Tag Archives: politics

The Temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba (Part III): Keeping the Ambition Alive

Posted on March 11, 2013 | 7 Comments

By Elias Munshya wa Munshya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevers had failed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That morning, Nevers Mumba had been elected president of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy.

President Michael Sata was not too happy with this outcome. From State House, President Sata castigated Nevers Mumba as a bogus and fake pastor who had stolen money in Canada and could not be trusted for leadership.

“Nevers Mumba”, President Sata said, “abandoned his flock to join politics.” These words left no doubt that Nevers Mumba was going to face more temptations and trials under the leadership of President Sata.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Zambian Political Theology, Zambian Politics

Tagged Elias Munshya, Michael Sata, MMD, Nevers Mumba, politics, Zambia

The Temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba (Part I): Politics of Personal Sacrifice

Posted on March 5, 2013 | 12 Comments

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

It is Frank Talk time on prime time television in the early 1990s. One evening, the whole nation is listening in as journalist Frank Mutubila introduces his guest on ZNBC TV. Pastor Nevers Mumba sits confidently in his chair. Next to him is his wife. They are appearing on a program that follows and features news personalities. In the middle of the interview, smart Frank Mutubila probes Nevers about whether he would consider running for public office.

“I am a preacher”, Nevers exclaims. And continues, “any involvement in politics would be a demotion.” Those words would become the most memorable lines of that Frank Talk interview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then something happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then the call came.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this honeymoon was never to last long.

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

→ 12 Comments

Posted in Zambian Politics

Tagged Church and State, human-rights, integrity with fire, Michael Sata, Nevers Mumba, politics, president frederick chiluba, religion, Zambia

The Chola Boys: Zambia’s Vice-Presidents From Reuben Kamanga to Guy Lindsay Scott

Posted on February 20, 2013 | 5 Comments

By E. Munshya Wa Munshya

Reuben Kamanga, Zambia’s Vice-President from 1964 to 1967

Zambia’s presidency and presidents have dominated much of post-colonial analysis of politics and history. This is very well understood, considering the power that the presidency wields and the central role that it plays in the political and economic life of the nation. As such, political leadership in Zambia has been discussed from the ambit of its presidents and the times they lived and ruled. As such we categorise Zambian political history in terms of the Kaunda Era, the Chiluba Era, the Mwanawasa Era, the Banda Era and very soon, it will be the Sata Era. One of the areas of political analysis I think that we have neglected is to look at the republican vice-presidents, and appreciate the lessons they teach us about politics and leadership. This article therefore seeks to look at the vice-presidency, and indeed specifically the vice presidents that Zambia has had since 1964. The vice-presidents and the times they served provide for us perhaps the greatest insight into politics and the nature and character of the presidents they served. From looking at the people who served in that office, we can come up with general rules or principles that we can extrapolate to either predict future political trends or indeed get some lessons that can help move our nation forward.

The first element of analysis shall be the gender composition of the vice-presidents. It is indeed quite telling and revealing that none of the vice-presidents since independence is a woman. In terms of our country, it is not enough that we have had an all-male contingent of presidents, but to think that even their deputies were all-male does tell us a despicable story of our gender imbalance. We’ve only had names such as Reuben, Simon, Mainza, Alexander, Enoch, Augustine, Godfrey, Christon, George and Guy for Government House. In spite of the fact that women make up 51% of Zambia’s population and are still the biggest demographic of voters, it is quite unfair that Zambia has had no woman president, worse still that Zambia has had no woman vice-president. This gender imbalance in my opinion could explain why we are faced with all this economic and political turmoil—we have given women very little opportunity to rise to the top, or even to the second topmost. Women are not just good for dancing at the airport, but rather they are equal partners in development. As such, we could safely conclude that Kaunda, Chiluba, Mwanawasa, Banda and Sata have all shown us lamentably that they are all male chauvinists for failing to use their prerogative to give the vice-presidency to a woman! I think we must do better and if we are to be a truly balanced nation it may be time to give the womenfolk a chance. As such, the time may be ripe for names such as Inonge, Edith, Maureen, or even Judith to rule. If they cannot yet have a shot at State House, we can at least give them the opportunity to have the shot at Government House.

The second element has got to do with modalities by which these vice-presidents are chosen. As a rule, it looks like most of the vice-presidents were never chosen from very politically popular candidates. They were mostly chosen from among the most politically unpopular cadres. It remains for another time to explore why this is so. Suffice here to mention, however, that the most unsuccessful vice-presidents have been those that garnered a lot of political support while in office or those that went to the position of vice-president with a huge political base. When Kaunda appointed Reuben Kamanga as vice-president in 1964, it was widely held that KK so chose Reuben for his lack of popularity and political base than for any other reason. This is the reason why, even today, Reuben is not considered a political hero of Zambia’s independence. Zambians can easily recall Kapwepwe than their first-ever Vice-president Reuben Kamanga. Kaunda could not have chosen a powerful candidate for vice-president.

In 1967, when the Bemba-Tonga alliance in UNIP beat the Nyanja-Lozi alliance at the first post-independence UNIP conference, Kaunda was left with no choice but to drop Kamanga as republican vice-president and appoint Kapwepwe instead. But Kapwepwe did not last very long in that position. He was too powerful and too politically popular to be a vice-president. He had to be forced to resign. In 1991, when Mwanawasa, a man of great influence within the MMD became the republican vice-president, he too like Kapwepwe, could not successfully discharge the duties of his office. He had to resign simply because the MMD government and President Chiluba could not handle a powerful and influential vice-president. Unfortunately, the same reasons why Mwanawasa resigned as Vice-President resurfaced when he was now in power. He appointed Nevers Mumba, a man who had no strong political base. Of course Mumba was going to be a good vice-president as long as he played it small and unpopular. But that was not to be for an American trained tele-evangelist. He became a little bit more larger than life. While in office, he developed a huge constituency, and rose in popularity. Perhaps as a mix of both chance and opportunity Nevers Mumba was beginning to eclipse his boss—a bad omen for a vice-president. Zambian presidents generally have a dislike for a very powerful vice-president. It was not very long after Nevers had addressed a press conference, while Mwanawasa was away, that he was fired from his position. A vice-president must be dismal!

It still remains to be studied why Mwanawasa, left all the popular cadres within his party and chose to cross party lines and appoint, Nevers Mumba, and repeat the same feat later by appointing Rupiah Banda for Veep. But Mwanawasa’s eccentrics did not end there; after he had fired Mumba he then went for Augustine Festus Lupando Mwape Katoloshi, to be his vice-president. Not only was Mwape lacking a political base, but he was also not even a member of cabinet. He had in fact been fired by Mwanawasa just a few months earlier, only to be reinstated as a junior minister responsible for Northern Province. Mwape’s political unpopularity was proved later by his failure to retain his parliamentary seat in the 2006 elections. It is unpopular candidates who seemed to make very good vice-presidents in Mwanawasa’s regime. But this does not just apply to Mwanawasa it is also true for Kaunda, Chiluba, and even Banda.

The Banda affair is even more telling, when Mwape lost his parliamentary seat in 2006, Mwanawasa went to a farm in Chipata district and fished out a retired politician-turned-farmer, perhaps two decades his senior, to come and serve as vice-president. According to Mwanawasa’s calculation, good vice-presidents should be taken from the bush and not from the bloom of urban political life. For his part, when he started to rule, Banda did not look to popular candidates within the MMD for a vice-president. He instead looked to George Kunda, a political novice to become a vice-president. He had in choosing Kunda by-passed the more politically astute and popular cadres such as Mumba, Magande, Mpombo, and even Kalumba. President Michael Sata’s choice of vice-president has been an interesting phenomenon. With lots of hope about Zambia having a whiteman for a vice-president, President Sata has consistently sidelined Guy Scott to the extent that to date Guy Scott has never acted as president in the absence of his boss.

The third element concerns, constitutional roles that vice-presidents have fulfilled in the course of Zambian history. As least three vice-presidents were lawyers by profession. These are Chona, Mwanawasa and Kunda. All of these three served at a time that the republican constitution was being reviewed. Of the three however, Mainza Chona has perhaps played the most visible role of all vice-presidents in pushing through dramatic changes to the constitution of the Republic. The famous Chona Commission was responsible for the implementation of the one party state. It is rather ironic that Kaunda appointed his Vice-President to be chairman of a constitution review commission instituted under the National Inquiries Act. President Rupiah Banda also relied on his Vice-president George Kunda to push through constitutional reforms. But whereas Chona had succeded as Kaunda’s cholaboy earlier, George failed to deliver for Banda. George Kunda’s efforts suffered embarrassing defeat at the hand of an uncompromising legislature.

Fourthly, I should now comment on general observations about Zambia’s vice-presidents. They tell us quite a bit more about the characters of the bosses they served. The most unstable and unpredictable of all these bosses was Mwanawasa who had four vice-presidents in the seven years of office. That is to say he had a different vice-president every one and half years on average. Mwanawasa’s most intriguing moments with his vice-presidents concerns how he fired his first two, Kavindele and Mumba. Kavindele was let go at the same time that Mwanawasa was intensifying his fight against Chiluba’s corruption. It remains to be seen whether Kavindele was fired for anything to do with Chiluba. As for Mumba, he was fired for simply showing independence, ingenuity, and political astuteness. When Sata advised Mumba to relax and simply enjoy tea at Cabinet Office, Mumba vehemently refused and instead worked even harder for the good of the government. As a political novice, Nevers Mumba needed to understand that a Veep should only jump as high as the president says jump. You jump higher than you were told to; some close confidantes of the president will be there to report you. As such, Sata was quite prophetic; it was Mumba’s vice-presidential hard work that landed him into trouble. A vice-president should just be drinking tea and waiting for the president to say, “Help me here.” That is exactly what one Augustine did and he was dearly loved by Mwanawasa for it. When Guy Scott said he was just a chola boy to President Sata – he really meant it. A Vice-president should never grow brains.

When making the choice of Vice-president, presidents must take into consideration serious ethnic calculus. Kaunda lacked this calculus in the first few years after independence in his choice of both Kamanga and Kapwepwe. Kaunda’s tribe or ethnicity was not easy to categorise at independence. This worked both ways—positively and negatively. On the positive side, he was taken as a neutral arbiter between tribal tensions; on the negative side his choice of political friends would attract accusations of siding with one side of his heritage over the other. As such when he chose Kamanga as the first Veep, the Bemba-speaking faction lamented that he had brought his Malawian brothers to top positions in the nation. However, when he reluctantly appointed Kapwepwe to the vice-presidency, after the 1967 UNIP conference similar accusations surfaced, two Bembas could not possibly hold two top positions in the country. He had to accept Kapwepwe’s resignation and appointed Mainza Chona, a Tonga, as his replacement.

After Mainza Chona, Kaunda continued to emphasize his Bemba heritage and completely sidelined any other Bemba to any top position in the Second Republic. He then concentrated on having other tribes share the national cake. After 1973, the position of Vice-president was abolished and the functions of the office were split between the Secretary General of the Party and the Prime Minister. The Secretary General functioned more like a first-vice president, while the Prime Minister was more like a second-vice president. The Prime Ministerial positions were the preserve of either a Lozi or Tonga speaking citizens. The position of Secretary General went to Mainza Chona at the inauguration of the Second Republic and Alexander Grey Zulu took over the position for much of the Second Republic. Grey Zulu was Kaunda’s deputy and a de-facto vice president and natural successor to Kaunda. Zulu was the best candidate for a de-facto number two since he lacked political clout to develop a political following of his own. It is men like Grey Zulu who make good vice-presidents. And fortunate enough this rule has been proven true in the more democratic Third Republic.

Another matter of particular interest with the vice-presidents is their provinces of origin. Chinsali District has the honor of being home to two vice-presidents in the history of Zambia. Interestingly, of all 72 Districts in Zambia, Chinsali has produced more top two leaders per capita than any other district in Zambia. It is from Chinsali where both Kaunda and Kapwepwe hailed from. And in the Third Republic, Mwanawasa looked to Chinsali when he had the second shot at choosing a Veep. Of all the nine provinces, only Luapula and Lusaka Provinces are yet to produce a vice-president. Northern Province has had three, Kapwepwe, Mumba and Mwape. Central Province has had Mwanawasa, and George Kunda. If we consider Prime Ministers in the Second Republic to have been vice-presidents (in their own rights) then we could say that in Mundia, Lisulo, and Masheke Western Province has had its representatives. Mainza Chona and Musokotwane are among the most eminent representatives of Southern Province. Copperbelt produced Mwanawasa who had both Lamba and Lenje heritage. Northwestern Province’s Kavindele has served the country very well too. Eastern Province has had Kamanga, Banda, Tembo, Miyanda and Grey Zulu. There should be something about the people of the East that should explain why they have had more vice-presidents than any other province in Zambia. However, I leave that to others to explain why this is so.

Guy Lindsay Scott becomes the first white Zambian to be vice-president. However, the fact that President Sata has sidelined him many times is quite significant. President Sata has erroneously interpreted the constitution to mean that a person like Guy Scott cannot act as president when Sata is not in the country. This interpretation of the constitution is definitely shocking and the Law Association of Zambia have expressed their concern at President Sata’s interpretation.

In terms of professions, the vice-presidents have been very diverse. Both Miyanda and Christon Tembo were soldiers. Prime Minister Malimba Masheke was also a career soldier. It is said that Augustine Festus Lupando Mwape Katoloshi served in the Air Force as well. I have already mentioned that three vice-presidents where lawyers—Chona, Mwanawasa, and Kunda. Prime Minister Daniel Lisulo practiced law as well. One preacher, Nevers Mumba is among this rank. Kavindele leads the vice-presidents as the wealthiest of them all—his wealth surpasses the wealth that all of the vice-presidents have had combined. Guy Scott holds a doctorate degree in agricultural economics. He is perhaps the most educated of all vice-presidents.

No doubt that without their deputies, Zambian Presidents could not have discharged the functions of their offices effectively. Of all the presidents of Zambia, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa is the one who delegated the affairs of state to his vice-presidents the most. Vice-President Lupando Mwape is one who received the most of all these delegations. At one time when the estimates of the expenditure of his office were announced Mwape’s office had in one year spent more money than the office of president Mwanawasa. Cabinet office was quick to run to Mwape’s defence by explaining that they had not expected Mwanawasa to delegate so much state responsibilities to his vice-president. Of all the vice-presidents only Guy Scott has never acted as president. He has never been left with instruments of power. Each time President Sata leaves Zambia, he prefers to leave instruments of power with his relative Alexander Chikwanda.

In terms of the law of retirement, the Zambian law only singles out Zambian presidents for a special retirement package which includes a 100% gratuity, an executive mansion, a string of luxury cars, security, a cadre of staff and seventy-five percent of the incumbent’s salary. As for the vice-presidents there is nothing special—no special gratuity and no executive mansions. This is unfair especially for people like Lupando Mwape who were de-facto Heads of State at a time when Mwanawasa was barely functional.

As we honor the office of President, it may be time for Zambia to equally honor the men these presidents hired and fired to be their number two! As for Guy Scott, we would really love to see him exercise powers of an acting president one day. There is definitely no constitutional impediment to that.

Note: This article first appeared on Munshya wa Munshya’s blog in 2010. It has been modified and updated to include developments since then.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Zambian Politics

Tagged gender composition, libya, mainza, politics, vice presidency, vice presidents, Zambia

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 Chabala Kafupi, Frederick Chiluba, Michael Sata, Munshya, politics, Zambia

Penetrating Presidential Bombasa: Why the ACC Can’t Question President Rupiah Banda Without Parliamentary Sanction

Posted on February 7, 2013 | 10 Comments

By E Munshya wa Munshya

Former republican president Rupiah Banda has been summonsed by the Anti-Corruption Commission to appear before it for questioning in connection with investigations into corruption it is carrying out. In writing the former president, ACC Director-General Rose Wandi did mention that she wanted to question Rupiah Banda in spite of his immunity. There is debate whether Director-General Wandi does have the power to summons the former president and if so, whether she has the power to compel him to appear before her.

This article will argue that the current position of the law is that a former president like Rupiah Banda who still enjoys presidential immunity cannot be compelled to appear before the ACC in connection with investigations involving criminal matters suspected to have been committed during the time he served as president unless such immunity has been removed by parliament. The parent provision that prescribes immunities held by a former president is found under Article 43 (3) of the Zambian Constitution. This is what it says:

A person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall not be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State.

This provision is quite specific. It suggests at least two things in connection with presidential immunity. First, a former president cannot be charged with a criminal offence and second, cannot be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court.

However, Director Wandi, seems to be arguing in her letter that all she wants is to question him so that he could explain some matters in which he has been implicated. There probably could be no difference at law between what Article 43 (3) is saying and what Wandi seems to be suggesting. Questioning a former president over criminal matters before his immunity is removed could at law be the same as subjecting him before the criminal justice system. Subjecting Rupiah Banda before the criminal justice system before his immunity is removed by parliament could contravene the constitution.

The purpose of presidential immunity is to help safeguard interests of the State. That is the constitution has envisaged a situation where a criminal probe might actually be prejudicial to the interests of the State. As such, only parliament can make the determination whether prosecuting a former president should go ahead or not. Again, from the way Article 43 (3) is framed a criminal act done by a former president cannot and should not result in automatic criminal prosecution. Prosecution is encouraged only to the extent that it would “not be contrary to the interests of the State.” And the primary determinant of that, unfortunately, is not the Anti-Corruption Commission nor the Zambia Police but parliament.

The purpose for presidential immunity was also addressed in the case of Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda v Attorney General (2002) where Madame Justice Mambilima stated that the rationale for presidential immunity was “to avoid the president being unduly cautious in the discharge of his official Duties.” Madame Justice J. Kabuka also relied on this position when she passed judgment in the infamous Wynter Kabimba v Attorney General, Richard Kachingwe & the Elections Commission of Zambia (2011) case.

In 2001, when issues to do with prosecuting President Frederick Chiluba for theft and corruption arose, the High Court directed that beginning criminal investigations and questioning Frederick Chiluba did have implications on his immunity. It would be difficult to question and investigate Frederick Chiluba without having to lift his immunity first. As such, without even bothering with bringing Chiluba for questioning, President Levy Mwanawasa instead took “prima facie evidence” before parliament and asked the legislature to determine whether or not prosecuting Chiluba would be contrary to the interests of the State. After a few hours of deliberation parliament found that Chiluba could be prosecuted and decided to lift his immunity.

Chiluba was obviously unsatisfied with parliament’s decision and decided to apply to the High Court for judicial review. Chiluba’s argument was somewhat circular. He claimed that it was unfair for parliament to remove his immunity without giving him a hearing and in fact, without even investigating the very prima facie evidence President Mwanawasa presented to parliament. In the case of Chiluba v Attorney-General (Appeal Number 125 of 2002) [2003] ZMSC 3, the Supreme Court justices held that what parliament did was only determine that Chiluba could now be amenable to the criminal justice system. It was up to that criminal justice system to determine the rest of the situation. Parliament did not need to hear or to question Chiluba. Parliament is not the Anti-Corruption Commission and neither is it the Zambia Police. It was then after this judgment that the Task Force on Corruption pounced on Chiluba and brought him in for questioning.

As such, if Director-General Rosewin Wandi really wants to question President Rupiah Banda – she must begin by first and foremost convincing parliament that her investigating of Rupiah Banda would not be prejudicial to the interests of the State. She does not need to provide any evidence. All she needs is to convince parliament that she needs to question Rupiah Banda. It is only after parliament lifts Rupiah Banda’s immunity that she could then freely question him and possibly prosecute him.

What happens to the letter Director-General Rosewin Wandi has written then? For starters, President Rupiah Banda could ignore it and throw it in a dustbin. But he would not want to do that if that letter is accompanied by a resolution of Zambia’s parliament.

This posting is not meant to convey legal advice. Its purpose is to add to the debate on an important national matter. Those who need specific legal opinion on this and related matters are encouraged to consult members of the Zambian Bar. (c) Elias Munshya, B.A., LLB (Hons), M.A., M.Div. (2013)

→ 10 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged article 43, criminal jurisdiction, criminal offence, politics, President Rupiah Banda, presidential immunity, republic of zambia, Rupiah Banda, Zambia

“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 Church and State, Frederick Chiluba, Gershom Ndhlovu, history of zambia, Homosexual Rights, human-rights, Michael Sata, politics, Zambia

Citizen Clive: The Irony of a “Stateless” Professor

Posted on November 22, 2012 | 1 Comment

To begin with, I must mention that I belong to that school of thought which believe that the current law in Zambia that deprives Zambians from acquiring dual nationality should be amended. I am of the opinion that we so amend the constitution as to allow for dual nationality. This is the right thing to do. Additionally, I am aware that unfortunately, until the law is amended we should not shy away from pinpointing the abrogation of the law as it stands now. I am aware that the law sometimes is inflexible and political realities sometimes demand that we make amends to the laws as we go. However, the law is such that in the case of Professor Chirwa he could potentially be stateless. I will recap this argument and then use several authorities in this regard.

First, Professor Chirwa was at one time a bonafide citizen of our republic. At some point in his life, however, he exercised the right and freedom to become a citizen of the United Kingdom. At the time that he so decided to become a citizen of the UK, he by operation of law ceased to be a citizen of the Republic of Zambia. This is what Article 9 of the Zambian constitution says.

“Article 9. (1) A person shall cease to be a citizen of Zambia if that person-
(a) acquires the citizenship of a country other than Zambia by a voluntary act, other than marriage; and
(b) does any act indicating that person’s intention to adopt or make use of any other citizenship.”

CAP 124 (19) (2) of the Laws of Zambia reaffirms the constitution by declaring, inter alia:

“Any citizen of full age who by voluntary act, other than marriage, acquires the citizenship of a country other than Zambia, or who does any act indicating his intention to adopt or make use of such other citizenship, shall cease to be a citizen on the date of his acquisition of the citizenship of that other country.”

In view of this provision, Professor Chirwa ceased to be a citizen of Zambia the moment he pledged allegiance to the Queen of England and became a British citizen. This position, is unfortunately the present law.

Second, the case of the Ugandan Indians does not apply in this case. The case of Thakrar v Sec of State (1972) was not about a person like Professor Chirwa. It was about Indians who came to Uganda as British Overseas citizens. As British Overseas citizens, Britain was obligated to protect them after they were expelled by Idi Amin. Unfortunately, Professor Chirwa was not a British Overseas Citizen. Indeed, the Supreme Court litigated this matter in the great case of Lewanika and Others v Frederick Chiluba (1998). In this Chiluba case, the court held that no black Zambian could claim to have been a citizen of Britain based on the status of Northern Rhodesia as a Protectorate of Her Majesty the Queen. In any case, Professor Chirwa left Zambia well after Zambia had gotten independence and as such, his status as a citizen of Zambia cannot be covered by any subsisting colonial laws. He left Zambia as a citizen of Zambia based on the Zambia Independence Act and its accompanying constitution. As such, he cannot claim it in any other way. The Ugandan case simply does not apply to him.

Third, the facts are clear. Let me reiterate them here. Professor Chirwa was a Zambian citizen but then he lost Zambian citizenship after he acquired British citizenship. To regain Zambian citizenship he has to follow through the law and re-apply to the Citizens Board of Zambia. If he does not do so, he potentially opens himself up to problems when this government has left office. I must add here another issue connected to the ever precarious concepts of Zambian citizenship. The one to do with President Kenneth Kaunda’s citizenship. Unfortunately, just like the Ugandan case, the Kaunda case cannot help Professor Chirwa. President Kenneth Kaunda was declared “stateless” by the Ndola High Court. On appeal, the claimants (Mr. Katyoka and Mr Mushota) together with the Attorney General Bonaventure Mutale decided not to defend the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court effectively reversed the High Court decision without actually going to trial. But the Kaunda case raised some important issues which can be distinguished from Chirwa. Kaunda is distinguishable from Chirwa because with Kaunda we were not dealing with relinquishing of Zambian citizenship, obviously with Chirwa the case is that he had relinquished Zambian citizenship when he became a citizen of Britain. Additionally, Kaunda is distinguishable in the sense that it had to deal with status of citizenship at independence, with Chirwa it is about his actions after independence.

Fourth, our laws do in fact allow the President to impute Zambian citizenship on some people which in his opinion warrant such an honour (CAP 124 (13) (2)). If indeed President Michael Sata has so decided then he will issue an instrument in this regard that will so specify granting Professor Chirwa the honorary citizenship as the case may be.

This is what CAP 124 of the Laws of Zambia says. At section 13. “(1) The President may as a token of honour cause to be registered as a citizen any person who in his opinion has done signal honour or rendered distinguished service to Zambia. (2) The President may cause to be registered as a citizen any person not otherwise entitled to or eligible for citizenship of Zambia with respect to whom special circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the President, warrant such registration.”

Fifth, where does being “stateless” then come in? It comes in because Professor Chirwa says he has renounced British Citizenship. If he has done so, without acquiring Zambian citizenship then he could potentially be stateless. Again, I am using “statelessness” here not as a cultural term, but a legal one. Zambian citizenship is a legal status, not a cultural one. You can be a Zambian by culture, but that does not by itself grant you the privilege of legal citizenship. Obviously, Professor Chirwa must become a citizen legally, other than depending upon his cultural or ancestral root to Zambia. He by his own will and volition became a citizen of Britain. He cannot be a Zambia at the same time as he is a citizen of Britain. If indeed he has repudiated British citizenship he must now apply to the Citizenship Board for restoration of his Zambian citizenship. As stated above, we are saying this with full understanding that President Sata may use his powers to confer citizenship upon Professor Chirwa, but until he does so legally, Professor Chirwa is in a precarious situation.

Lastly, we continue to appeal to all Zambians to continue pressuring the government to push through reforms to begin recognizing dual nationality. There are so many former Zambians like Professor Chirwa all over the world who want to come to Zambia, but when doing so they do not want to be treated as foreigners at the Airport. There are so many former Zambians who are tired of carrying the Zambian passport deceptively knowing full well that they have lost Zambian citizenship.

Note: Opinions written in this article are not meant to convey legal advice. Zambians seeking specific legal advice on this issue should consult members of the Zambian Bar.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Zambian Law

Tagged Chirwa, Citizenship, dual nationality, government, Law, Munshya Elias, political realities, politics, Professor E. Clive Chirwa, republic of zambia, Sata, Zambia

Beyond the House, Money, & Car: Why Ms. Kay Figo Deserved Compensation

Posted on October 5, 2012 | 4 Comments

The facts of the case of one Ms. Kay Figo and her lover Mr. Van are very well defined. Approximately five years ago Mr. Van while 55 met a 21-year Ms. Kay Figo at a Kabwata nightclub. Due to love at first sight, Mr. Van that night invited Ms Kay to his Makeni where they both lived together for a period of 5 years. The relationship had broken down for at least two years of those three years. Noting that the relationship had broken down, Ms. Kay sued Mr. Van before the Lusaka Local Court. Ms. Kay’s argument was that she deserved compensation from Mr. Van for lost time while dating him. She wanted the court to recognise her time with Mr. Van as deserving some level of legal or equitable recognition.

Mr. Van, inter-alia, argued that, to the contrary, he did not need to compensate her because as far as he was concerned he was not married to her. It was also Mr. Van’s argument that during the 5 years he had lived with Ms. Kay he had tried repeatedly to reach her family so that he could get her to marry him. He argues further that she was not willing to introduce him to her family. As such she refused his proposal for marriage. That having been the case, she was un-deserving of any compensation.

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

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

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

In Zambia today, there are principally two ways by which marriage can be contracted. The first is marriage under the Act and the second one is the marriage under Zambian traditions and customs. Marriage under Act is primarily modeled after European models (sometimes misusing the Bible as justification). In this marriage, two people can contract a marriage and have it solemnized by the registrar of marriage or a gazetted minister of religion.

The marriages contracted under Zambian laws and tradition is valid only after definite steps are taken. Legal jurisprudence right now as it stands in the Supreme Court precedence is that a marriage under customary law can only be valid if the man has paid some form of dowry or “lobola” to the family of the woman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Dowry, government, human-rights, Kay Figo, Lobola, Marriage, Mr. Van, politics, religion, travel, Zambia

Tag Archives: politics

The Temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba (Part III): Keeping the Ambition Alive

The Temptation of Nevers Sekwila Mumba (Part I): Politics of Personal Sacrifice

The Chola Boys: Zambia’s Vice-Presidents From Reuben Kamanga to Guy Lindsay Scott

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

Penetrating Presidential Bombasa: Why the ACC Can’t Question President Rupiah Banda Without Parliamentary Sanction

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

Citizen Clive: The Irony of a “Stateless” Professor

Beyond the House, Money, & Car: Why Ms. Kay Figo Deserved Compensation

Like My Page on Facebook

My Recent Blog Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

Tags

Archives

Goodreads

Meta

Follow “Elias Munshya wa Munshya”

Tag Archives: politics

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

My Recent Blog Articles

Tags

Archives

Goodreads

Meta

Follow “Elias Munshya wa Munshya”