By Munshya wa Munshya

That acting Chief Justice of Zambia, Lombe Chibesakunda should resign has been clearly enunciated by very distinguished bodies and reputed personalities in Zambia.  In fact, no other issue has captured considerable coverage in the Zambian media, in the past weeks, than this Chibesakunda saga. Civil society, as well as the Law Association of Zambia, has made it articulately clear that it is a constitutional anomaly to have her ladyship continue to serve as Chief Justice. Since democracy recurrently requires a multiplicity of voices, I wish to add to this debate. If Justice Chibesakunda wishes to save a little bit of her self-respect, she must in good faith resign forthwith and save the nation, the president, and our parliament from further shame, ridicule and embarrassment.

Kuya bebele. I do believe that Justice Chibesakunda should go.

The basic principle of separation of powers within our system of government does envision three arms of government that together form the basic institutions of our democracy. To foster this separation of powers, the head of the judiciary, a chief justice, is supposed to be substantively appointed by the president and this appointment should then be subject to parliamentary approval. It is article 93 (1) of the constitution that states thus: “The Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice shall, subject to ratification by the National Assembly, be appointed by the President.” That being the case, no one can take up the position of Chief Justice without parliamentary ratification.

In the case of Justice Chibesakunda, she has not been ratified by parliament and on that basis alone; she must recuse herself from further exercising the functions of that office. Indeed, the process of ratification itself does impose upon our system specific procedures that must be met before one could assume the role of chief justice.

There has been argument by some, that regardless of what the law says, the president of the republic of Zambia still retains the power to appoint anyone to act as chief justice. This theory is both right and wrong. I must return to this later in the article. It is true that the president of Zambia, as chief of state, does have some discretionary power as the reserve of all state power (Article 33 of the Constitution of Zambia). This, however, does not mean that the president is above law and neither does it mean that the president could ignore the constitution with impunity. Article 37 of the constitution in fact, provides for impeachment of a president who abrogates the constitution of Zambia. Further, as was held in the case of Miyanda v Attorney General, Madam Justice Mambilima was on firm ground to state, “the president is not above the law.” The president is a creature of the constitution and not its benefactor (Article 1 s.3 of the Constitution of Zambia).

Article 44 of the constitution casts presidential functions in the following manner: “(1) As the Head of the State, the President shall perform with dignity and leadership all acts necessary or expedient for, or reasonably incidental to, the discharge of the executive functions of government subject to the overriding terms of this Constitution and the Laws of Zambia which he is constitutionally obliged to protect, administer and execute.”

Perhaps it should be fair, at this juncture, to compare and contrast at least two issues to do with retired Chief justices, that of former chief justice Ernest Sakala and the present temporary successor Chibesakunda. Justice Mutuna ruled very eloquently, in the case in which John Sangwa sought to challenge the validity of Ernest Sakala’s continued stay at the helm of the judiciary. According to Sangwa, Sakala was over the prescribed age limit and as such he could not validly hold the substantive office of Chief Justice. After the hearing, Justice Mutuna did rule, and rightly so, that the President as chief of state does have some discretionary and reserve powers to appoint a person like Sakala to remain in office beyond the prescribed age.

Having regard to Mutuna’s ruling in the Sangwa v. Attorney General & Ernest Sakala, the issue therefore is to ask whether the two cases are sufficiently similar as to allow the Ernest Sakala case to provide guidance to the present issue. Sakala’s issues should be distinguished from Chibesakunda’s, however. At law, precedence is valued only to the extent that reasons the court applied in one case could be sufficiently, applied to the other case. Ernest Sakala was the substantive chief justice and he attained retirement age while he was in office. With Justice Chibesakunda, she has come to the office after attaining the age of retirement.

Sakala was ratified by parliament. Chibesakunda was not ratified by parliament. In fact, the subcommittee of the Zambian parliament refused, twice, to even consider taking this matter to the whole house. Undeniably, without parliamentary approval there is no way we could draw parallels between Sakala and Chibesakunda.Chibesakunda’s ascension to the throne of Chief Justice does appear to have been a deliberate effort by the Michael Sata executive to influence the judiciary. This never seemed to have been the case with Ernest Sakala. Indeed, the rhetoric of the ruling party’s secretary general has only gone to affirm the position that the Patriotic Front was looking for a more pleasant face in the judiciary and when they found Chibesakunda, their prayers were answered. Indeed Chibesakunda has not disappointed. She might go into history as one of the most politically biased chief justices Zambia has ever had. She even beats Kaunda’s patron justices of the second republic. In fact, going by the recent decisions she has presided over, it is clear that Chibesakunda is biased and her legal reasoning is not based on law but on other political considerations.

Two important events from the judiciary should be concerning. In the now infamous Supreme Court case of Mutuna & Others v. Attorney General (2013), the ratio decidendi of that case was so outrageous that it should be assigned to the dustbin of legal history. What is so unusual about the Mutuna case was that Chibesakunda with her majority invented doctrines that should be repugnant to a democratic nation. Not since the times of Kaunda did we ever have a Supreme Court that reaffirmed presidential power that rightfully belongs to the age of dinosaurs. For example, it was the opinion of her majority that the president of Zambia is “the authority on everything”. This statement is not only unnecessary but also legally problematic. It is from this assumption that she decided that since President Sata is the authority on everything, he then must have the power to fire judges based on “information the president receives as head of state”. The dissenting opinion of Justice Elizabeth Muyovwe rightly castigated such reasoning.

The other event that is disturbing concerns the famous press statement given by a spokesperson of the judiciary. That statement was not only so outrageous in its defiance of acceptable legal order, but it was unashamedly excessive. Since that statement is a subject of litigation before Justice Mulenga, I should not go into detail, but it suffices to mention that the so-called statement from the judiciary has left a bitter taste. It is bitterer than the herb “umunsokansoka”.

The Law Association of Zambia equally castigated the statement and urged the nation to completely ignore it. Dora Siliya for her part is asking the High Court to review Terry Musonda’s press statement, as it was not given “ex-cathedra.” Terry Musonda lacked the official capacity of a court of law to make pronouncements on issues that can only be decided by a duly constituted court of our republic. Zambia has no other court within the judiciary, than the duly constituted courts of law presided by ratified judges and not support staff like Terry Musonda. We remain to see how Justice Mulenga will handle this issue.

For now, we must be clear about one thing: a chief justice who causes a non-judicial officer to issue statements should not be a subject of our admiration but should be a predicate of our scorn. This is why, it should be affirmed very eloquently that Madam Chibesakunda should resign.

Does president Sata then still reserve the power to appoint anyone he wishes to act as Chief Justice. Indeed, as I have mentioned above, the president does have some of that power within reasonable limits. The President might only appoint a non-qualifying chief justice in extremely rare circumstances. For example, if the Martians were to invade Zambia and abduct 790 of the 800 lawyers in Zambia, a president might be justified to act in the interest of the state by appointing a dinosaur to be an acting Chief Justice. Again that should be done in very rare circumstances, though. That being the case, presently, there is just no reason why in view of such abundance in legal talent the President should insist on having a retired justice to be Chief Justice. Indeed, if the President so wishes, he would not struggle to find that Zambia’s Deputy Chief Justice Ireen Mambilima is more than willing and ready to become the Chief Justice. If not, we still have hundreds of talent to pull from. For all we know, the 800 lawyers on LAZ’s list are still very much around and the Martians have not abducted them at all.

Further, Justice Chibesakunda’s continued stay at the helm of the judiciary is so absurd since it appears contradictory to her own ratio decidendi in the Mutuna case. In the Mutuna case, she mentioned that judges should have guards. She did sound like she was very committed to have judges follow the law. That being the case, why isn’t she following the law herself by recusing herself from this position? She has not been ratified. She is passed the retirement age. Why then does she insist on staying on? The saying of “kuya bebele” could not have come at no better time than this. Justice Chibesakunda should go.

Justice Chibesakunda has been “acting” for over a year now. Using a purely administrative argument, no one should act in a position for so long. Borrowing from the Executive, article 38 of the Zambian constitution does not even envisage an acting president for a period exceeding 90-days. That being the case, it is equally absurd that we should subject the judiciary to a temporary head who has been “acting” for over a year. Since she has not been ratified into the position and additionally, since she doesn’t qualify for it, the normal thing to do is to resign and ask His Excellency to find another person to appoint. As I have mentioned above, if it is a relative the president is concerned about, he has an abundance of young vibrant abepwa, abafyala, abeshikulu, ba cufi banabo, and many more bululus whom he could take to parliament for ratification. It does not have to be Madam Justice Chibesakunda.

It is quite pathetic that a justice who has dedicated herself to the Zambian cause should come to this end. Civil society has rejected her. The Law Association of Zambia have said no. Kuya bebele is what everyone is saying. I just hope that madam justice Chibesakunda will resign before she turns the whole judiciary into a kangaroo court.

Kuya bebele!

By E. Munshya wa Munshya

 We are seeing the portrait of a very active and engaging leader from State House, a cobra in his own right. President Sata is appearing in more public events. He is seen commissioning or not commissioning roads, and he is being seen in public berating his juniors for what he perceives to be mediocre work.

At State House during the famous swearing in ceremonies, President Sata does appear to be a very enchanting participant. He is seen and heard rebuking those with baldheads. It is still debatable whether the baldhead phenomenon is just because he is naturally a funny character or there is something seriously wrong with those men spotting bald. In many instances, he would interrupt the solemn ceremonies of a swearing in service to talk about the status of grass at State House. During the many campaign stops he has made since assuming office, he is heard fully engaging with voters and appealing to them to vote for his party – the PF – if those areas are to taste any “aromatic aldehyde” of development.

He has made several changes to his own team. Permanent Secretaries are being moved and transferred frequently. The latest of these transfers, of course, being the resettlement of Emmanuel Mwamba from Barotseland to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. To Barotseland, President Sata has sent Amos Malupenga as permanent secretary. This should make for interesting times. Malupenga, the man of holograms, has now been hollowed to Barotseland.

Indeed, the president does seem to be actively engaged with many issues: baldheads, bad roads, depraved grass at State House, Chief Jumbe’s bedroom and many other issues. One area, however, that has seen a dearth in silence from the Head of State does seem to be the events happening in his own party – the Patriotic Front.

Obviously, President Sata does read widely and he listens very closely. As recent as just a few months ago, he told Chief Jumbe that he listens in on his conversations including those happening in his bedroom. No one would doubt that and neither should we have any reason to doubt that President Sata can and in fact does listen in. Whatever that means, should be left to one’s imagination. We are not psychics and so we should be satisfied that we may never know what His Excellency actually meant by that. Suffice to mention here that listening into private bedrooms used to be very bad manners at one time in our upbringing. But when you are “the authority on everything” (see the Mutuna & Others case), it seems you do have the right to do so. Being president comes with benefits including that of being likened to a peeping tom.

That being the case then, there seems to be a disconnect within President Sata’s own party. Why is it that this president who is so actively engaging with everything around him has failed to mention, not even once, the emergence of cracks and the house that is quickly falling apart in his own backyard? It should be ironic that at the same time that he is noticing the browning of grass at State House he is not equally paying attention to the browning of fists at Northmead, happening right under his nose. How can one explain this ambivalence? Well let us try to provide an analysis.

First, it could be that while we think President Sata is actively engaging, he might not be. May be he just does not see the fights that are going on. But this theory is almost impossible to fathom. The same day that he went to commission a road at Kasisi, he could tell that the road he had been led to had, in fact, been tarred already. To this, he asked his longest serving Member of Parliament Yamfwa Mukanga, “why did you call me to commission a road which is already done?” On that same day, there was a battle brewing at Northmead between supporters of GBM and those of Wynter “one party state” Kabimba. I do not believe the President has not seen this. He is very aware of these problems. This then leads us to the second question, if the president is aware of these issues, why then hasn’t he taken action?

Divisions in ruling parties are not new and neither are they unique to the Patriotic Front. We have tried to analyse in this column, that all presidents have faced a test of severe divisions and factions within their parties. These problems have emerged mostly in a few months after assuming power. Divisions and all these fights are not strange. Politicians are fighting all the time. Chiluba and his cabinet started fighting within weeks. In fact, it is fights that led to Chiluba’s first vice-president to quit in protest against the bitter differences that had emerged between him and Michael Sata, who at that time was Chiluba’s closest collaborator.

Rupiah Banda equally faced a mutiny within the MMD. Mpombo and Mulongoti started fighting within the party. Kenneth Kaunda too faced squabbles within his first years in power. Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe and other Bemba-speaking hegemonists could not stomach the anti-Bemba politics that Kaunda had developed shortly after independence.

In all these differences and fights and squabbles, there has been clear precedence. That is the concerned presidents have played an active role in directing the outcomes of these fights. Kaunda identified the squabbles early and settled with the Bemba-faction. Chiluba showed his preferences and Mwanawasa was left with no option but to resign. Rupiah Banda had made it clear that he was not in favour of either Mpombo or Mulongoti. These presidents did not bury their heads in the sand. They showed up when conflict came up and Zambia was clear about where they stood. Again, these presidents might have taken wrong decisions. They might have even backed the wrong horses. But hey, at least they showed up and showed leadership!

In 2013, however, in the face of squabbles, the ever-engaging cobra does seem to have become desensitized and ambivalent to the problems eating the party and consequently the nation. President Sata has said nothing, absolutely nothing about these conflicts. Everyone does seem to be speaking for him – except himself. GBM is saying that he is carrying out a message from President Sata, and so is Kabimba claiming that he is running the party in the name of the President. Both Kabimba and GBM cannot be right. One is obviously lying. But in the event that both of these gentlemen give us conflicting messages about the direction of the Patriotic Front, it is incumbent upon the president himself to show up, show up strong and tell the nation where he stands.

President Sata is nicknamed king cobra. A king cobra can bite multiple times and in multiple ways. No testing times require the king to show up than now. The Patriotic Front has faced no crisis requiring its cobra to bite, and bite harder, than now. This silence would be excusable only in one instance. That is if the cobra has in fact mutated into an ostrich. It is the ostrich that has the reputation and the myth of burying its head in the sand, while the world around goes to Northmead for a fight of fists.

But this should not be characteristic of our cobra, our Michael Sata and our president. He must speak and speak now to redeem the image of his party and through that redeem the pride of our nation. Otherwise, the myth of the ostrich will grow bigger while the reality of the cobra is decreasing by the day.

What good is the cobra if it cannot bite?

 By Munshya wa Munshya

 Nothing shows the character of a president, or any person for that matter, than the battles she chooses to fight. The saying that action speaks louder than words becomes even more real for a nation, in the type of undertakings that a president decides to employ. There can be no doubt that both action and inaction could show us without doubt where a president’s vision for the country lay. This is even more serious in our country. Faced with bitter division within his own ruling party, the President has decided to cast a blind eye on those divisions and instead, has concentrated on victimizing citizens. These citizens’ only crime is the decision to stand up for the country and exercise their democratic liberties. Just the other day, President Sata, to the embarrassment of our intelligence community, issued a written statement in which he claimed that the intelligence has infiltrated Hakainde Hichilema. We may never know the extent of that infiltration, but following the Chief Jumbe precedence, it could include “sikiriti ku bed.” This is Michael Sata’s priority and we get it.

In President Sata’s threatening phone call to Joy FM, we are further introduced to the priorities of this president. In that phone call we are shown what this president regards as national security priorities: the political death of Nevers Mumba. The fighting between GBM and Kabimba by far poses the greatest threat to our national security and to our democracy. GBM is no ordinary character; he is the country’s minister of defense. He is the third most powerful of cabinet peers. His public spats with Kabimba cannot be trivial matters. In fact, Nevers Mumba’s vociferations on radio pale in comparison with the security implications brought by the “cipaye no lamwina” going on in the PF. And the president’s inaction over GBM and Kabimba while making the greatest noise against HH and Mumba goes to just show that the cobra has marked its victims.

That being the case, the older I grow, the more I realize that us mortals may never know what transpires to champions of democracy once they acquire power and begin breathing the air supplied only to the chosen five at Plot One. To what could we attribute the complete transformation that our presidents go through immediately after they are ushered into the Nkwazi House? What happened to KK after independence? Which virus eats up the democratic decency of people like Dr. Frederick Chiluba who after fathering our democracy ten years later wanted to suffocate it? And now in 2013, when our nation is confronted with the infighting within the ruling Patriotic Front, our president decides to look the other way and to bury his head in the sands of Lealui hoping that after 90 days, it will all go away. Instead of confronting the evil in PF, the president decides to attack democracy.

However, once a people have had the opportunity to get their taste buds tantalized by the beautiful aroma coming from the fruits yielded by a tree of democracy, they do everything they can to defend that tree. The fabric of our republic changed fundamentally in 1991. The people of Zambia resolved to replace a dictatorship that once was styled “one-party participatory democracy” with a democracy allowing plural politics and with it plural views and opinions. After having tasted this beauty and after having touched this greatness, Zambians are willing to defend this democracy to the bitter end. Pafwa abantu, pashala bantu.

As stated above, in 2001 Chiluba got almost corrupted by the same dictatorship he had risen to fight. It is the ordinary Zambians who stopped what could have been a resurgence of tyranny. In that year, Zambians from all walks of life came together and demanded that Chiluba and his lieutenant Michael Sata stop the ridiculous bid to run for a third term. Amazingly, at a rally in Lusaka even the vice-president of our nation joined expelled Members of Parliament and members of the civil society to demand that Chiluba does not asphyxiate democracy.

In 2011, again the people of Zambia exercised their freedoms. Lozis, Bembas, urban dwellers as well as the general workers in our country came together and formed perhaps one of the most significant political coalitions to usher in the presidency of one Michael Chilufya Sata. Through the “Don’t Kubeba” coalition Sata became only the second to Chiluba to beat an incumbent. This is no small feat. It is a significant event. But the true heroes of the 2011 story are ordinary Zambians, both the educated elite of Omelo Mumba Road and the poor street kids that sleep under the pavements of Rhodes Park. Ordinary Zambians put a stop to what they perceived to have been an unproductive presidency of Rupiah Banda.

However, like many governments before it, a bout of political dementia and historical psychosis has suddenly afflicted the PF government. Frequently, gentlemen like Wynter Kabimba are now standing on a podium to proclaim, quite thoughtlessly I must say, that the PF is going to rule for decades to come, for a 100 years minimum. Kabimba has even got the bravery, people of Zambia, to claim that your country is now on its way back to a one-party system. I should be the last person to fault the honorable comrade for so thinking. However, I should be humble to acknowledge that many things are unlawful, but political silliness is not one of them. Quite to the shock and awe of the honorable comrade it is only the sober people of Kafulafuta and Msanzala who had to remind him that his wishes were just that: wishes of a very capable gentleman intoxicated by the Kachasu of political power. And indeed, due to the tyrannical nature of the PF party itself, the cadres are making the honorable comrade’s continued stay as Secretary untenable. Kabimba has lost in both ways: the people of Katete rejected his philosophy and now even his own cadres have armed themselves with pangas against him. It is difficult to imagine how quickly 100 years in power can change to an ultimatum to leave the Patriotic Front.

Kabimba aside, it should be concerning correspondingly that President Sata last week called Joy FM radio to ask the presenter to cancel a radio at which opposition leader Nevers Mumba was guest. His Excellency too needs to be reminded. Zambians have drunk the cup of democracy. They have found it to be too sweet. And having found this democracy too sweet, they are refusing to let go. They are saying quite eloquently, democracy yali lowa!

Nevers Mumba might have used many colorful words he wanted to use during that radio broadcast. But that is the beauty of our democracy: to be able to hold Michael Sata accountable and let the people of Zambia know that some of the promises Sata made were, borrowing from Zagaze and Pilato, “bufi”. And of course, our people do not go begging at State House for a handout of freedoms. If Sata wants to take this path, then he will have to top-up on talk time and get ready to make many calls: Zambia’s tree of democracy is alive and well.

 By Munshya wa Munshya

 If history were tomatoes, we could all easily amble towards Soweto Market find vendors and from a variety of that fruit choose which kind we want. If history were a presidential candidate, we could easily exercise our franchise and choose from two competing chronicles. Indeed, if history were a brand of soft drinks, we could turn to ZCBC and cherry-pick Tiptop over Tarino. Isn’t it a blessing that history is none of these? History is a story or more specifically, it is collection of stories. This is not to mean that we choose between competing stories, but rather that competing stories, together should be aggregated towards a more complete picture: a picture capturing time and emphasizing the role of our common humanity in it.

Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda has objected to my characterization of him as a cohort to a group of politicians that I deemed to have been responsible for the “barbaric use of the Public Order Act in the 1990s”. I had said this in my Daily Nation column published on Friday 20 September 2013. He has also objected to my description of his role as a cohort to both Chiluba and Sata in the role the trio played in the 1996 constitutional amendments. At the center of his objection, I think, is the story or history he wants us to believe and to write. He wants to cherry-pick the tomatoes of history. I do sympathize with his yearning to do so. In fact, it is his right to write or reformulate a story of his life that is based on his own exploration. But Miyanda should be estopped from imposing his version of history upon the opinions of our people and certainly not upon me.

General Miyanda’s story has been gallant. The name of Miyanda shall be forever etched on the consecrated stones of our jurisprudence. Beginning from employment law, to evidence law, and to constitutional law, the courts of our republic teem with Miyanda cases. The courts have formulated greatest doctrines in constitutional law from the very cases Miyanda brought against the State. In fact, every soldier in our national service is more secure in his or her employment as a result of one case in which Miyanda took President Kaunda to court for unfair dismissal.

However, a comprehensive picture of the history of our politicians should be balanced by criticism. I did characterize General Miyanda as a significant player in the 1996 amendments. I have no regrets, and certainly will not be apologizing for so writing. It seems to me that General Miyanda is eager to escape responsibility over the 1996 amendment by hiding behind the complexity of a modern administrative state. I do understand how complicated the modern state has become. I agree with him that it is difficult to, in some instances, attribute actions of the State to any one individual. But General Miyanda was not a small player in Chiluba’s administration. He was not an insignificant District Administrative Officer for Milenge. Miyanda was the vice-president of our republic.

In that article, I mentioned three most important and most senior leaders of the MMD and our country who spearheaded those amendments: Chiluba, Miyanda and Sata. I’m surprised, though, at how quickly Chiluba’s close collaborators want to delete themselves away from the Chiluba Era. In fact, when you look at Sata now, he seldom mentions Chiluba. Sata has named everything after Kaunda and Mwanawasa while conveniently disremembering the father of our democracy – Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba. If Chiluba has been made to own the success and failures of his regime, then we should equally have the freedom, and with it the fortitude, to ask Chiluba’s close colleagues to accept and own that piece of history as well.

General Miyanda has taken great exception to my use of the term “cohort”. I concede. I will now change the term from cohort to colleague. I am not too sure though how that changes the substance of my arguments.

Miyanda also objects to my characterization of him as a close associate of one Michael Chilufya Sata. In fact, the General mentions that his political life has been unlike that of Sata. For avoidance of doubt, as at 2013, Sata has spent more time in government serving with Miyanda (1991-2001) than with Kabimba (2012-2013) or Guy Scott (1991-1995 & 2011-2013). This is a historical fact. I do agree that a majority of our population is young and was born way after 1990, but this should not be reason to circumcise history based on current political realities. Miyanda was Sata’s boss in government for about 6 years and was Sata’s boss in the ruling party for years after that. Nothing in my assertions here should mean that the two gentlemen have the same political philosophy. Miyanda is in many cases far much more superior in both intellectual acumen and moral fortitude. All I am stating is that these two gentlemen served in a government, which made laws and policies that have significant consequences today. The fact that Miyanda and Sata have gone separate ways especially after the 2001 debacle cannot retroactively defeat a prior political intercourse. If we allowed 2013 to remake 1996, then we have become magicians but, certainly, not historians.

I must mention this to the current leaders who too will be former this or former that.

Know that each time you stand in the sacred space of our parliament you are writing a piece of your history and a piece of the story of our country. Our nation is becoming impatient with leaders who refuse to lead appropriately hoping to hide behind the veil of collective responsibility when the future demands accountability. Today, it is Miyanda we are demanding answers from. Tomorrow, it will be Guy Scott or Wynter Kabimba. Take the responsibility given to you by Zambians earnestly. If you do not believe in the actions of Michael Sata, say it now. The year 2023 might judge you more harshly than the way 2013 is judging Miyanda and his cohorts (oops, colleagues).

Miyanda then touches on the issue of where “Munshya was when I fought in the second republic”. Zambian politicians like to use this “where were you” tag to delegitimize critics. It is as if, they want to freeze 2013 in 1978. I was probably an infant when he was fighting Kaunda’s abuse of army employment law. However, a few years later, I was one of those little boys on the streets of Maikulile who would line up the pathways of Chiwempala to hear him and his colleagues campaign for the reintroduction of multi-party politics in 1991. I was a small boy – adorning the dust of our blessed soils with torn shorts. My little mind, nevertheless, captured the story of democracy for my country. I believed in democracy because, the stories Chiluba and Miyanda told were in sharp contrast to Kaunda’s tired “wamuyaya” narratives.

But the time has come for me to ask questions and to formulate a story on my own. That being the case, I should find it even more surprising, that the General seems to be having a problem with the fact that I feature, in my column, ideas that he has previously promoted. Democracy is a repetition of ideas. Pluralism flourishes in the free exchange of similar if not identical thoughts. Both the General and me agree that Justice Chibesakunda “kuya bebele”. Miyanda should not fault me for this!

Nevertheless, in order for us to create a better democracy we might need to recast the story of our democracy by reimagining the roles that champions played in this story. That re-imagination should begin by considering the forte and the flaws of some players in our democratic narrative. Challenging the story told by Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda is a legitimate practice in our democracy.

BRIGADIER GENERAL GODFREY MIYANDA’S RESPONSE TO MUNSHYA WA MUNSHYA’S ARTICLE TITLED ‘WHEN A GENERAL CHERRY-PICKS HISTORY: MY RESPONSE TO GODFREY KENNETH MIYANDA’

Munshya wa Munshya’s article titled “When A General Cherry-Picks History: My Response to Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda by Munshya wa Munshya” seems to be responding to my article titled “Objection to Munshya wa Munshya’s Personal Attack” published on page 6 of the Daily Nation on 28th September 2013. But on close examination I find that his article is a clever ruse for him to have a second bite at the cherry! This latest effort does not deserve an answer because it is a forgery but respond I must.

Munshya wa Munshya has forged his own statement of 20th September 2013 and supplanted it with fresh talk! I object and refuse to be an accessory to his laundering scheme. If I ‘aggregate’ my response I shall be perpetuating a never-ending debate. Instead I shall just expose the duplicity (deliberate deception) in his response. I shall do this by pointing out the forgery, then drawing attention to his unsubstantiated accusations and unsupported malicious “opinions” based on conjured up facts.

BACKGROUND OF MY COMPLAINT: In my article published in the Daily Nation (page 6 dated Saturday 28th September 2013) I based my complaint on Munshya wa Munshya’s article dated 20th September 2013, which I quote again: “a. ‘when Chiluba and his cohorts – Michael Sata and Miyanda TO BE EXACT- found solace in the barbaric use of the Public Order Act’; b. ‘further, when Chiluba, Sata and Miyanda amended the 1996 Constitution…’”. I used his own EXACT words to correct the record or ‘history’!

THE FORGERY: In his current article of 4th October 2013 Munshya wa Munshya has forged his own original article, adding what he had not written and basing his comments on the new cherries. The following are examples of new material:

(i) “Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda has objected to my characterization of him as a cohort to a group of politicians that I deemed to have been responsible for the ‘barbaric use of the Public Order Act in the 1990s’. I had said this in my Daily Nation column published on Friday 20 September 2013”: He has not just forged but has lied that he said this in his article of 20th September. By adding ‘a group of politicians’ and ‘deeming’ he has changed the meaning and imposed his own history!
(ii) “He (Miyanda) has also objected to my description of his role as a cohort to both Chiluba and Sata in the role the trio played in the 1996 constitutional amendments”: This is also a new addition that has changed the original exact wording.
(iii) “I did characterize General Miyanda as a significant player in the 1996 amendments”: this is also an addition and changes the original wording.
(iv) “I agree with him (Miyanda) that it is difficult to, in some instances, attribute actions of the State to any one individual”. : This is a fabrication and I deny that I said this for him to ‘agree’ with me.
(v) “In that article, I (Munshya) mentioned three most important and most senior leaders of the MMD and our country who spearheaded those amendments: Chiluba, Miyanda and Sata”: where did he say this in the original article? Nowhere!
(vi) “Today, it is Miyanda we are demanding answers from”: another forgery; nowhere did he ask me to answer any questions.
(vii) “…the General seems to be having a problem with the fact that I feature, in my column, ideas that he has previously promoted. Democracy is a repetition of ideas. Pluralism flourishes in the free exchange of similar if not identical thoughts. Both the General and me agree that Justice Chibesakunda ‘kuya bebele’. Miyanda should not fault me for this”: he is answering his own questions as I did not refer to his column and I did not fault him on his democracy crusade but on ignoring my own little contributions in national issues, which he has now done and for which I thank him.
(viii) “Challenging the story told by Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda is a legitimate practice in our democracy”: which story is this that he is challenging? I am not aware of this and I believe that even many readers do not know what he is referring to.
(ix) “At the centre of his (Miyanda’s) objection is the story or history he wants us to believe or to write”: really? Which history and what is he referring to?

Munshya wa Munshya has faulted me for “cherry-picking” history. But according to his own definition and I quote “History is a story or specifically, it is a collection of stories”. So why should I not pick a cherry from the collection? He wants to divert attention by generalising and ignoring the exact words he published. I reject the unsubstantiated insinuation that I suppressed or doctored evidence in my response. It is him who must be estopped from doctoring published statements. Had he written what he has now written I would have had no cause to object. I did not write any history but objected to the convenient misleading characterisation which he has left as a permanent record to be relied on by researchers at home and abroad. This is why I characterised him as careless and casual. See now who is cherry-picking!

Follow this history he has published, I quote him: “For avoidance of doubt, as at 2013, Sata has spent more time in government serving with Miyanda (1991-2001) than with Kabimba (2012-2013) or Guy Scott (1991-1995 & 2011-2013). This is a historical fact.”: Munshya wa Munshya’s historical facts are skewed; let him carry out further research and he will discover how long President Sata has been associated with Guy Scott and Winter Kabimba. His history is wrong yet he is imposing it on us. Further I have not been Mr Sata’s boss as he alleges.

ACCUSATIONS:

He has accused me of wanting to escape from responsibility. This is slander disguised as an opinion. It is him again who is imposing his own version of our history. I object and deny hiding behind collective responsibility. There is in the public domain, my very clear acceptance of the collective actions we took but for posterity I have a right and a duty to state or correct facts when this is necessary and/or legally possible.

OPINIONS (some of them): I have just been informed that Munshya wa Munshya is a lawyer – good for him. If so my humble advice is that he must base his opinions and assumptions on real facts and not those he makes up. Otherwise he will always go astray with his analyses.

If there is to be judgement let it NOT be a generalised one in 2023 but it should be now on Munshya was Munshya’s forged response of 4th October 2013!

GODFREY MIYANDA,
BRIGADIER GENERAL
[4TH OCTOBER 2013]

 By Munshya wa Munshya

Brigadier General Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda has objected very strongly to this paragraph in my article of 20 September 2013 in the Daily Nation Newspaper. This same article is also published on www.eliasmunshya.org. This is what I wrote:

When Chiluba and his cohorts – Michael Sata and Miyanda to be exact – found great solace in the barbaric use of the Public Order Act, it is gallant judges who held that some sections of this law should be ruled as unconstitutional (see cases of Mulundika & Resident Doctors). Further, when Chiluba, Sata and Miyanda amended the 1996 constitution to exclude the likes of Kaunda based on the “parentage” clause; again our Supreme Court came back and provided a more sensible interpretation of what it meant to have Zambian parents (see Lewanika & Others v. Chiluba). It has been my position, following guidance from the Lewanika case, that even a Zambian like Guy Scott does satisfy the requirements of the “parentage clause”.

Specifically, General Miyanda has taken strong exception to my description of him as a “cohort” to Chiluba and Sata in the “barbaric use of the Public Order Act”. General Miyanda has also objected to my opinion that he with Chiluba and Sata “amended the 1996 constitution” to exclude the likes of Kaunda.

I had responded to his objections in my article entitled “When a General Cherry-Picks History”. In his response, Brigadier General Miyanda wasted no time to accuse me of all sorts of things. Additionally, he accused me of having an agenda to stigmatize him. Further General Miyanda cited me for forgery. One would then wonder where this stigmatization is based in my article as I only mentioned the trio’s political activities to this our country. Addressing the forgery I have been cited for, I still don’t know what he meant by that.

I do stand by what I had written in its entirety. Further, I wish to not respond any further to his insinuations. Indeed spending lots of time answering General Miyanda could take me away from the nobler task of adding our democratic visibility to those who currently serve in the “Donchi Kubeba” government. These individuals will soon join General Miyanda in the ranks of former this or former that. It is to these individuals like Guy Scott, Wynter Kabimba and even Bo Chilufya Sata that we must expend our energies in offering the needed political criticism. I do thank General Miyanda for his distinguished service to our people. He is a gallant soldier of democracy. But what I have written about his role during the Chiluba Era still remains my opinion and I would not for a second regret  authoring such.

I do this with a clear and sincere hope that the greatness of our nation lies ahead of us. I also do believe that in this little way, we could help to bequeath to our children a better democracy and with that a better republic.

Follow the conversation on twitter: @munshyamunshya

By Munshya wa Munshya

 Fighting for his political survival, Hon. Wynter Kabimba, made a very significant comment that his party has a clique of Bemba political hegemonists. Even Guy Scott has supported Wynter in these assertions. A daily newspaper has also, in its editorial, made the same allegations: there seems to be a Bemba clique within the PF that wants exclusive political control. Kabimba, further, acknowledged that he had been naïve all along. We’ve been telling Wynter all along that the PF is a tribal party, but it is only now that he has suddenly realized it. After this reality had sunk in, Wynter realized that the party he thought would rule Zambia for 100 years was in fact, a tribal party. Since Bo Kabimba has joined in this conversation, it would be just and prudent for all of us to continue it. After all, democracy is an orgy of ideas.

At independence in 1964 Zambia’s first president naively thought that Zambia had entered a new era of post-tribal politics. Kaunda had managed to convince the Litunga to have Barotseland proceed to independence, with the rest of Zambia, as one nation. However, just three years into power, Kaunda realized that the Zambian tribes were not as united as he had previously thought. The first post independence UNIP convention saw a very bitter tribal fight. The Bemba—Tonga pact had at the UNIP convention bitterly defeated the Lozi—Nyanja alliance. Kapwepwe was elected UNIP’s vice-President to the consternation of Kaunda. Reuben Kamanga, an easterner, was soundly defeated. In fact, it was during this time, that some UNIP stalwarts started doubting Kaunda’s loyalty to the Bemba tribe since he had Malawian parentage. Kaunda knew very well that he needed to do something more to overcome this new era of tribalism that had started to engulf the nation.

To overcome this, Kaunda retraced and reemphasized his loyalty as a Bemba subject of Chief Nkula in Chinsali. He also made a point to try and persuade Kapwepwe to step aside since two Bembas could not possibly hold two top positions in both UNIP and the government. Kapwepwe reluctantly obliged and Kaunda quickly brought in Mainza Chona, a Southerner to replace Kapwepwe. But this deeply displeased Kapwepwe and several other Bemba hegemonists, who later proceeded to found the UPP, a party whose principal popularity was in Luapula Province and its Copperbelt subsidiary of Mufulira.

To cure the issue of tribalism Kaunda started what he called Tribal Balancing. In this new arrangement he made sure that the provinces were well represented in government. It was so intentional that you could actually predict who would be in Cabinet and who would not. In this new arrangement the position of Prime Minister was almost exclusively reserved for either Barotseland or Southern Province. Out of six Premiers, from 1973—1991, four were Lozis and the other two were Tonga. This was KK’s tribal balancing at its best.

When Chiluba came into power, the intentional and deliberate tribal balancing was effectively overruled. Chiluba now claimed that he would appoint people on “merit.” However, it still remains to be answered why under Chiluba almost all Parastatal chiefs seemed to originate from Luapula Province. From just this it may be clear that appointment on merit may have meant tribal merit as well. But even if this is the reality with Chiluba, he was never accused of playing tribal politics. I guess if it were a Lenje doing the same thing, some vocal quarters could have condemned the practice.

It seems like; there is an assumption, a disturbing one for that matter, among some Zambians that only non-Bemba speaking peoples are more capable of tribalism. This is obviously erroneous. It should be quite surprising that President Sata would in one breath appoint an exclusively Bemba cabinet and in the next condemn Hakainde Hichilema for tribalism. Of all the presidents, it is the Bemba-speaking presidents who in fact have appointed more of their tribesmen to power. Chiluba and Sata have appointed more Bembas in their cabinet and Parastatal companies. What is surprising is that in spite of this, these presidents still deny being tribal.

When leaving power in 2001 Chiluba wanted to have a minority tribe to take over. This honour obviously fell on Mwanawasa—of both Lamba and Lenje heritage. Even without objective evidence, Mwanawasa was quickly accused of appointing a family tree in his cabinet.  Opposition leader Michael Sata was the main accuser. But once objectively assessed you will notice that Mwanawasa’s cabinet was more tribally balanced than any other in history. Mwanawasa also brought in some tribal diversity in Parastatal companies. However, when he appointed Sisala as ZESCO Managing Director, more tribalistic accusations were leveled against him. This again plays to my thesis that several Zambians believe, erroneously, that only non-Bembas are more capable of tribalism.

Under the Rupiah Banda presidency, the issue of tribalism took on a new shape all together. What was even more surprising with Rupiah Banda is that in spite of only having five easterners in his cabinet, opposition leader Michael Sata repeatedly accused Banda of practicing tribalism. Five easterners in Rupiah Banda’s government by far pale the over 70% Bembas in Michael Sata’s government.

President Sata has appointed more of his tribesmen to both Cabinet and the diplomatic service. But in spite of this, he still denies that he is a tribalist. I don’t know what measures tribalism better than a president’s exercise of prerogative powers. If a president appoints more of his tribesmen than any other tribe, surely, we could easily conclude that tribe must be playing a more prominent role than any other consideration. The idea that this president tries to balance brains is even more insulting to other tribes considering that these so called brains are derived primarily from Luapula-Muchinga-Northern corridor.

In the Bible both Joshua and Moses were repeatedly asked to choose men from each tribe of Israel. Tribal balancing does have some biblical basis as well.

Tribalism is alive and well in PF because President Sata tolerates and in fact, flourishes in it. Action speaks louder than words. If President Sata wants to put a stop to this tribal nonsense, then he must act and act decisively. The president should not be seen to be acting with a forked tongue – condemning GBM and his group while at the same time doing nothing concrete to put a stop to GBM’s tribal crusade, as alleged by Wynter. But to add more salt to injury just this week His Excellency sent two more Bembas to the diplomatic service.

Munshya wa Munshya

Tribal diversity should be the bedrock of our republic. No one should be ashamed of his or her tribe and no one should be made to think lowly of their heritage. The rivers of our national identity pass through the valleys of tribal and ethnic diversity. The dream of One Zambia, One Nation is not a motto that obliterates differences, but a tool that unites diversity for the national good. In Zambia, all people from all tribes and ethnic groups should feel a part of their country. From Mongu to Mwansabombwe and from Milanzi to Milenge, it should be clear that our country is better and stronger once diversity is not only recognized but also respected.

Our national motto is One Zambia One Nation and not One Bemba One Nation. It should be simple common sense to realize that a little tribal balancing could help foster unity more than this crass preference for the peoples of Luapula-Muchinga-Northern corridor.

 Munshya wa Munshya

 Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education results are out. And they are pathetic. Out of over 200 candidates only 6 managed to pass the legal practice exams. Another six of repeaters have passed. Now this number translates to a meager 3% pass rate. The next number is even more worrying, upsetting actually. Ninety-seven per cent of all candidates have failed. Nothing should define a crisis in the legal system than this pathetic failure ratio. Indeed, with a pass rate this low and a failure rate so high, the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education should rightly be called the Institute of Advanced Legal Failures or something to that effect. The collateral effect of this deplorable pass rate at ZIALE is that instead of leading to legal excellence, this institution will lead Zambia into legal extinction, into doldrums. The numbers just don’t add up.

Currently, Zambia has about 800 lawyers. Applying this number to our general population means that there is only one lawyer for every 20,000 of us. If all lawyers were to be spread across the country and evenly distributed in the depth and breadth of Zambia, there will be a distance of about 250-kms between each lawyer. What this means is that there is just not enough lawyers in Zambia to go round. The lawyer to population ratio is just too high. This is unsustainable in the long run.

Legal access is a fundamental element of the rule of law. Zambia cannot achieve adequate justice without adequate legal representation for its people. From Mongu to Milenge and from Chipata to Chavuma, remand prisons are full of our people who are incarcerated, without bail, because they do not have access to adequate legal representation. This is pathetic and a betrayal of the fundamental provisions of the rule of law. And instead of helping heal this gap in the lawyer population, one wonders why ZIALE should continue to perpetuate lawyer shortage.

With this failure rate, if ZIALE were the regulator of medical doctors, government and indeed the population would have long reacted. Indeed, if ZIALE were the regulator or examiner of nurses, the population would have long noticed and this wholesale failure would not have been tolerated a single day. I still wonder why in spite of this tragedy in the number of lawyers, ZIALE should be permitted or even allowed to be passing a meager six lawyers per examination period. Something must change.

In our democracy, the supply for lawyers is not a benevolent offering of a few lawyers. It is an imperative of good democratic governance. In fact, just as we demand for medical doctors to fill our clinics, so should we demand for more lawyers to fill our chambers. Without lawyers, the rule of law becomes a pipe dream only available to the bourgeoisie of Lusaka.

There are some eminent persons among us, who argue that ZIALE is doing well in regulating how many people get into law so as to limit the number of lawyers. With due respect, this argument can only be sustained if indeed we were dealing with an oversupply of lawyers. Reality sharply contradicts this line of thought. Zambia does not have an oversupply of lawyers; it has an undersupply of them. It is, therefore, ridiculous to suggest that ZIALE should continue to trickle down a few lawyers each year in a society that already needs hundreds of lawyers each year. It is consequently, nonsense, to argue that we have too many lawyers. I actually cannot see how one lawyer for every 20,000 people can become an oversupply.

Another issue that should be dismissed with contempt is the erroneous idea that most of the law graduates who go to ZIALE are in fact of low calibre. Indeed this argument could be sustainable only if it is a few failures we are dealing with. In this case, it is not a few failures we are dealing with but rather almost all of our brightest. It is bizarre to think that almost all of Zambia’s LLB graduates, from both UNZA and other private universities, are in fact of such low calibre that only 6 or 10 of them are worthy to become lawyers. It just does not make sense at all.

All the other excuses that ZIALE has been using are just as pitiful. ZIALE and its council should have run out of excuses by now. The ordinary people of Zambia want answers. Someone must put a stop to the baloney that is going on at ZIALE. The excuses such as lack of accommodation for students make no sense too. There should be no relationship between student accommodation and this pathetic failure rate. ZIALE should reform or it should be disbanded.

There is a very worrying tendency, even among practicing lawyers, to treat law as a fundamental preserve of a few. Indeed, this tendency or philosophy should have been truer to the old tired regime of the First or Second Republics. In the Third Republic, each citizen of our great nation owns a part of the legal destiny of our country. And no one institution should hold hostage the legal development of our country to please a few somewhat selfish individuals that want to keep a tight rein on the law profession.

What then should be done about ZIALE? The ZIALE scandal should not be left in the hands of lawyers alone. Lawyers are by nature risk averse. They are trained to not take risks. Calculation and over-carefulness are the caricature of all legal education. Lawyers alone will not reform ZIALE. Indeed some are unwilling to. Had they wanted to do so, they would have prevailed upon the powers that be to change the law or do something about it. But no, they won’t, even if it means overstretching themselves over a distance of 250-kms purporting to do an impossible feat of serving 20,000 people each day.

Zambia’ Attorney General is in a unique position to influence change in the legal fraternity. Doing this however, could come with a political risk for her. We must support and prevail upon the Attorney General and other politicians to prevail upon parliament to bring changes to ZIALE. The Attorney General plays an important role in our democracy. Importantly, she is the leader of the Zambian bar. But more than that she is the principal legal representor of the juristic public interest. As a quasi-politician, the AG should be more aware of the political pressure exerted by the people. It is at this level where those demanding changes at ZIALE can begin. The crisis at ZIALE should be moved from being a pure legal issue to become a wider crisis that threatens the public interest and the growth of our democracy. With political pressure, ZIALE can be reformed.

Current law students can also join the thousands of ZIALE failures to do something. To demonstrate along Cairo Road and perhaps make some noise along Great East Road and bring visibility to this issue. Additionally, all law students and graduates in Zambia could one year boycott ZIALE. Send no application there. Send a clear message. It cannot be a fair process that which collects billions of Kwacha in fees only to select the lucky six for law licenses. Action should begin now.

There is 1 lawyer for every 20,000 of Zambians

I am curious though to find out what professors at ZIALE really teach their students as to account for this low pass rate. Do they teach them in Hebrew only to examine them in Greek? Indeed, it is either these law graduates are so dull or it is to the professors we must direct this criticism. Zambia will be better and greater with a few more lawyers in it. But with the failure rate at ZIALE so high we shall continue to have 20,000 of us chase the skirts or robes of one lawyer. And the problem is that there are just not enough skirts or robes to go round.

 Munshya wa Munshya

Reimagining The Myths of Our Nation

Myths are powerful. Not only do they create nations, but they also perpetuate them. No nation can last, for a day, without some story justifying its existence as a nation or as a group of nations. Human genius knows no better partner than the myth of national storytelling. Through myths, we tell stories of our nation. Through myths, we philosophize our nationhood. Through myths, we define the perimeters of patriotism and demarcate the fields of vision and national purpose. It, therefore, goes without saying that while myths might provide ammunition to run a nation; they can in the same vein ruin a nation.

Forty-nine years of our independence call for deeper reflection of those myths and stories told to us about our country. With the 49^th Independence Anniversary comes the activity of mythmaking and story telling. The problem with these myths is that once repeatedly told the same way, they stop making sense. They become stale. They cease to inspire. Cast in this tired light, the independence narrative becomes a burden. When this happens, we must awaken ourselves to seek a renewal and a reawakening of national mythmaking.

Forty-nine years after independence, most of our people still live in abject poverty. May be Hakainde Hichilema is right: it is not enough just to celebrate independence; we must have something to show for it. However, within the context of disappointments, it is easy for the population to give way to despondency and hopelessness. In the face of failed fruits of independence we must, actually we should, recast the independence story in ways that are relevant to our times. Independence Day should not just be a day where we gather and listen to the same old and drowsy story of how we fought the Europeans. It should be more than that. Each Zambian should see themselves within the context of a continuous story.

The reimagined Zambian myth should begin by challenging and questioning the popular assumptions of what it really means to be Zambian. In spite of evidence to the contrary, Zambia at the turn of independence became a victim of a citizenship formulation that was, at most, a lie. This formulation envisaged a nation with “pure Zambian citizens.” This primordial paradigm, unfortunately, has continued unchallenged almost 50 years after independence. Kaunda at independence demanded for pure Zambians, and so did Chiluba with the 1996 amendments to the constitution. The current sidelining of Guy Scott by Michael Sata also shows that the puristic views of Zambian identity are still prevalent.

The 1964 explanation of what it meant to be a citizen made people like Kaunda to live in absurdities. For his part, Kaunda tried to cure this absurdity by writing to the Malawian government so as to renounce his Malawian citizenship. That 1973 letter goes to show the inadequacy and utter drivel of one-dimensional outlook of citizenship. In an African country like ours, it should not have been required of Kaunda to renounce his Malawian connections. He should have been allowed to be both Zambian and Malawian. Indeed, in the modern Zambia, many of our people are realizing and abandoning the purist one-dimensional view of what it means to be Zambian. As a nation, Zambia will comprise of peoples transecting varied demographics, religions, and persuasions. Whites, blacks, Indian and mixed race peoples are uniting and claiming a share in the process of mythmaking. People like Guy Scott and Dipak Patel should be given the full rights and recognition of citizenship. There should, therefore, be no justifiable reason why Guy Scott should not act as President of Zambia. In a reimagined myth of Zambia, we do not discriminate based on origin or based on the past. Rather, we unite those minds among us who share a common destiny. In this reimagination, Zambia becomes to us a destiny more than a heritage. A heritage connects us to the past, but a destiny connects us to the future. When we say we are Zambian, it is not to the past that we are seeking an identity, but rather it is to the future.

The reimagination of Zambian nationhood should also embrace the many Zambians who now live outside of the country. The present government should give a hearing to the many demands from the diaspora to recognise dual nationality. It is absurd that in the face of globalization, Zambians can become global citizens while being denied the legal protection of citizenship in their own country of origin.

A reimagination of nationhood might also involve a confrontation of our identity as a Christian nation. It goes without saying that most Zambians are Christian. In fact, beginning from independence, even Kaunda recognized Zambia as a Christian nation. By declaring Zambia as a Christian nation in 1991, President Chiluba was merely affirming a reality consistent with what Kaunda and others believed about Zambia. The fact that the Christian nation declaration forms part of the preamble to our republican constitution goes to show the significance of Christianity to our people. But the Christian nation identity of our country should be reimagined and recast in ways that, nevertheless, recognise the religious diversity of our country. Even if we have minority religions in Zambia, people who adhere to those religions must be accorded the same constitutional protections accorded to Christianity. In spite of being a Christian nation, Zambia is not a church and certainly not a parish. Our country is made up of a diverse cadre of adherents to various religions. This religious diversity should be recognised and respected. Our government should not run affairs of this nation in ways that deny constitutional liberties to citizens. As such, the Declaration should not be taken as a tool to oppress non-Christians. It is in this vein, therefore, that it worries me for Information Permanent Secretary Emmanuel Mwamba to cancel radio licenses to Muslims for the fact that they are Muslim. Tyranny against one group is tyranny against all groups.

Munshya wa Munshya

Reimagining the myth of nationhood also means that we must relook at the meaning we assign to mottos such as “One Zambia One Nation”.  One Zambia One Nation motto is perhaps one of the founding myths of our republic from which many in Zambia derive a great sense of unity and patriotism. But there are areas in which this motto has been so interpreted not as a tool of liberty, but as a tool of tyranny. The aspirational value of One Zambia One Nation means that, it is the various sects and tribes and peoples of Zambia that are contributing equally to the creation of a modern state. This motto should make each sect in our nation to be more humble towards others. It means that the majority should never think they are the only ones making Zambia, but rather that Zambia, like a human body, survives and subsists through the contribution and sacrifice of even the smallest parts. In practice, it means that we will not let this motto to delegitimize our tribes, but rather that this motto will legitimate our tribes while assigning a new aspirational vision.

There are many ways we could begin the process of reimagination of the myths that make our nation. I offer only but a few hoping that as we all participate in our nation building, we will find ways and opportunities to build. The Zambian myth is no greater than the people making it. At 49, we are presented with a rare opportunity for imagination and reimagination.

Munshya wa Munshya

Frederick Jacob Titus CHILUBA

From the instant that little known Emmanuel Mwamba was appointed President Frederick Chiluba’s personal assistant he became an instant sensation. The man would be seen defending and in many cases travailing for his boss. Chiluba had so much confidence in Mwamba that on several occasions, Chiluba deferred to Mwamba in many press appearances. Nothing should prepare a person for the growing burdens of leadership than serving a boss like Chiluba who was facing serious anguish from the barrage of prosecutions from the Mwanawasa government. Emmanuel Mwamba was ever in the company of Chiluba. He became a known staple at the magistrate’s court complex. In those instances when Chiluba was evacuated to South Africa for medical treatment, it was he by his side. In many ways, Chiluba’s problems became Emmanuel’s.

When in 2005, Chiluba became a sympathizer of the opposition Patriotic Front, Mwamba changed with him. In fact, with him in toll, Chiluba arrived at the Lusaka Airport from one of his many medical trips abroad and raised the fist in the air, in clear support of Sata. It all seemed certain that the 2001 dribbling had been laid aside. Chiluba and Sata had made up. And for the 2006 elections, Chiluba had made no qualms about whom he was going to back. Where Chiluba went, Emmanuel Mwamba would go also. Perhaps it was at this time, that the Patriotic Front party and Sata might have noticed the brilliance and loyalty of one Mwamba. It was only after Sata had won the 2011 elections that he would bring Emmanuel closer and appoint him Permanent Secretary.

It was this appointment Emmanuel had embraced with vigor. In Kasama, Emmanuel Mwamba hit the ground hard and started to work for his new boss, Michael Sata. If there were any doubts about where he stood, it was all settled. He was a supporter of the agenda of the PF government. He would use the name recognition and whatever little politics he learnt from the time he served Frederick Chiluba. Pressure was no problem: he had endured more difficult times serving an ever persecuted and prosecuted Chiluba. Before, he is finally fired; Emmanuel Mwamba would serve as Permanent Secretary in about 4 other ministries. But it is his last stint at the Information Ministry that raised issues. This stint exposed both his immaturity and lack of judgment. But it also exposed an opportunity for him. And for that he has been punished quite severely for it. But Emmanuel still has a lot going for him, and in many instances he could still rise again. The thing is, he has to learn from what went on and then he must quickly recast and redefine this disappointment in ways that help him and the nation he obviously loves.

Emmanuel made some mistakes at Information. Instead of deferring politics to his principal and superior, Mwansa Kapeya, Mwamba started to champion political battles that are beyond the scope of his duties. He made decisions that are for the most part absurd. A permanent secretary should never make these decisions. Realizing that there was corruption at the Ministry, Mwamba went on to expose it and in fact went ahead to report his predecessor to the investigative agencies. There is nothing wrong with the fight against corruption. In fact, I would support Mwamba anytime he wants to fight it. The problem with the approach he took is that without political support from his principal and indeed from President Sata, there was nothing much Mwamba could achieve. His passion became his snare. He had laid for himself a trap that was just waiting to clamp once it had caught its prey. And the prey was Emmanuel himself. Let Zambia make no mistake. The fight against corruption cannot be imitated in any factory from China. In fact, regardless of how many Permanent Secretaries we have, if Michael Sata is not committed to fighting corruption, there is nothing mere secretaries could do on a global scale. As evidenced this week, corruption in the PF runs very deep. It infects the browning grounds of State House down to the core of the very structures that have made this mammoth monster we now call the ruling party.

Mwamba then got involved in an unnecessary political battle between GBM and Wynter Kabimba. It should never be the duty of any civil servant to be involved in political battles in this manner. Kabimba, as a minister in the PF government, was a defacto superior and supervisor of Mwamba. It was very unwise for Mwamba to appear to publicly undermine Kabimba. In the Zambian system of governance, the civil service is supervised and is amenable to the policies of politicians. Civil servants should not grow brains to begin undermining politicians. Politicians play a very important role in our governance and this is the reason why we vote for them. And in fact, this is the reason why it is our responsibility to remove them through political means. A civil servant like Mwamba had no power to join political nemesis who wanted Wynter removed. Now make no mistake about it. Wynter needed to go. But this was the decision that was supposed to be taken by the people through political means such as the use of cadres to do peaceful protests. This was not going to be done in a boardroom of a Permanent Secretary under taxpayers’ funding. In Zambia ordinary citizens hire and fire politicians. And in this role, we require no direct and unambiguous help from civil servants.

It is not that Mwamba achieved nothing at Information Ministry. In fact he achieved a lot. Within weeks, the ministry was headed the right direction except for a few mishaps as explained above. But clearly, President Sata went into a tantrum on Monday and the rest is history. With a leader in State House who throws a party of tantrums like what the nation saw on Monday, Zambia has a long way to go. Sata has failed to govern. And when you fail to govern throwing tantrums becomes a setting you default to. Such behaviour is dishonorable to say the least. It seems like; Sata is his presidency’s worst enemy. And Emmanuel had to just face the blunt of an out control emotive presidential tantrums. Many mistakes Emmanuel made, but firing he did not deserve.

That being the case, Emmanuel is no more in the PF government. President Sata has bizarrely called it “retirement in national interest.” Having made these mistakes, Emmanuel can redeem himself yet again. He is a hardworking man and we have all seen that.

Mwamba must now reflect deeply, learn from mistakes and move on. Since it is politics he seems to be interested in, it is to politics he should go. For his part, Sata said he is ready to meet Mwamba in politics. And the UPND could be the best place to start from. Hichilema needs a person like Mwamba in his party. Mwamba is experienced, is young and can help deal with public relations adversity in the UPND. And of course should be added one quality: Mwamba is Bemba. A kind of chatty Bemba that Hichilema might need to further supplement the current UPND firebrand.

As we put it in Milenge, ica kukonka ulubilo, nobe ucikonke ulubilo. I am very sure this is not the last time we have heard of Mwamba. And I just hope that the next time he speaks; it will be for Hichilema and the growing political fortunes of the UPND.

 Munshya wa Munshya

When a leader lacks a clear vision of what he exactly wants to accomplish, he spends his energy chasing shadows. Without a clear articulated economic vision for Zambia, President Sata and his PF government will continue punching in the dark. In Zambia, our greatest problem is not KCM or companies like that. Our biggest problem, especially right now, is that a bunch that has no plans and certainly no vision for Zambian economic recovery is leading us. And when you have no vision, it shows. To say that this is a chimbwi no plan government is, in fact, an understatement. This is a government that rules through tantrums. To be more specific, Sata is ruling through frenzies and outbursts. Before the PF further destroys the economy of our country, we must provide some remedies in the hope that they will reform and quickly change their ways.

Finance Minister Chikwanda does not seem to know what he wants out of the Zambian economy. So he does not know what to do exactly to bring about the desired change. The only thing he seems to be doing better is to contract one kaloba after another. By the time the old man is done with us, our debt levels will be much higher than the pre-HIPC times. At this rate, we will be $10 Billion in debt by 2016. It seems that this lack of economic foresight does not even bother President Sata. It is daily becoming clearer that it is not economic competence that Sata is looking for, but rather a tribalistic consanguinity in his collaboration with this Minister of Finance. Chikwanda cannot compare to economic visionaries such as Magande or Musokotwane. I should agree with FDD, Chikwanda might do us good by peacefully resigning. One wonders though, what Chikwanda’s resignation could accomplish for us, knowing that the buck stops at His Excellency himself.

To put Zambia back to economic revival, we must first face the truth. The way we have been mining copper since 1964 is seriously problematic. It is unsustainable in the long run. Just a few days into office, it is Hon Chikwanda himself who lamented that the cost of production for copper is just too high for the mining companies. It seems that when he came into office, he suddenly realized just how expensive it was. However, instead of acting strategically about this, the PF government has taken no identifiable steps to cushion the impact that might ensue as a result of mechanization of the mining industry. KCM is arguing that it costs less to produce copper using machines than using people. Now this is the reality world-over. It is the reality that in our global economy, machines will begin overtaking humans in production efficiency. Instead of interacting with this inevitable reality, Sata has chosen to play the kind of populist demagoguery fit for Katondo Street and not Nkwazi House. A visionary government, therefore, should begin a process of retraining the workforce so that it could be ready for changes. But instead of being proactive, the PF government has resorted to being reactive. And certainly it is trying to patch where there is no wound.

An economy that completely depends upon copper is unsustainable in the long run. This is the trap that we face as a nation. It is time to move away from copper dependency to economic diversification. But how then can we diversify this economy? We should tap into the resources and opportunities provided by a global economy. We should open up our country to foreign investment in manufacturing and agriculture. And the greatest asset we should be leveraging is labour and the peace we enjoy. This also implies that we need a sane government that would not be just operating on impulse. It should be the duty of a president to be methodic and diplomatic when dealing with investment. There should be rules and some assurances that foreign investment will be protected in this country. A president should not just be waking-up one morning and begin threatening to grab ZANACO or KCM. A president should not use short-term political consideration to shortchange a broader and long-term economic vision. Zambia has only one product to sell, the product of consistency and peace. But if our way of resolving disputes were through tactics fit for the Stone Age then we would lag behind. China is where it is today, because in spite of its communism, you will never hear the Chinese government threatening to repossess American or European companies doing business in China. China has prospered because these foreign companies have found it economically stable to invest. If Zambia wants to emulate the Chinese growth then we must put a stop to this nabukila ku left governance.

The recent outbursts from President Sata concerning KCM are very concerning. Sata cannot make up through outbursts what he has failed to provide for through sound planning. If this government had a plan, KCM would be very easy to deal with and jobs would be protected. Sata is being paid all these huge salaries so that he can engage sanely with companies and find wise solutions to problems. Not through mountaintop ifishobo and imiponto.

This then should take us to the issue of economic priorities. The Sata government came up with a 10% charge on raw copper exports. This was absurd. When Chikwanda and his officials realized their mistake, they used SI-89 to reverse it. I think the reversal was in order. Since copper production is so expensive in Zambia, it is ridiculous to lump more charges on production. The idea that this was a good tax for Zambia makes populist sense but once evaluated closely, it has very little economic impact. The issue with mines in Zambia right now is not about how many pointless taxes you lump on these so-called raw materials. The problem is with how the final goods get sold and how you account for them. This government has no clue about how much copper production costs and equally has no clue about how much it is selling for in London. Unfortunately, the 10% tax would not resolve these problems.

May be the 10% was going to make sense if indeed we had the capacity to process all the copper in Zambia. Had President Sata been serious about raising the capacity to process copper in Zambia, he was going to be more intentional in promoting relevant infrastructure. Obviously, instead of building this strategic capacity, Sata is busy building expensive soccer stadia and the so-called universities all over the place. It shows the shallowness of his priorities.

Munshya wa Munshya

If he wanted to process the copper here in Zambia, why didn’t he then invest in a copper processing plant? In fact, except for the Chinese owned Chambishi plant, all other smelters on the Copperbelt are so dysfunctional that they are more famous for transmitting respiratory pollution than anything else. From Butondo to Nchanga chemicals from these plants are daily rioting the nostrils of innocents. And Sata does not care for a moment as long as his retirement house is being built. There is some good news out of this, however. The year 2016 is fast approaching. And in that year, we could at least start afresh and retire this so called A-Team, in national interest!

 Munshya wa Munshya

Munshya wa Munshya

“To insult or not to insult.” That has been the question we have had to contend with from our presidents since 1964. Zambia’s history with presidential foul language and insults is not new. We, in fact, started having presidential foul language as soon as our nation was born. In this article, I draw upon the history of the Zambian presidency to discuss the presidential use of insults from 1964 to the present “don’t kubeba” government. Each of the presidents is discussed in turn.

According to authors Rotberg, Gifford & Morris, Kenneth Kaunda started off as a kind, Christian gentleman in the run-up to independence. He was widely admired by friends and foes alike. Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe at independence had lots of praise for KK. Additionally, Princess Nakatindi Wina remarked in 1964 that KK was like the Prophet Moses sent by God to deliver Zambians out of “Egyptian bondage.”

However, with the growing opposition to his rule from within his party UNIP and from an array of Zambians—in the army and in the trade unions—KK started to change the tone of his language. In press conferences he became famous for calling his opponents, “stupid idiots”. He would also frequently call opponents “frightened little men.” By this, he was implying that only he was that courageous big man. Not to be outwitted by his past, Kaunda’s “stupid idiot” comment has made headlines again in 2013. He used the same insult to refer to some members of President Sata’s government. I think Sata’s cabinet is perhaps the most insulted cabinet since 1964. What is unusual, as we will see below, is the source of the insults. It is not necessarily ordinary people seemingly insulting this cabinet, but rather President Sata himself and his master Kenneth Kaunda.

I cannot recall any report of Dr. Frederick Chiluba insulting anybody. Ironically, when he faced the fiercest opposition bordering on insults, Chiluba would famously say: “infumu taituka bantu, abantu ebatuke imfumu.” This Bemba adage basically means that while the general population may have reasons to insult a leader, a leader should not insult his people. With this attitude, Chiluba avoided use of foul language. The only moment, that stands as the exception with regard to Chiluba was at his rally in 2001 in Kitwe when he was introducing presidential candidate Levy Mwanawasa. At that rally Chiluba famously used a Copperbelt street idiom “ujeni”. He then quickly added, “I am not insulting because I have not called any particular person or insulted any particular person”. He further mentioned that only “catile cobe” would qualify as an insult.

That being the case, President Chiluba, mostly, was not the type that used strong or bad language. Indeed, there was a lot that President Mwanawasa needed to learn from the way Chiluba handled opposition. President Sata could also learn a lot from the way Chiluba handled opposition. It is rather interesting to see the kind of letters Sata is signing off at State House. They are often in bad taste and honestly they are full of condescension, especially for one Hakainde Hichilema.

According to biographer Amos Malupenga, President Levy Mwanawasa was seen to have been a man of very sober manners. In 2005, at a rally in Southern Province when MMD National Secretary Katele Kalumba tried to intimate that Levy was a handsome man whom ladies could truly fall for. Levy was quick to correct Kalumba and remind the rally that he was a happily married man. When it comes to drinking, it is reported that he was not a habitual drinker. The only time he sipped some alcohol, after a long time, was when the Supreme Court ruled the presidential petition in his favor.

But even if he had so much going well for him, Mwanawasa could not dodge the accusation that he had insulted some Zambians. He became a victim of a serious allegation that he had insulted the Bemba speaking peoples while visiting Ndola. To the question of why most of the people he had been prosecuting were mostly Bemba speaking, he is reported to have said how much he hated corruption. He then added just how “stinking” corruption was. This set off serious political tsunami that could only be assuaged by appointing a Bemba as his Vice-President. And one of the first duties for Dr. Nevers Mumba was to go to the Bemba chiefs and calm the storms of the “stinking” insult. Undoubtedly, Michael Sata, while in opposition, condemned Mwanawasa’s insult and used this alleged insult to his political advantage.

After the 2006 elections, Mwanawasa had to find a replacement for Vice-President Augustine Festus Lupando Mwape. He needed to find a person who could bring some maturity and stability to the Vice-Presidency. This person, in Mwanawasa’s judgment, was going to be a retired 67-year-old farmer, Rupiah Banda. And maturity, I assume here, may include being a person of sober words and a mature tongue. That was not to be, however. Banda maintained his tongue only as long as Levy was living. And only as long as he stayed as Vice-President. But when Banda became president, insults and rumors of insults besieged him as well. His closest insulting focus became opposition leaders Michael Sata and Hakainde Hichilema. With youthful vigor and a moderate tempter HH responded tit-for-tat to each of Banda’s insults. HH sometimes called Banda, “sleepy”, and a “man of small brains”. For his part Sata and Banda’s major area of insult was about whom, between them, was more handsome than the other. It was as if the old men were now competing for a beauty pageant. In one of those insulting episodes, President Banda called opposition leader Michael Sata as, “cisilu ca zoona”. Sata reciprocated this affront very swiftly too.

After becoming Zambia’s fifth president, Michael Sata has his own share of accusations of using insulting language. And therein lies the difference. All the other presidents are perceived to have been insulting their political enemies. Kaunda’s “stupid idiots” comment was aimed to the troublesome UNIP rebels. Banda’s issue with both Hichilema and Sata was because the duo was opposition. But with Sata currently, however, he seems to be berating and in fact insulting his own allies. It is quite strange that he would tell his inferiors in Kitwe that “bushe mulicipuba imwe”? This was rather strong a language to use especially that he was using it against his own associates from the Patriotic Front party. President Sata’s reaction in Kitwe was in bad taste at most. It was completely uncalled for.

The Men of Words

At a time that the Patriotic Front is facing serious violence and “pangamonium” it is quite telling that the president has chosen to concentrate his energy on the state of his house in Kitwe. The president in very limited circumstances uses that State Lodge in Kitwe. In fact, he has only been to Kitwe once or twice ever since he won the presidency. It is strange therefore, that he would be so worked up about renovations that should go on in that house. Even if he were indeed indignant, he could do so, without mixing it with utter disrespect and disdain for his juniors. If indeed Sata is a no nonsense guy, it would be much better for him to demonstrate that through the way he disciplines Wynter Kabimba or GBM. It is like Sata was trying to make up for his inefficiency in dealing with the pangamonium in Lusaka by creating pandemonium in Kitwe.

That being the case, I think we will have to contend with presidential insults for sometime to come. I just hope that while doing his own round of insults, President Sata will also spend some time to actually govern our country. Insulting opponents and ministers is not the best way to run a country like Zambia.

 Munshya wa Munshya

Frederick Jacob Titus CHILUBA – 1943 to 2011

During the Memorial Day weekend, President Michael Chilufya Sata while laying wreaths on the World War I Memorial Cenotaph castigated both his Vice-President and Minister of Works over Chiluba’s tombstone. For some reason, Sata found it unacceptable that a place where the remains of Chiluba are buried could be in such a deplorable condition. In many ways, Sata is right. The PF government should take care of the memory of President Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba. However, at close inspection, we discover that Sata’s sudden interest in the sanitation of Chiluba’s tombstone comes with some questions that he himself must answer. Michael Sata’s ministers have neglected Chiluba’s resting place partly because Sata, himself, has chosen deliberately to disremember Chiluba. And the ministers have gotten a clue from Sata’s behaviour. As such, instead of blaming Mukanga and Scott over the legacy of Frederick Chiluba, Michael Sata should own this absurdity and for once decide to do the right thing. And here is the right thing: instead of incessantly berating his subordinates, Sata should lead the way. He should honor not only the tombstone but also the conscious memory of that short man who walked tall.

We are a people of memory. In fact, we become a nation by the memories we choose to share and cherish. The memory of those who lived among us and showed us the way, become an inspiration to the subsequent dreams of upcoming generations. Consequently, you can know the soul or direction of any nation not only by what it remembers but also by what it chooses to disremember. In many ways, Sata has done well to immortalize the memory of Levy Mwanawasa and Kenneth Kaunda. But it is quite absurd that this memory of the great has deliberately left out President Chiluba. Michael Sata’s decision to honour Mwanawasa’s legacy and neglect completely to do the same for Frederick Chiluba is itself quite strange. What is even more bizarre is that while little known characters such as Paul Mushindo are being memorialized by having universities named after them, Sata has decided to completely disremember Chiluba.

Politics of Forgetfulness

Chiluba should be remembered as a gallant fighter of democracy and human rights. At the time when Sata and his cohorts were busy eating at Kaunda’s table in the 1980s, it was Frederick Chiluba who held the forte. In spite of repeated temptation to eat from Kaunda’s banquet of corruption, Chiluba decided to be true and faithful to the workers of our nation. If democracy was to be reborn in our country, it had to take the courage and, sometimes, political recklessness of people like Chiluba who stood up to Kaunda and remained steadfast. Michael Sata should help Zambia to maintain this memory.

Chiluba’s memory should be kept alive because he also answered the call when the time came to topple Kaunda. It was in 1990. And for those with recollections, Chiluba at first instance resisted the call to lead the MMD. But after reflection, he answered the cry and was voted MMD president the next year. He managed to topple Kaunda because he was in many ways not one of Kaunda’s political puppets. By agreeing to lead “the hour”, he embedded his name in the sands of our national memory.

Chiluba should also be remembered and in fact he deserves our memory, because of the courageous and difficult decisions he made as president. He was a decisive leader. He loved his presidency. He never shied away from cameras and neither did he bury his head in the sand when it came to issues affecting the nation. The prosperity we are seeing today in our country is as a result of the vision and foundation Chiluba lay. The privatization of the national economy was a difficult decision he and his team made. But it was a correct decision. And today, Zambia is reaping the benefits of that courage and foresight. The only threat to that economic foundation right now is the all-over-the-map economic policy of the don’t kubeba government. By the time Sata is done with us, Zambia will have returned to those UNIP days when Kaunda controlled everything beginning from a cleaner at a primary school to the prime minister. Armed, not with pangas, but with the memory of those democratic forebears, it becomes incumbent upon all Zambians of good will to hold steadfastly our democratic affirmation.

Memory sometimes requires good age to keep up. And I understand that. However, there are some among us, who would want us to believe that Sata is deliberately forgetting Chiluba due to personal differences the two gentlemen had. It would be very sad if this were true. Sata should not hold the collective memory of our nation hostage, just because he had some personal scores to settle with Chiluba. The Zambian presidency, as a repository of national memory, should not be used to circumcise and mutilate the foreskin of our political history. I am glad, however, to note that the idea that Chiluba and Sata were bitter enemies does not just stand close scrutiny. For example, in his post-presidency, Chiluba spent more time as a member or sympathizer of PF than any other politician. He spent much of his post-presidency, from 2002 to 2008 openly supporting PF and opposition leader Michael Sata. Chiluba only changed his support back to MMD after the demise of Levy Mwanawasa in 2008. If Sata had a high profile supporter during his struggle for the presidency in the last decade, it was none other than Chiluba. This makes it even more ludicrous that Sata would be so quick to immortalize Makasa, Kaunda, and Kapwepwe and not tag anything after Chiluba.

Like all of us, Chiluba had flaws. But these are not so significant as to deserve this disremembrance. We saw pictures of Chiluba’s designer bombasa and shirts and as a nation we questioned how a champion of the poor and workers’ rights came to love bling bling so much. But none of all those should make us doubt the commitment and contribution of Chiluba to our national wellbeing. And requesting that Sata immortalize Chiluba is not asking too much. It is a quest to keep alive the memories of one of our nation’s colorful figures.

The London judgment was passed. And Chiluba was found liable to a tune of millions of dollars. But what is still surprising today is that none of that so called stolen cash has been found anywhere. Mwanawasa went to the London court because he told us that Chiluba had stashed stolen money overseas. Justice Smith issued his ruling and to-date, all that allegedly stolen money and assets have not been found. After failing to find the so-called stolen assets, Mwanawasa wanted to come back to Lusaka and grab Chiluba’s house in Kabulonga. If Chiluba had indeed stolen all those millions, where are they? I am not in anyway supposing that Chiluba did not steal, I am merely questioning this assumption and its use by critics to disremember the unassailable reality of the Chiluba Era.

Our nation is evolving everyday. And surely, in this evolution, it would be very sad to let Chiluba’s memory slip away. We must continue the ritual of memory. We must relive the sacrifices of the past through the immortalisation of those individuals that have come to symbolize us as one nation. If Sata cared so much about that graveyard, then he should also care that Chiluba’s legacy remain animated. As Chiluba himself put it: democracy is the challenge of change. But one thing that should not change is our resolve to preserve the memory of the great among us.

To the memory of Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba.

 Munshya wa Munshya

William Harrington, a private citizen of Zambia wrote the Chief Justice of Zambia requesting that a tribunal be instituted to probe the activities of a cabinet minister. Hon. Sylvia Masebo is alleged to have committed some irregularities with regard to her role in personnel firing, board appointments and subsequent awarding of tenders in the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. Harrington petitioned the Chief Justice in keeping with the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct. At section 13 (1) the Code states that:

An allegation that a Member has breached Part II may be made to the Chief Justice by any person, in writing giving particulars of the breaches or breaches alleged, signed by the complainant and giving the complainant’s name and address.

What is so interesting about the facts of this case is how similar they are to a case, again brought by the same William Harrington (Harrington v. Siliya & Attorney General [2009]). In the Siliya case, Harrington had brought similar charges accusing Hon Dora Siliya of obtaining pecuniary advantage from her position as Minister of Transport and Communications. The Siliya case made its way up to the Supreme Court and its ratio decidendi must be relied on in this new case of Masebo.

With regard to Harrington v. Masebo, however, the Acting Chief Justice of Zambia, Lombe Chibesakunda neglected to constitute a tribunal. Among other reasons, she rationalized that she did not have sufficient information from Harrington. Harrington sought judicial review of Chibesakunda’s decision and Justice Sichinga of the Lusaka High Court ruled that under the Ministerial Code of Conduct the Chief Justice of Zambia should have constituted the tribunal.

When Harrington petitioned Justice Sichinga, Zambia’s Attorney General joined the proceedings, as expected. Mumba Malila was of the view that the Chief Justice was right in her decision to stall in appointing the tribunal. Obviously, Mumba Malila lost this case and Justice Sichinga sided with Harrington. Chibesakunda was going to appoint the tribunal.

Zambia’s Chief Justice, in so far as she functions within contemplation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, is not functioning as a judicial officer but rather as an officer of the administrative state. And so with regard to her constituting of the tribunal she is subject to normal judicial review procedure. It is, therefore, not surprising that a judge, one court her junior, compelled her to appoint a tribunal. After Sichinga’s ruling, Chief Justice Chibesakunda complied with the court and appointed a tribunal to probe the conduct of Hon. Sylvia Masebo. However, before the tribunal could sit, Sylvia Masebo and the Attorney General applied to court to have this decision stayed as the Attorney General appeals to the Supreme Court.

What is at issue here is whether Zambia’s Attorney General can in fact appeal against a tribunal set-up to probe a political leader. In other words, is it legally right within our legal and political system of governance for Mumba Malila to appeal against the formation of a tribunal by the Chief Justice?

The goal of the Ministerial Code of Conduct is clearly laid down in statute. It is aimed at increasing political accountability of members of cabinet not only to the president but also to the people of Zambia directly. Section 3 (1) of the Ministerial Code of Conduct Act states that:

The provisions of this Part shall constitute part of the code of conduct for Members for the purposes of the Constitution, a breach of which results in the vacation of the seat of the Member concerned.

It is the people of Zambia who appoint and vote for politicians to lead in governing. However, it is within contemplation of both the constitution and statute that politicians will have to account personally for their official acts. It is in this vein, therefore, that the role of Harrington should be seen and interpreted. This being the case, the Attorney General of Zambia, should not appear to be impeding political accountability of ministers to the people of Zambia. Instead of impeding this accountability, the Attorney General should be enhancing it.

The law governing the role of the Attorney General in our democracy can be found in at least three sources: the common law, the constitution and statute. Constitutionally, the role of the Attorney General is espoused in Article 54 of the constitution. Statutorily, the role of the Attorney General can be found in various statues that bring his role under contemplation. The common law also has some specific judge made rules regarding the role of the Attorney General. A review of all these three sources reveals the following principles.

First, the AG is the principal legal advisor of the government. This means that she is the lawyer or counsel for the president and his government. Typically then, President Sata and his government ministers go to court under the cover of the Attorney General. The role of legal adviser is just that “adviser”. This does not mean that government cannot make decisions unless the AG endorses them. According to the impeccable reasoning of Justice Musonda in the Dora Siliya Tribunal case, while the AG is indeed a legal adviser to the government, a government minister is not under legal duty to accept the advise from the AG. Just like what happens in any solicitor to client relationship, a client can refuse to follow counsel. Having the AG as legal adviser to government does not mean that government should only function according to the advise of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court on appeal did not have problems with Musonda’s reasoning per se, they only took issues with his decision to delve into constitutional matters considering that the case at his bar was a judicial review application.

In our political government it is not laws that rule through people, but rather people that rule through laws. Laws are not the principal but people are. It is politicians we hold responsible for government and not laws. As such, Musonda was right. Government can be crippled if it has to wait for an AG to advise on each and every issue. In fact, Musonda went even further by suggesting that sometimes the duty of governance entails taking political decisions that are at variance with the current state of the law. Laws take a long time to change, and no government should be held to ransom due to the inflexibility of laws in so far as governance is concerned. Just as no courts of law can promulgate an injunction against the state, so can’t the advise of the AG bind the state. A politician who makes a decision, with or without advise from the AG is still personally and politically responsible for her decision. It is quite telling, that during the time of the Dora Siliya case, it was Mumba Malila who was AG. It does appear like he never learnt from this opinion. As adviser to government, Mumba Malila should not assume that he could block political accountability of government ministers.

Second, the AG is the general officer of the juristic public interest. This role goes beyond being a legal counsel to a sitting government. If the public interest were a person, the lawyer it would hire would be and should be the AG. In a general sense, the AG acts for this public interest. Public interest could include the AG intervening in certain criminal prosecutions due to the general nature of its impact on public interest. Public interest is widely interpreted. In fact, most courts would let the AG join in court proceedings quite liberally. The courts respect the role of the AG in this respect. I see that Malila could use this power to say that he is interfering in the Masebo case due to public interest matters. The problem in arguing this would betray the very nature of public interest which is on the side of personal accountability of ministers to the people of Zambia. If Malila cannot tell what is truly in public interest, then he should resign from this position and the taxpayers can be better served by a leader of the Zambian bar who understands what is truly at the heart of this public interest.

Third, the AG is the lawyer not only of the political government, but also of the administrative government. What this means is that the AG is legal counsel for the Zambian administrative state with all its tributaries. All state institutions covered under administrative law are within cover of the Attorney General. The administrative law includes statutory bodies, tribunals and commissions of the state. It is this limb that makes the Attorney General to be party to court cases involving the ECZ and bodies such as the Mutuna tribunal. Once an administrative act is done, it automatically assumes a legal defender: the Attorney General.

Specifically, the tribunal is funded directly by the taxpayer (s.15 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct). A taxpayer funded operation; the tribunal deserves legal representation from the foremost taxpayer legal counsel, the Attorney General.

Since a tribunal constituted by the administrative state should have the Attorney General as its lawyer, it becomes quite questionable that in the case of Sylvia Masebo tribunal, the Attorney General has decided to join proceedings against the tribunal. This is quite unusual. The major question to ask here is: who is the client of the AG between Masebo and the tribunal?

Munshya wa Munshya

Masebo cannot be client of the Attorney General because within the contemplation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, a minister is personally responsible for his or her action. What Harrington is petitioning is that Masebo might have gotten pecuniary advantage from her position as minister. The Code is aimed at increasing personal accountability of government political leaders. If the Attorney General impedes this then personal accountability will be betrayed. Even if Masebo made decisions on advise of the AG in the first instance, once a tribunal has been instituted against her, the AG ceases to be her lawyer. She must find other lawyers to represent her. As it were, the tribunal is a government organ while Sylvia Masebo in so far as the tribunal is concerned does not function as a government organ. The tribunal is a political process of accountability of government ministers directly to the people. In fact, specifically the Code of Conduct brings a ministerial tribunal at par with Commission of Inquiry instituted under the Inquiries Act (Code of Conduct section 14 [10]). Therefore, there should no difference between a constitutional review commission and ministerial tribunal. They are both organs instituted by the State.

By insisting that he represent her or rather that he defends her, Malila has betrayed the Zambian people who are actually his clients. If Malila wants to be Masebo’s lawyer then the honourable thing he should do is to give up the taxpayers’ salary and go and become Masebo’s lawyer. The Zambian people have already hired Malila. He has a duty to defend both good and bad decisions made by the Zambian state. He has a duty to defend the tribunal even if it were irregularly constituted. In fact, he should be spending time trying to defend the tribunal rather than betraying it.

The principle here is not that Chibesakunda was right or wrong to constitute a tribunal. The issue is whose client will the tribunal be? And it is clear that the tribunal already has a lawyer: Mumba Malila. If Malila does not want that then he should resign. A new AG will meet him in court and defeat him viciously.

Note: This article is meant for academic and public interest comment. It is not intended to render specific legal advise. Those seeking legal advice should consult members of the Zambian Bar. (c)Munshya wa Munshya, 2013

 Munshya wa Munshya

 It was certain that the Patriotic Front party was going to win the Mansa by-election. We all expected the PF to win. Luapula is their stronghold after all. And no doubt, the people of Mansa Central showed that they have not changed a bit in their unwavering support for the don’t kubeba party and its leader Michael Chilufya Sata. The fact that nearly 8 out of 10 voters went for PF cannot be dismissed lightly. What is significant though about the Mansa by-election is not necessarily its winners, but its losers and the meaning of their loss. The MMD is a compromised brand in Luapula. Come 2016, I have no hope that the MMD will even retain the Milenge parliamentary seat. Undoubtedly, the Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD) pulled a surprise to come out second in Mansa. This FDD performance is trifling and I am surprised at how president Nawakwi is overplaying this win.

Politics of Tribal Perception

The party that needs attention as far as Mansa, and beyond, is concerned is the United Party for National Development (UPND). This is due to its formidable growth outside Bemba-speaking regions and its serious position as a contender to the 2016 presidency. However, if there was any doubt that Luapula Province was impenetrable by the UPND, well the writing is now eloquently on the wall. The year 2016 would be a difficult for the UPND to infiltrate Luapula. In view of this, Hakainde Hichilema should alter his strategy. In this article, I wish to discuss some strategic moves HH could make in view of the Mansa loss.

Hakainde Hichilema should begin to do better in the way he manages the flawed tribal perception that dogs his UPND. It is sure that HH suffers from a serious perception problem that he and his party are tribal. However, once this perception is subjected to empirical test, one finds that it is indeed a falsehood that cannot stand scrutiny. With regard to regionalism and tribalism, the PF is more tribal and regional than the UPND. For his part, Bo Michael Sata is daily appointing his relatives and tribesmen into government positions at a rate unparalleled in the 50-year history of our republic. In spite of this reality, however, perceptions persist that it is the UPND, which is tribal. It is a notorious fact that both the UPND and the PF do have specific regional support that is unswerving. But since politics is a science of the management of public perceptions, Hakainde Hichilema should begin to invest in perception management. As a good pragmatic manager, HH has tried to fight the wrong tribal perception by countering it with facts. But facts are insufficient alone to ascertain political truth. Rumors are quite powerful in politics. Occasionally, HH uses facts to speak against PF tribalism. After the 2011 elections he is reported to have commented that a regional block voted for the PF. In reality, HH was right. But as a political move, it was obtuse and those that prey on Tonga tribalism quickly jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him as a vicious tribalist.

How then can HH manage to change this perception? It does seem that in so far as the tribal polemics and apologetics are concerned HH fights alone. Going forward, this must change. What he needs is to find influential Bemba-speaking politicians who can vouch for him. It is they who should be defending his impeccable credentials as a true Zambian patriot. For his part, HH has tried to diversify the tribal composition of the leadership of his party. However, the fact that he has not managed to attract some talkative Bemba politicians who can vouch for him has exposed him to continued irrational ridicule that he is in fact anti-Bemba.

HH’s strategic missteps can also be seen in the recent hiring of his top team. He engaged Mutale Nalumango as UPND chair. This is the same Nalumango who opposition leader Michael Sata and PF decampaigned in Kaputa on tribal basis. HH earlier poached Dr. Canissius Banda from the MMD to join him as UPND vice-president. I do not doubt HH’s political acumen. However, for any political observer, it would be difficult to tell what political value Dr. Banda has added to the UPND. At a time that HH is fighting anti-Bemba perception it was unusual that he could not instead poach a Bemba for a vice-president. If not for vice-president, HH could also try to find a Bemba speaking party spokesman. I believe such a move would help deal with the perceptions. This is by no means a magic bullet to solving HH’s perception problems, but it certainly would be a good move.

This then should bring me to the next point. The people of Luapula and Northern should have another look at HH. It seems that HH by far has the numbers currently to provide real challenge to Michael Sata’s PF. The people of Luapula and Northern might care to know that even without their support, HH stands on solid ground to win in 2016. That being the case, the Bemba-speaking regions will do well to see this and provide HH with the support he needs. So far, Hakainde Hichilema is doing very well in Western, Northwestern, Central, Southern and Copperbelt rural. With this support, all he needs is a slight urban revolt against the PF and he could win the presidency. The Bemba regions should as well know that the 2016 winds are blowing in Hakainde’s direction. The idea that the people of Luapula will continue to vote for PF due to tribe should be forever laid to rest.

Munshya wa Munshya

The Patriotic Front should be judged not so much by how much it is winning in Luapula, but by how much it is losing in the non-Bemba areas. As things stand now, the Barotse Province would be difficult for the PF to win. They have created lots of enemies there. In fact, their Mongu Central seat hangs in a balance. The PF cannot be guaranteed the urban vote too. There is just too much dissatisfaction among the urban population for the PF to pull another majority in town areas. With the MMD as a ruined brand, only the UPND stands to gain. These are some of the factors that are at the forefront of the winds blowing in HH’s favour. And only HH is able to manage this to his benefit. But the question is, will he? It seems like the so-called under-five politician still has more muscles to fight. And as such, let us wait and see.

Munshya wa Munshya

Business Values for our Time is an over 300 paged book authored by consultant and entrepreneur Chibamba Kanyama. It has four parts spread across twenty-one chapters. Part one of the book focuses on Zambian tribal cultures as well as Indian and Jewish cultural ethics. In part two, the book deals with mainly mechanics and dynamics of investments, loans, borrowing culture and most interestingly chapter nine deals with the question of managing relatives. In part three, the book takes the stories of various Zambian entrepreneurs and derives various theories and values that have made them successful. In part four, Mr. Kanyama discusses various issues to do with attributes and culture for the business entrepreneur.

Chibamba Kanyama

This book has generated a lot of discussion and controversy in academic as well as business and cultural circles. Following the advice of the author himself when answering some of his critics, I waited patiently to acquire a copy of my own which I could read and verify for myself whether the criticism levelled against the book are fair or not. I ordered the book through http://www.ibuy.co.zm, and after a total payment of about $57.00 my book was couriered to me.

The Book’s Virtues

This book has undoubtedly several virtues. First it is a very personal book. Mr. Kanyama takes his personal, professional and even family life to teach and illustrate important business principles and values that are so critical to the success of the entrepreneurial spirit among Zambians. It is these personal stories, and illustrations that make the book so clearly relevant to all. The reader would see himself in the stories about credit, loans and the everyday struggles of having to finance small-scale to medium scale business.

Second this book is motivational. While Mr. Kanyama has rightly and frankly lambasted some bad-for-business qualities such as laziness, after reading this book you get motivated to begin working on your dreams. In his own words he says, “I want all those who have gone through the pages of this book to start making those critical decisions in their lives. I urge everyone to investigate and assess the various business opportunities that are before them.” This is exactly how I felt when I finished reading this monumental work.

Third, this book as its name suggests is truly loaded with business wisdom. By addressing issues of loans and how they can affect business, Mr. Kanyama pinpoints an important element which confronts most businesses and most of our people today. In this book, Mr. Kanyama teaches the role, the dangers and indeed the blessing of borrowing. He goes into principles of how one can assess his business financial needs and the needed due diligence necessary before approaching a lender for credit.

Fourth, this book is great in that it translates what business students learn in class into everyday language. Mr. Kanyama takes some of the language he used from years of study in economics and corporate finance and translates them into everyday language that ordinary folks may understand. In this book, principles of finance, entrepreneurship, and to some extent corporate accountability are given their needed bridge into the hearts and minds of ordinary folks.

Fifth, the book goes against the current in the sense that it identifies and attacks some elements within African culture that make us perpetually dependent and poor. He aptly addresses matters of extended families and how an unbridled cultural desire to please all family members may be bad for good business. Mr. Kanyama mentions how many businesses in Zambia have failed simply because of excessive and perpetual dependency from extended family structures.

Sixth, the book is also biographical in nature. In addition to its discussion of Mr. Chibamba Kanyama’s own family background, the book also mentions the likes of Mr. Bwalya Chiti, Mr. David Nama, Mr. Costain Chilala, and many other Zambian entrepreneurs. The stories of all these people show the effect that values of integrity, foresight, vision, courage and resilience have on success. There is nothing that is as inspiring as reading about the everyday struggles and triumphs of successful people. Generally in Zambia, very few successful people write about their stories. There is a dearth of biography in our country. And as such, a book such as this one helps to fill that gap.

The Book’s Controversies

Notwithstanding these virtues that Mr. Chibamba Kanyama’s book has, it is rather unfortunate that it equally contains controversial notions. These controversies do have the potential to make an otherwise good book seem flawed. I must confess that in its entirety, this is a good book and every Zambian should buy and read it, but it does contain some concepts that are not only erroneous but also prejudiced. Most of these controversial ideas are found in Part One of the book. I wish these controversies were small or minimal, but unfortunately they are not. As such, my suggestion to Mr. Chibamba Kanyama is that he removes these controversial passages from the future editions of this great book.

These controversies have unfortunately become the mainstay of various book reviews. This has created unnecessary distractions from the most important aspects that Mr. Kanyama may have intended for this book.

Part one is essentially, a part of the book where Mr. Chibamba Kanyama has gone to take some cultural characteristics of various cultures in order to derive out of these cultures principles and ethics of business. The part has four chapters: the first chapter deals with what Mr. Kanyama calls a focus on Zambian culture, whereas chapter two deals with Indian business values and influence, in chapter three he then addresses what he calls the “levers of Jewish Success”. Chapter four, a personal family story of Kanyama’s is good and it is here that his book should have started from.

I must now then turn to these ideas and try to, as much as possible, give reasons why Part One of “Business Values for Our Time” is flawed and why it should be removed from the future editions.

Chapter one of the book focussing on Zambian tribes, assumes that there are 73 tribes which can be narrowed down to seven tribes. This is simply not the case at all. The many Zambian tribes cannot be narrowed down to seven tribes. The seven languages on radio were not done to narrow down the tribes to seven. It was more of a political decision than clear cultural or tribal considerations. Further, it is equally inaccurate to portray that some Zambian tribes are offshoots of some bigger tribes. Mr. Kanyama may have needed to shed further light on this point. What he writes here is tantamount to assuming that because much of Luapula for example is Bemba speaking, the Luapulans are therefore offshoots of the Bemba tribe. This is just like thinking that the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh are the offshoots of the English simply because they use the English language. But why should this matter? It matters because it is this seed of thought that Mr. Kanyama uses to classify, categorize and then label the tribes. Additionally, already in a book about business values and entrepreneurship the reader gets bogged down into rebutting these inaccuracies instead of focussing on important business principles. Chapters one to three are unnecessary distractions.

The book, in both Chapter One and Chapter Two, makes several claims based on prejudice. For example, when discussing the Bembas Mr. Kanyama claims that the Bembas are risk takers by nature who are good at networking skills and pro-activity. The difficulty here is that these qualities attributed to the Bembas could be equally attributed to some other individuals in Zambia. Additionally, without clear controlled studies of how many people and how many tribes have invested in the stock market it is wild for Mr. Kanyama to claim that “the Bemba have eagerly participated in the stock market, and most of them have offshore investments”. Where did he get this information?

He also claims that the Tongas are the most accommodating peoples simply because most white farmers have settled in Southern Province more than any other province. I thought most white farmers could have settled in Southern Province due to several other factors such as availability of water, good climate, fertile soils and proximity to Lusaka. About the Lozis, he labels them as a people who “exert a lot of authority with margins of domination and superiority”. According to him, they are proud and do demean other cultures and tribes. Really?

On the Ngonis, he labels them as fair, tenacious and trustworthy peoples. He makes a quite wild insinuation that once you enter into a business with a Ngoni, you do not need to spend money on contracts, because they are trustworthy people. The best way to approach these matters is not to attribute such moral qualities to a tribe but to mention that there are some among the Ngonis that are trustworthy just as there are some that are villains. Trustworthiness is a personal quality and not a tribal quality. Further he paints the Ngonis as fair people in the way they treat their neighbours. Mr. Kanyama even attempts to use history to boulder this fact. But historically, it is clear that as settlers the Ngonis were not benevolent people sharing resources with their neighbours. When they marched from the Zulu empire to modern day Zambia and Tanzania the Ngonis were not in thoughtful business negotiations, they were about war! And the ChiKunda peoples received the brunt of their brutality.

After going on, making all these unsubstantiated prejudicial claims he reserves the bitterest analysis for the Luvales. I must mention here that when the North-westerners met in Solwezi a few months ago and derided Chibamba Kanyama, I could see the reason why. He links the Luvale tribe with witchcraft and even ritual murders. He claims that, “ritual murders are always associated with business interests of either Asian or Luvale entrepreneurs.” I am again forced to ask the question, where did Mr. Kanyama get the “always” from? Additionally, he paints the Luvales as people lacking academic sophistication. Granted that he praises them as a people with “cultural values of honesty, integrity, love and hard work”, the damage has already been done by his prejudiced view of a people.

On the Indians in chapter two, he praises their hard work and family commitments. But he nevertheless finds opportunity to paint them as flouters of labour regulations and even tax evaders. Immediately following this observation he then puts a disclaimer and says, while tax evasion should not be generalized as descriptive of all Indians it is nevertheless the way they are perceived by the government. It is not right to paint a people in that light. Mr. Kanyama should have been more discerning and sensitive to a people. There are several prejudices and innuendos that fly by in society, but once you publish them, they are given the force of authority. In this case regardless of the moral ineptitude of Indian businesses, publishing such innuendos as fact is not fair.

Why Every Zambian Should Read It!

Munshya wa Munshya

I am sad that in reviewing, Mr. Chibamba Kanyama’s book I have spent a lot of time, critiquing the detriments of Part One. This should have been avoided. Mr. Kanyama should see that this Part One has had a very negative effective on his otherwise great book. He should not have included it in the book in the first place. It is demeaning, outlandish and prejudicial to say the least. As such, Mr. Kanyama’s book should start at page 43. Everything before page 43 does not help bolster his arguments for Business Values for our Time. Except for what lies from page 1 to page 43, I greatly recommend the rest of the book to all Zambians.

NOTE: This book review was originally published in 2010. (c) Munshya wa Munshya 2010, 2013

 Munshya wa Munshya

Just when you thought the don’t kubeba government had exhausted all of its chaos in its arsenal; it comes up with something even more bizarre than previously thought. It seems in all probability that the PF government has an irresistible penchant for self-sabotage. And the events of this week when they fired nurses go to confirm this. The firing of nurses is quite odd to say the least. Dismissal letters stated that the Public Service Commission, following directives from the President, has fired them for participating in an illegal strike. This is strange because the Public Service Commission does not function at the mercy of the president. In fact, the president is not the supervisor of public workers. The president does not hire and neither can he fire public workers in his own name. The Supreme Court of Zambia settled and checked the president’s role in such matters in at least two cases involving a teacher (Kang’ombe) and a soldier (Miyanda). As such, the fact that President Sata allowed his name to be included in those dismissal letters goes to show the chaotic ethic behind the firing of these nurses. But this should be expected, the don’t kubeba government is one of the most disordered governments we have ever had in recent history. And by their fruits we have known them.

It is quite absurd that while President Sata and his don’t kubeba government have increased their salaries four times since assuming office, they have found it rather insulting that the nurses should equally demand some form of reparations. What this PF government should have done is to show sympathy towards all public workers by showing that they are equally committed to the same sacrifices that the public workers are being subjected to.

The firing is also improper due to the impact it has on the public service itself. Zambia runs a severe shortage of health care workers. We have about 0.7 nurses per 1000 of the population. If this is not a crisis, I do not know then what else would define one. With these numbers it is prudent that the State exercises both wisdom and diplomacy in the way they attend to sensitive professionals such as nurses. As mentioned above, had the government shown some restraint, I have no doubt that the nurses would have gone back to work as negotiations continue. What we need from this government is not how many nurses it is going to fire, but rather how many nurses it is going to hire. And at the rate we are going, we could as well wake up one day with all the nurses gone. It does seem that this government only cares for the stomachs of politicians, and does not care for the health workers in our country. And when you have no plan on the table for good leadership, the words “you are fired”, become the easiest thing you default to.

This government created the crisis among the health workers, and it has to be this government to resolve it. The nurses are demanding, simply, that the government pays them what is already due to them. This government promised and it has failed to deliver. But that is not the primary problem. We are all human and to err is human. But instead of meeting this with humility, the Michael Sata government has refused to accept responsibility for these misapprehensions and has instead resorted to threats and more threats for the men and women in white.

“Zambian nurses need our support” – Munshya wa Munshya

This firing is also surprising in the sense that just a few weeks ago, it was the President himself who was threatening KCM with unexplained sanctions if they fired even a “single miner”. And yet today, the same president has caused to be written, on his behalf, over 300 dismissal letters to helpless nurses. I think if this government truly believes in employment for citizens, it is bizarre that with one tongue it would be fighting for miners, and yet with another go ruthlessly against the nurses for demanding that which was promised them.

Perhaps the don’t kubeba government need reminding that they should stop making empty promises. You can’t run a modern government based on promises and more unfulfilled promises. Do not promise all this stuff you keep singing about. Making all these outlandish promises is good, only for a week. When the time to fulfill the promises comes, you get to be labeled a liar. But instead of heeding to this advise, I know what this PF government will do. It will even promise more stuff that it cannot deliver. Currently, the president is all over the place promising the building of new universities, new tuntembas and new roads. I have even lost count of just how many so-called link fimo fimo roads President Sata has been “commissioning.” But the question is, “does he have the cash to do all this”? Of course he doesn’t, and the shylocks from New York will soon realize our economic folly and the little kaloba we keep borrowing might dry up as well.

In moments like this, we need level headed leadership. Level headed in the sense that the leadership will be able to tell the truth. But more than that, these times demand a leadership that can show some restraint and sacrifice. As mentioned above, it is not good that the president and his cabinet would always find the money to increase their salaries and yet they go mute when it comes to delivering their salary promises to the nurses.

Our nation has seen the difficult conditions under which nurses are working. The nurse to people ratio is just too high. This is unacceptable. As such, the nurses should be in our thoughts and prayers. To demand that this government does the right thing should not land nurses in trouble. As a people we have to exert the necessary pressure on this government so that those fired among nurses are reinstated. Reinstating is just the right thing to do. In the meantime, the nurses’ fight for better conditions of service is a noble fight and the whole country should rally behind them.

In the meantime, when the chosen few in the PF government fall sick, they runaway to South Africa to seek medical help. There in South Africa they pay heftily to have South African nurses take care of them. And when they are lucky to return alive, they return with vengeance, not to hire more nurses, but fire even more. Absurd it is, but it is definitely not surprising. This is the don’t kubeba way of doing things.

(c) 2013, Munshya wa Munshya

 Munshya wa Munshya

The era of pan-Africanism is over. Pan-Africanism has flopped. And it has flopped very miserably. It needs to be replaced, as it is no longer appropriate. Whatever is still alive in the beast of pan-Africanism should be exterminated. Africans must give up this dream and replace it with a vision that is more compatible with African realities. The ideology of pan-Africanism, as a template, has failed to help spur the imagination of Africans. It has also failed to realize even the most basic ideals of our people. In earnest, Africa must begin its transition from a pan-African view of society to that inspired by better ideals found in what I would call “post-Africanism”.

Pan-Africanism is that ideology attributed to Kwame Nkrumah (1909 – 1972), which basically states that Africa is one unit and must unite politically and economically to create a world powerhouse. This ideology has found itself recently in the ideals and tenets of the so-called African Union headquartered in Ethiopia. Interestingly, some of the leaders that promote this abstract idea have the worst human rights record. The capital of the African Union itself is host to one of the world’s worst repressive regimes imprisoning journalists and other activists.

Post-Africanism on the other hand is a reimagination of pan-Africanism. Through post-Africanism we question the major premises upon which pan-Africanism is founded. Post-Africanism deconstructs both “Africa” and “Pan-Africanism” to assert that these two concepts have the same colonial source. To realize the dreams of Africans, the individual, the African must form the basic unit of any hopes or ideals of the continent. Specifically, the following are some elements comprising post-Africanism.

First, post-Africanism assumes that the best gift that Africans have, is the gift of the African being – the reality of the African human. This is not to say that the African is different from other humans, but a mere recognition that the African is a human being. And as a human being, the African must be given the chance and opportunity to be just that – human. This assumption is important as it helps the African to be under no pressure to conceptualize herself as more or less than other human beings. This, in many ways delivers the African from the delusion of attempted superiority or inferiority. In this new conceptualization, the notion of Ubuntu expands from the emphasis of only the good virtues to a more realistic assessment embracing the whole compass of the African human – both the good and the bad. In our reassessment, we must not be guilty of the same mistakes committed by colonialists who held to their own version of racial superiority. The African should not overcompensate her emphasis on goodness in order to eradicate historical racial injustices.

Second, to be an African being should also entail a guarantee of basic “humanness.” Unless every power structure anywhere, in Africa and beyond, is able to guarantee basic human value, any collective vision of Africans will only remain but a pipedream, a daydream, or perhaps a fantasy. Recognizing the humanity of Africans means that the people should drive any political change within any African political organization. It is the individuals, the people, who should own the African processes of statehood and its antithesis. It also means that political leaders should desist from treating Africans like animals. You cannot preach independence from Britain in 1964, only to imprison innocents in 2013 for possessing Vermox. You cannot claim to be free from Britain in 1964 when in 2013 the don’t kubeba apparatus continues to intimidate Zambian journalists. In the same week Nelson Mandela died, the Zambian regime found it appropriate to intimidate journalists at the Daily Nation Newspaper for doing their job.

Third, in post-Africanism we claim that the current African tendency to promote a united Africa is disturbing. How did we even come to learn that for us to be a force to be reckoned with, we must transform this continent into a united country? The Pan-Africanist dream of a united Africa is itself a concept that was never born within the unique position of the African reality. When Nkrumah set out attempts to unite Africans as one people, he was merely mimicking the colonial dream. The first pan-Africanists were, in fact, never Africans themselves. And from the time that the colonialists dreamed of a united Africa, African political leaders have been trying to chase this dream that unfortunately should never have been theirs in the first place. The first person to want to unite Africa from Cape to Cairo was British businessman Cecil Rhodes (1853 – 1902). To Rhodes, the saying divide and rule quickly gave way to unite and rule. He knew that to colonize an expansive and massive land such as Africa, unity was far more appropriate to achieve this purpose than division. Hence, he initiated the Rhodesian dream of uniting this virgin continent into one big orchard for the amusement of European voyeuristic conquest. Cecil Rhodes’ royal colleague King Leopold II (1835 – 1909) of Belgium also subscribed to this same dream of a united Africa. Leopold wasted no time in uniting disparate tribes in Central Africa to create his personal massive plantation he bizarrely named the Congo Free State. To this day, in trying to live within the ghost of Leopold this massive Congolese orchard tries to cover-up some of its atrocities by hiding behind curried nomenclature. It is now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is even if it is not democratic, not a republic and just which Congo it is nobody knows. African political leaders have carried on both the Leopoldian and the Rhodesian templates of a big and united Africa without asking themselves whether this dream is indeed worth the effort. What is even more worrying is that many ordinary Africans have bought into this hype. And I see views from imminent Africans recycling the Leopoldian ghost that Africa’s rise is deeply buried in its unity.

“The era of Pan-Africanism is over.”

Fourth, in post-Africanism we seek to deconstruct the modern African nation-state. This deconstruction does not mean that these states should be dismantled, but rather that the African must redefine the birth defects that prevailed at the founding of these states. The African, must desist from looking at the nation-state as the cause of the African being, but rather that it is the African being that creates the nation-state. The African must also deal with the possibility that we need new myths to create cohesion within these nations. We must acknowledge the flawed logic upon which nation-states were formed in Africa. Once this is done, it will become far much easier for Africans to then replace these flawed myths with newer myths. I have listened to many of my people who praise the Zambian nation, and yet have never paused to ask themselves just how we became Zambia and for whom? To answer this question, we might need to be invited on a journey beyond pan-Africanism to post-Africanism.

(c) Elias Munshya & Munshya wa Munshya, 2013

Copy of the High Court Judgment of Austin Liato v The People (HCZ, 2013). Click on this link and let us know what you think about the reasoning employed by Judges Siavwapa, Mchenga and Sharpe-Phiri.

Austin Liato vs the people-2

The Austin Liato Case is an important decision with regard to what should constitute “reasonable suspicion”.