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.

When a smuggler acts as President: Wynter Kabimba and his men from Kenya

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

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

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

President Sata and Secretary General  Kabimba

President Sata and Secretary General Kabimba

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

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

When a smuggler acts as President

When a smuggler acts as President

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zambians are experiencing buyer's remorse - Munshya

Zambians are experiencing buyer’s remorse – Munshya