Monthly Archives: March 2016

Separation of Powers Betrayed: Why Justice Lengalenga got it wrong in the GBM case

E. Munshya, LLB, LLM, MDIV.


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

In the Zambian doctrine of separation of powers, each branch of government has a distinct role to play and no one branch should interfere in the other’s function. Parliament makes the law, the executive implements the law while the judiciary interprets the law. But this doctrine is quite subtle. Our system of government does allow for some overlap. For example, the executive is almost exclusively made up of members of parliament and the president as head of the executive is a principal actor in the legislative process. As argued below, while the judiciary is the ultimate interpreter of the law, both parliament and the executive to have interpretive functions. At the heart of Justice Lengalenga’s March 23, 2016 ruling in the Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v. the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and the Electoral Commission of Zambia (the “GBM 2016 case”) is the question of whether the Speaker as head of parliament had the power to make the declaration that GBM’s Kasama seat had become vacant. Edwin Mbewe, a legal commentator and 4th year student at the Zambia Open University Law School has correctly observed that the reason for Justice Lengalenga’s decision (known as ratio decidendi in legal jargon), was that the Speaker has no powers to declare a seat vacant and that function is purely the preserve of the High Court. It was this ratio that led Madam Justice Lengalenga to reverse the Speaker and to grant the Kasama parliamentary seat back to GBM. My concern with Justice Lengalenga’s ruling is that it betrays the doctrine of separation of powers and the ruling misconstrues the High Court’s role when interpreting the law.

While it is true that it is the High Court’s role to interpret the law, it is necessary to understand circumstances under which such a duty arises. In Zambia’s political and legal practice, the High Court is not the only body that interprets the law. It is fundamentally problematic to hold that only the judiciary can interpret the law. In actual fact, everyone interprets the law, including the police on the Chipata highway, administrative bodies in Mpika, teachers in Chiwempala, plumbers in Kasompe, tamanga boys of Katongo Street, and fishermen in Milenge. The judiciary only comes in to resolve issues when there are legal disputes. Judicial interpretation of the law is tied to its role as an arbiter of disputes. When we refer to judicial interpretation, we are in essence referring to a form of legal dispute resolution. The laws of Zambia do not wait for the judiciary’s active interpretation for the laws to be valid. The laws do not remain dormant until the judiciary brings them alive through an interpretation. Two of the branches of government have a proactive duty to function, the judiciary, on the other hand, does not have a proactive duty. The judiciary cannot go on rampage trying to “interpret the law.” The judiciary comes in if and when there is a dispute among competing interpretations. Articles 71 and 72 of the Constitution of Zambia does state that only the High Court can settle a dispute concerning the loss of a parliamentary a seat, but Justice Lengalenga’s judgment failed to appreciate the fact that other clauses within 71 and 72 provide different ways a seat could become vacant without necessarily involving the High Court. For example, if an MP dies, you do not wait for the High Court to declare a seat vacant. Additionally, an MP who ceases to be a citizen of Zambia ceases to be a member of parliament too. You do not need the High Court to declare a seat vacant in those circumstances as the Speaker can take note of the facts and make a determination that a seat has become vacant. Conversely, the Speaker cannot declare a seat vacant if the seat is contested in court between two parties that are claiming the seat as happens during an electoral petition.

Where an MP deliberately chooses to leave the party that sponsored them to parliament and then becomes a member of a different political party, it is within the Speaker’s powers to declare their seat vacant without the need to go to court. This is exactly what happened with GBM. Justice Lengalenga by restoring the parliamentary seat to GBM had out-rightly ignored GBM’s own actions of leaving the Patriotic Front to become a member of the United Party for National Development. For clarity, let us look at some pertinent facts. In 2014, GBM ran into some discipline issues with his party the Patriotic Front (PF). The PF moved to discipline him, but before they could reach him, he went to the High Court and obtained an injunction against his expulsion. After the commencement of that legal action against the PF, GBM escalated issues and subsequently accepted the position of vice-president of the UPND. The Zambian constitution did not and does not allow dual party membership for MPs.

Even if political party constitutions permitted dual party membership, the republican constitution does not permit it. An MP who becomes a member of a party other than the one that sponsored them to parliament ceases to be an MP. Full stop. When GBM became a member of the UPND (evidenced by his acceptance of the position of veep and his own sworn affidavit) he ceased to be a Member of Parliament. It was the Speaker’s right and responsibility in such circumstances to acknowledge that fact and inform the Electoral Commission of Zambia that Mr. GBM was no longer a member of parliament. There was no need to wait until the GBM v PF case was disposed of because the GBM v PF case concerned a matter completely different from what the Speaker was dealing with. Justice Lengalenga did not create this distinction in her mind leading to a very erroneous outcome that undermines the principle of separation of powers. She went on to answer questions that were irrelevant to the issues at hand.

No one took the seat away from GBM, he did it by himself and the High Court was wrong to give him back the seat which he voluntarily abandoned. It does not matter that Mr. GBM may not have intended the consequences of his actions. He cannot be vice-president of UPND and PF member of parliament at the same time, no matter how you spin it.


Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2016). Separation of Powers Betrayed: Why Justice Lengalenga got it wrong in the GBM case. Elias Munshya Blog ( (March 31, 2016)

Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v Attorney General & Others – 2015.HP.1279-2



Download – Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v Attorney General

We have Justice Lengalelenga’s ruling in the GBM case. Please click and download.

Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v Attorney General & Others – 2015.HP.1279-2

Just click and download and read it for yourselves.



Elias Munshya, LLB, LLM, MBA, MDIV

When London Calls: Musa Mwenye, legal ethics and the politics of client confidentiality

E. Munshya, LLB, LLM, MDiv.


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

There is nowhere to hide anymore. Big corporations that dare pollute our rivers and poison our waters should be held accountable anywhere around the world. A word of caution to big companies, please treat all stakeholders well and be socially responsible. Polluting our rivers and poisoning the sacred springs of Chingola will result in dire consequences for you. Companies such as Konkola Copper Mines and Mopani Copper Mines now have the added responsibility due to one important fact: the world is watching. Globalisation now has legal implications for global corporations. As they mine copper in Solwezi and as they dig for gold in Kolwezi, multi-national companies can now be sued for polluting the Kafue River in a London court or in an Alberta court. A Zambian plaintiff who has suffered harm due to the negligent conduct of big companies can now with the click of a button hire a lawyer in London to hold London listed companies to account.

This I believe is what happened in Dominic Luswaniso Lungowe and others versus Vedanta Resources PLC and Konkola Copper Mines, a case which is making its way in London’s High Court of Technology and Construction. This case involves several of our people who are claiming that they suffered various health problems due to KCM’s negligence. Lungowe sued in London and obviously, the London court had to enquire into the issue of jurisdiction and venue: was London the best court to litigate KCM’s alleged misconduct which took place in Chililabombwe’s Kafue River? Before the London court even goes ahead hearing the matter it must satisfy itself that the matter is legitimately before it. Lungowe’s London lawyers needed to convince the London court that the matter was legitimately before it because KCM and its parent company are listed in London and that Lungowe and others stand a better chance at getting justice in London than Lusaka. To convince the London High Court, Lungowe had to bring some legal experts from Zambia to buttress the position that the plaintiffs are likely to receive justice in London. Lungowe’s London lawyers found an expert: Musa Mwenye SC. It is this expert testimony Mwenye gave in the London court that really angered President Edgar Lungu.


Musa Mwenye, SC

Lawyers like Musa Mwenye should not have to suffer for doing their job. Our society should not impute upon the lawyer the misconduct of the lawyer’s client. Lawyers have very difficult tasks to perform in representing clients, both savoury and unsavoury ones. No lawyer should be crucified simply because they were doing their job either of representing a criminal or representing people like Lungowe who are claiming to have suffered severe health problems as a result of the negligent conduct of a London listed corporation. Even if Mwenye were just appearing as an expert witness in London, he should not be made to suffer for helping Lungowe and others find justice in London. The decision to sue in London is a luxury afforded to Zambian citizens in this globalised world. Our citizens should not be demonised for going to London to sue a London listed company that pollutes their drinking water. If our people were to want to sue in a Canadian court, they will find very friendly counsel to help them navigate Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench! In London, Mwenye’s testimony was to the effect that Lungowe and others would stand a better chance at accessing justice in London than they would in Zambia. Musa Mwenye may have been right. But President Edgar Lungu in a sense was justified in demanding better conduct from Mr. Mwenye.

Mr. Mwenye is the past Attorney General of the Republic of Zambia. His client was the juristic person of the Republic of Zambia. He was leader of the Zambian Bar and principal legal advisor to the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Mr. Lungowe’s London lawyers found it prudent to engage the expert advice of Mr. Mwenye to testify before the London court why it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to access justice in Zambia. It was indeed a coup, a huge conquest for the plaintiffs. Mr. Mwenye, however, as a former Attorney General should have recused himself from going to London. The same justice system in Zambia was his client, how then can he turn himself against the very client he faithfully served for years? Those who serve as attorneys general should know that Zambia’s justice system is their client. They come into contact with both the good and the bad of our system. The AG knows the inner workings and the flaws of their client. It is unconscionable for them to go and spill the beans in a foreign court about the failing of the Zambian justice system. When a former attorney general testifies against the Zambian justice system in a foreign court, it is not general information they are peddling, it is very specific inside knowledge of their former client. Mr. Mwenye could have recommended other legal experts to travel to London. He had a conflict of interest.

After President Lungu’s outburst, Mr. Mwenye issued a comment to the effect that he was trying to make it easier for the poor of Zambia to have access to justice. I am quite flattered by the State Counsel’s commitment to access to justice for the poor. But I am afraid the honorable state counsel might need to direct his energy to the things that could actually lead to better access to legal services in Zambia. Zambia has very few lawyers. It has about 1,000 lawyers in a country of 15 million people. This lawyer to population ratio makes it impossible for the ordinary poor of Chililabombwe to access justice. I call upon Mr. Mwenye to help resolve this lawyer shortage in Zambia by advocating for better pass rates of lawyers at the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education (ZIALE).

President Lungu’s outburst should be taken in context. The President has not really liked the ex-AG from the time Mwenye stood his ground to take away the acting presidency from Lungu to Guy Scott. I do not think Mwenye’s London conduct deserves sanction. I appeal to the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to ignore calls to discipline Mr. Mwenye. This could as well be a learning opportunity for all Zambians and all those those who might be called upon to serve as attorney general of our republic not to go to London or Calgary badmouthing a former client.


Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2016). When London Calls: Musa Mwenye, legal ethics and politics of client confidentiality. Elias Munshya Blog ( (March 24, 2016)


Justice Mushabati and the Electoral Commission of Zambia are Wrong on the Grade 12 Requirement

E. Munshya, LL.B., LL.M., M.Div.

Justice Christopher Mushabati, a commissioner at the Electoral Commission of Zambia (the “Commission”) has issued what seems to be an official directive from the Commission about the Grade 12 requirement for running in the 2016 elections. According to him, only a school certificate as defined by the Examinations Council of Zambia (the “Council”), will be used to satisfy the constitution’s Grade 12 requirements. Further, he has stated that those with tertiary education such as a degree, but do not possess the Council’s school certificate will not be considered. Justice Mushabati has additionally stated that this is the Commission’s official position and those aggrieved with the Commission’s interpretation of the 2016 constitution should take the matter to the Constitutional Court for determination.


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

Administrative bodies such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Examinations Council of Zambia are expected to interpret the constitution and apply it accurately.

Particularly, the Commission as the body tasked with the conduct of elections in Zambia has the responsibility and the duty to interpret the constitution correctly and in keeping with trite constitutional principles. The problem here is not that the Commission has no responsibility, but rather that the Commission has taken a very wrong approach in the way they have interpreted the constitution’s Grade 12 requirements. Nowhere in the constitution is it stated that the School Certificate is “the” qualification for running. The constitution states that a person running for office must have the “minimum” of “Grade 12 certificate” or its “equivalent”. By its insistence that all candidates produce Grade 12 certificates, the Commission has made Grade 12 not as the minimum but as the only qualification thereby ignoring a clear constitutional imperative. Had the constitution sought to make Grade 12 the only qualification, the constitution would have so stated. It could have stated that a candidate must have a “Grade 12 certificate”, but the constitution has used words such as “minimum” and “equivalent”. With due respect ECZ commissioners: Mushabati, Chulu and Ng’andu have no right to read into the constitution their own wishes, no matter how noble.

Justice Mushabati and the Commission are wrong when they state that those with degrees but do not have secondary school certificates would not be considered. The honorable justice seems to be speaking like one who has not lived in the realities of our times. It is actually not true that one cannot have tertiary education unless they have secondary education. The idea that a degree or diploma held by a person who has no Grade 12 certificate is inferior to the one held by a Grade 12 holder is actually total nonsense. World-over, people have gone on to university and held higher graduate degrees without secondary school certificates. In any case, Justice Mushabati should know that a person with a degree or college diploma can still demonstrate that their degree is at least academically equivalent to a Grade 12 certificate. No matter how you look at it, there is no basis for Justice Mushabati and his Commission to exclude degree or diploma holders from running for office on account of a lack of a Grade 12 certificate.

High School Transcript for 10072114

Grade 12 Certificate

Justice Mushabati says that those aggrieved should go to the Constitutional Court to challenge the Commission’s interpretation of the law. This idea that all of our disputes should end up in court is really counter-productive to the Zambian cause. We cannot live in a Zambia where even straightforward things should end up in court. We should only go to court to have courts help us resolve real constitutional disputes. The Grade 12 dispute that Justice Mushabati and the Commission are shoving down our throats is a very trivial dispute that can be resolved without resorting to litigation. But even if it were to end up in court, I am very confident that the Constitutional Court will hold that a person with any tertiary education either has an education superior to Grade 12, or does have an education that should be considered “equivalent” to Grade 12 education. At what cost, should we be going to court for this straightforward matter? Justice Mushabati and the Commission already have a tax-payer funded Attorney General as their lawyer, I would advise them to consult with Mr. Likando Kalaluka before they even begin making pronouncements that would be indefensible in the constitutional court. In any case, the taxpayers should not be made to foot the bill of court hearings before the Constitutional Court for a matter that should be straight forward. The sheer arrogance of asking that a Milenge aspirant go to the Constitutional Court to find redress for something this straightforward makes me cringe.

I appeal to the political parties in Zambia, to put aside their obsession with violence and engage Justice Mushabati and his Commission to come to terms and agreement over some of these disputes. Justice Mushabati and his fellow commissioners at the Electoral Commission of Zambia might have very good wishes about Grade 12, but they cannot put into the constitution their own ideas of what the constitution should mean. As stated by the late Justice Scalia, the “constitution says what it says and it does not say what it does not say.”

We appeal to President Lungu, president Hichilema and all stakeholders to let the Commission know that this matter can be resolved without the need for expensive litigation, but if Justice Mushabati wants to go to court, Zambians are ready to meet him there. But again, at what cost?


Justice Christopher Mushabati, Electoral Commission of Zambia (Picture courtesy of Qfm)


Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2016). Justice Mushabati and the Electoral Commission of Zambia are Wrong on the Grade 12 Requirement. Elias Munshya Blog ( (March 17, 2016)

PF aspirant Emmanuel Mwamba should resign from the public service immediately

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


Animal Farm?

His Excellency Emmanuel Mwamba, High Commissioner of the Republic of Zambia to the Republic of South Africa has applied to the ruling Patriotic Front to be considered for adoption as a parliamentary candidate in Matero. Mr. Mwamba’s political background is very well known. He was the principal architect of candidate Edgar Lungu’s media strategy in the 2015 presidential bye-elections. Shortly after those elections, President Lungu appointed Mr. Mwamba into the civil service and sent him into the diplomatic service. Mr. Mwamba hesitated a great deal as he had set his sights on a political office. President Lungu had his way and Mr. Mwamba was made to reverse his political push for the Kasama seat and leave for Pretoria. Civil servants in Zambia are not supposed to do open partisan politics. This is simple common sense. The only people who can do open partisan politics in Zambia are the politicians: the president, the vice-president, the cabinet and all the other political officers. Ours is a political system where politicians supervise what should be a politically neutral civil service, security service and the army. This is not to say that civil servants cannot support a political party. They can, privately in their hearts and homes. However, they cannot publicly announce to the world that they are aspiring to stand on MMD, PF or UPND.


Emmanuel Mwamba

News of Mr. Mwamba’s application for adoption in Matero has received a great deal of attention. Some are arguing that Mr. Mwamba must resign from the civil service since he has shown open preference for one political party. Others, like Mr. Mwamba himself, are claiming that the constitution does not forbid a civil servant from applying for adoption as a candidate. I must differ with Mr. Mwamba’s take on this issue and ask him to resign his position as a civil servant immediately. I urge him to resign not because he has applied to stand in Matero, but because of the manner he has done it. He has openly shown his political preferences for a political party and a civil servant cannot and should not do that. If we are to follow Mr. Mwamba’s logic then we should expect soldiers and all the people in the public service to openly apply for adoption in UPND, MMD, PF, and FDD and publicly campaign for adoption. What would follow if that were allowed would be kerfuffle. My position is that a civil servant cannot openly apply for adoption or publicly state their political preferences while actively working in the public service.

Mr. Mwamba argues that he cannot resign because the constitution says a civil servant should only resign after they have filed in official nominations with the Electoral Commission of Zambia. Mr. Mwamba is wrong.

Using the constitution to justify his unethical conduct should not be tolerated. Nowhere does the constitution explicitly say that teachers and head teachers must not steal, should they go on to steal because the constitution does not address theft by teachers?

This obsession with the constitution is a false comfort in our country. We do not need the constitution to know that it is immoral and unethical for a public servant to publicly show their political party of choice or preference. Our republic would be chaotic if we allowed what Mr. Mwamba is justifying to go on unabated. I cannot imagine army generals and police commissioners applying to stand as candidates in PF or UPND while they actively serve.

This must now bring me to what the PF should have done. I am quite conflicted at the actions of the ruling Patriotic Front. These nominations that the PF has conducted in the country that publicly flaunts public servants is very bad for the country and for the party itself. If it is openness they wanted, this is not openness, it is recklessness. There are several good people in our country who would like to serve their country and aspire for political leadership without such initial parading of their candidature. What should have been done with Mr. Mwamba was perhaps for him to privately express interest in the Matero adoption and then work in the background for his adoption without having to dent the public of perception of public workers who must keep their politics private.

If a civil servant publicly does what Mr. Mwamba has done, they must leave the public service and concentrate on the political battle. Public servants cannot have it both ways.


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

If Emmanuel Mwamba does not resign from the public service on his own, President Lungu has the constitutional and ethical duty to relieve Mr. Mwamba of his job in Pretoria. That way, President Lungu will be levelling the playing field and sending a clear message to civil servants that while they have the right to privately support and even vote for a political party of choice, they cannot openly tell the whole world which political party they support and certainly they cannot openly go to political parties and run for political offices. If Lungu does not have a problem with Mwamba’s behaviour, then he should not have a problem when soldiers, police, and other public officers go to the opposition UPND and seek to run in Chawama and Itezhi Tezhi.



His Excellency Emmanuel Mwamba (Courtesy of Facebook)


Grade 12 Certificate Is Not the Only Qualification, Stop Demanding It

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

To borrow from the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Zambia has a written constitution which “says what it says and does not say what it does not say”. Barring some concepts that are deeply tied to constitutionalism, the Zambian constitution should be interpreted from the intention of its written text.

It is not surprising that in our constitution making process, we tend to intend to include clauses into the constitution so as to bar certain elements in our society that we do not like. In 1996, Chiluba, Miyanda and Sata used that constitution to try and block people like Kaunda whom the MMD top brass perceived to be of Malawian parentage. However, intention when making the constitution is one thing and the meaning it is assigned after adoption is quite another. If the intent of the MMD in 1996 was to block Kaunda, the language used in the amendment of that constitution was so vague as to render the “parentage clause” useless particularly as far as people like Kaunda whose parents were far older than the nation of Zambia (which was only created in 1964). Again, a literal interpretation of the constitution won the day over the intention of the framers of the constitution who thought that they were excluding Kaunda and his Malawian relatives. Indeed, Chiluba himself got ensnared by the amendments when he was sued by Mr. Mbikusita-Lewanika. Lewanika alleged that Chiluba was of Congolese parentage and that he was disqualified from the presidency. The Supreme Court held that the parentage clause was essentially useless in its Lewanika ruling.

In 2016, we face a similar but much more sinister issue: Grade 12 requirement. I have written about it in the past. Some of the big wigs in the Patriotic Front may have pushed through the Grade 12 requirement as a way to fix some political players they perceive to lack a Grade 12 education. Unfortunately, the text of the constitution of Zambia does not say what they think or intended it would say. The constitution of Zambia says that for a person to qualify as a candidate in the elections, they must have a minimum grade 12 certificate or its equivalent. Several words are important, “minimum”, “Grade 12 certificate”, “or”, its “equivalent”. The constitution does not say that Grade 12 is “the” qualification. First and foremost, Grade 12 certificate is not the qualification. All those promoting Grade 12 certificates as the qualification are wrong. It is just one of the qualifications, but it is not the only qualification.

Second, this Grade 12 certificate is the minimum. What this means is simple: we have a minimum and then we have a maximum. The constitution has not prescribed the maximum; it has only prescribed the minimum. This should be simple to understand, anyone who has a tertiary education has a qualification that is superior to secondary education. Tertiary certificate holders do not need to show a Grade 12 certificate because Grade 12 is the minimum, but anyone who has the maximum may not need to show the minimum. The constitution does not say people must have Grade 12 in addition to other qualifications. The constitution could have said that, but it does not. The constitution has left it open: Grade 12 is not the qualification; it is only but one of the qualifications. It is a minimum qualification.

Third, the constitution then uses the word “equivalent”. I submit that it is only a court of law that can authoritatively determine what is equivalent in this matter. The Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Examinations Council of Zambia lack competence to determine what is equivalent to Grade 12 as far as meeting this constitutional requirement is concerned. I must make it very clear to both ECZs, that they should be very reasonable in the way they approach this issue. They should not come up with facetious descriptions that exclude our citizens from participating in the sacred sacrament of elections. The way I understand it, the constitution has left the possibility for a candidate in Milenge, as an example, to argue before the constitutional court that a Grade 7 education attained in Milenge which had no secondary school until 2005 must be adjudged as equivalent to a Grade 12 education obtained by the privileged of Lusaka. There cannot be similar standards of education in a country which has rural areas with no access to secondary education! Equivalency is key.


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

Apparently, the Patriotic Front legal advisor has sent out an advisory to prospective candidates to have their Grade 12 certificates verified by the Examinations Council of Zambia. According to Mr. Tutwa Ngulube, the Electoral Commission of Zambia will only accept certificates that are verified by the Examinations Council of Zambia. I cannot verify whether the elections body is actually asking for verification of G12 certificates, however, I am surprised by what Mr. Ngulube is saying. Clearly, Mr. Ngulube is putting words into the constitution to make it say what it does not say. Again, a Grade 12 certificate issued by Examinations Council of Zambia is not the qualification, it is only one of the qualifications that range from anything equivalent to Grade 12 to anything higher than secondary education. Since Mr. Ngulube acts for the ruling party, his pronouncements might be mistaken for government policy. We all need to ignore this gentleman and wait for ECZ to give us clear directions. Let me emphasize, ECZ must give effect to the constitution and not dream up its own qualifications.

If Mr. Ngulube is so concerned, why is he not asking that candidates also verify their Green National Registration Cards with Home Affairs? If he can’t demand for verified NRCs where on earth does he get the guts to ask for verified Grade 12 certificates? I think, I have got the answer: some in the Patriotic Front want to use the Grade 12 requirements to fix each other. Fortunately for us, the constitution has no room for petty squabbles involving gossip, umulomo no bufi about whether Chishimba Kambwili has a Grade 12 certificate or not. The man has a degree and that alone would satisfy the requirements of this constitution, without having to provide a certified copy of a Grade 12 certificate.


Citation: Munshya, E. (2016). Grade 12 Certificate Is Not the Only Qualification, Stop Demanding It. Elias Munshya Blog ( (March 3, 2016).

High School Transcript for 10072114

Munshya wa Munshya’s Sugo Certificate