Tag Archives: Zambia

Wrong General?: Linda Kasonde’s opposition to appointment of Likando Kalaluka as Attorney General

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

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

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

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

Linda Kasonde - LAZ

Linda Kasonde – LAZ

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

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

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

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

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

Munshya wa Munshya

Munshya wa Munshya

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

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

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

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


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



Indecent Discretion: Why Nchito’s “nolle” defies both law and common sense

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

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

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

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

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

Nchito should stop hiding behind bombasa - Munshya wa Munshya

Nchito should stop hiding behind bombasa – Munshya wa Munshya

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

President Lungu

President Lungu

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


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

No Creativity, No Imagination: My reflections on President Lungu’s cabinet

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

President Lungu

President Lungu

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

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

Emmanuel Mwamba

Emmanuel Mwamba

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

Vincent Mwale - Youth and Sport

Vincent Mwale – Youth and Sport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Munshya wa Munshya

Munshya wa Munshya

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


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

Zambian Presidential Elections Results Current Update

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

Central Province
Kapiri Mposhi
Mkushi North
Mkushi South
Kabwe Central
Copperbelt Province
Bwana Mkubwa
Chifubu 11,817  3,422
Chililabombwe 10,126 2,780
Chimwemwe 15,214 3,499
Kamfinsa 8,983 2,381 106 71
Nchanga 11,388 2,666
Ndola Central
Nkana 11,608 2,829 194 104
Eastern Province
Chipata Central
Petauke Central
Chama South
Luapula Province
Mansa Central
Mwansabombwe 4,548 421
Lusaka Province
Lusaka District
Lusaka Central
Northern Province
Isoka East
Isoka West
Senga Hill
Shiwa Ng’andu
Mpika Central
North-Western Province
Kabompo East
Kabompo West
Mwinilunga East
Mwinilunga West
Solwezi Central
Solwezi East
Solwezi West
Zambezi East
Zambezi West
Southern Province
Kalomo Central
Mazabuka Central
Western Province
Kalabo Central
Kaoma Central
Lukulu West
Mongu Central
Lukulu East

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

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

Guy Scott must resign: Here is why

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

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

Guy Lindsay Scott of Zambia

Guy Scott of Zambia

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

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

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

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

Guy Lindsay Scott

Guy Lindsay Scott

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

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

Munshya wa Munshya

Munshya wa Munshya

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

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


Suggested citation:

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

Hakainde Hichilema, Edgar Lungu and the Politics of Contrasts and Comparisons

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

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


Zambia Decides

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

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

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

Mrs Lungu addressing a rally in Mongu alongside husband

Mrs Lungu addressing a rally in Mongu alongside husband

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

Hakainde Hichilema

Hakainde Hichilema

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

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


Suggested citation:

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

The King of Zambia: Mwanawina III and the making of a new nation

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

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

King Mwanawina III

King Mwanawina III

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

President Kenneth Kaunda and King Mwanawina III

President Kenneth Kaunda and King Mwanawina III

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

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

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

The story of Zambia is incomplete without Mwanawina III - Munshya

The story of Zambia is incomplete without Mwanawina III – Munshya

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


Suggested citation:

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