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

Our republic can have no better politicians than the promise epitomised by young and educated leaders such as Hon. Lucky Mulusa. We are better and we will better as a nation if people of Mulusa’s calibre are encouraged to participate in politics. They bring a breath of fresh air to the political scene. When dinosaurs, that have no idea of modern economics, represent a generation of politics it is vibrant people like Mulusa that the nation can fall back on. However, in order to help Mulusa live up to his potential greatness we all have seen in him, it becomes important, actually critical to ask ourselves, has he become unlucky. This question is necessary now, especially in view of the unnecessary squabbles currently prevailing in the MMD. I am of the opinion that Mulusa is likely to emerge damaged after this debacle. He must quickly reevaluate his role in the confusion. Otherwise, he could lose the little respect he currently has in the minds and hearts of some Zambians. I say so for several reasons.

The people Mulusa seems to have joined in fighting Nevers Mumba have played him. I seem to get Mulusa’s argument. He believes in the potential and greatness of the MMD. He believes that the party can do better but cannot do so as long as Nevers Mumba continues to be at its helm. However, this message of his love for the MMD now has been overshadowed by the fact that the other rebels are alleged to have had secret meetings with State House and with senior Patriotic Front leaders. In fact, Hon. Chituwo has confirmed that he had such meetings and so has Hon. Kaingu. We are not privileged to know the motive for these meetings, and the gist of these meetings could be removed from the problems in the MMD. However, these meetings create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of some Zambians and some MMD members that the Patriotic Front is actually sponsoring the people fighting Nevers. The real casualty of such perceptions is actually Mulusa himself. I doubt whether he knew of these meetings. If he did know about them, but nevertheless, went ahead to scheme with Siliya, Kaingu, and Chituwo then I would doubt his judgment. However, if he had no idea that the PF leaders were meeting his colleagues then I would doubt his political competency. Dora and her colleagues have played Mulusa and his message has now been so mired in quagmire that it will take some more work for him to redeem himself. He could be running out of luck.

The timing is not right for Hon. Mulusa to lead a rebellion against Nevers Mumba. This is barely 2 years after the MMD lost power in 2011. Having the MMD begin fighting now will only weaken it further and make the death of the MMD inevitable. Lucky Mulusa does seem to still have some more fighting to do, but beginning them this early will only finish him.

Hon. Lucky Mulusa

Hon Mulusa does seem to be making several enemies at the wrong time in his political life. In times like this, he needed to be a little bit more strategic. He has now aroused the Nevers Mumba group. He has equally roused the UPND. In addition to that I understand that online, he has raised the ire of the zambianwatchdog.com website. These are too many battles to be fighting for any one man. You cannot take on so many people at the same time and expect to come out alive politically. For his part, he has also taken issues with Muhabi Lungu. Fighting Muhabi is bad strategically for Mulusa. Muhabi has several things going well for him. First, he has been public and political life longer than Mulusa. Zambians got introduced to Muhabi at a time when he was a sharp talking defender of the then UNIP President Kenneth Kaunda in the mid-1990s. Second, Muhabi being Easterner comes from the only province proving to be the stronghold for the MMD. And for the MMD to survive they need a regional base just like PF and UPND do have regional bases. For any political party in Zambia to become a national party, it must first be able to command an unwavering regional support. PF have their Northern-Luapula corridor and the UPND have their Southern region. The MMD must have the Eastern Province. Otherwise, they are toast. Third, Muhabi Lungu has actually worked for both Rupiah and Mwanawasa governments crafting the very policies that Mulusa is claiming made the MMD great. Fourth, Muhabi has taken on a different approach to the MMD problems. Every one with half a brain knows that the MMD has declined and is likely to decline further. However, the solution to these problems does not lie with fighting Nevers Mumba but with working with Nevers Mumba. Any MMD member who wishes to see the MMD rise again should try to work with Nevers and supplement his weaknesses. This is exactly what Muhabi is doing. To see Mulusa begin fighting Muhabi does not make sense. Some Zambians could as well ask, Muhabi we know, what about this new guy? Is he “a John come lately”

Nevers Sekwila Mumba

Hon Mulusa is not making sense politically when he claims that Nevers is irrelevant to the MMD because he caused the party to lose a ward election in Mpulungu in February. According to Mulusa, he believes that the MMD should be able to do well in the North because Nevers comes from there. The problem with the MMD is that they have a very popular opponent in the PF’s Michael Sata. Sata, in spite, of the economic failure in Zambia still remains a very formidable and personally popular candidate in the North. Currently, there is no politician who can dislodge Sata from the North. This is not Nevers’ problem. Additionally, Mulusa alleges that since Nevers is not that popular in the North this should be the reason to leave the MMD presidency. I doubt this kind of reasoning. Nevers Mumba is MMD president because he went to the convention and overwhelmingly beat his rivals. Those elections matter just like any other elections do matter. To claim that Nevers has never won an election when the guy had just beaten five other contestants in 2012 does not help Mulusa with his argument at all.

If Hon Mulusa believes that only parliamentary elections are the real elections, may be this is the time to doubt then whether Mulusa himself has lost relevance since the last time he ran for parliament, his seat was nullified due to electoral corruption. There is a lot Mulusa can offer Zambia. But this route he has taken will only lead to his political demise. My advice? Mulusa should cool down. Take it easy and fight for the people of Zambia instead of fighting Nevers Mumba. Mulusa has already done some remarkable things in both parliament and outside it. These are the kind of fights; they want him to continue championing.

Many Zambians do not believe that Nevers Mumba is the greatest of their problems. The greatest problems for Zambia are things such as the value of the Kwacha, out of control inflation, the stolen constitution and corruption perpetrated by the party in power. That being the case, the perception that it is the Patriotic Front sponsoring the anti-Nevers campaign in the MMD does not augur well at all. Nevers and the MMD needed an enemy to fight, and they have just been given that punching bag – the so-called anti-Nevers group. They will now use these anti-Nevers individuals as whipping boys (and girl) for the broader campaign to highlight the misdeeds of the Patriotic Front. This message might resonate with Zambians and entrench Nevers in the minds of many Zambians even deeper. Hon Mulusa’s star should shine, but if he continues on this path, he might just run out of political luck. Or may be Lucky Mulusa has already become unlucky!

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

We have lost a legend. A legend among us has left. A true Zambian icon has passed away. A great man has gone ahead of us. He was 78. He has gone to rest in eternal peace. For these three days, we have mourned together as one nation and we will continue to do so. The man who helped bring us together through the passion he had for Zambia and for football has united us, once again, as one people in mourning him. It is such a huge loss for our country. Our generation will dearly miss one of the greatest sons of this country. What made Dennis Liwewe great is not so much about his voice, but his passion. As a child growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, my mind is forever etched with his passion that blurted each time the Zambia national team played football. That passion was infectious. That passion expanded the imagination of young and old alike.

I grew up at a time when we had no Internet and certainly, no twitter. Televisions were also difficult to come by. The only reliable media we had, at home, was my father’s yellow ITT radio held together by a blend of tired wires. On that radio, we found a way to follow the Zambian national team each time they played at Independence Stadium. Dennis Liwewe brought those matches alive to my young ears. With him on the radio, I felt like I was right there in the stadium watching the game with him. That is perhaps one of the things by which I will remember him.

Dennis Liwewe
Picture source: postzambia.com

A legend, like Dennis Liwewe, lives on in the memories of those people he touched while on earth. He lives on through those who knew him at a more personal and intimate level. In writing this today, I should honour the way those close to him are remembering him. I should honour the way his family are remembering him. However, in addition to the fact that Dennis Liwewe was a family man: a father, an uncle and a grandfather, he was a legend too. Those of us who never even got to meet him personally still do have our own memories and unique ways in which we experienced his legend. And it is these varied and diverse memories that make the man a true Zambian legend. Mr. Liwewe will live on through the memories of those people who never met him, but nevertheless got impacted by the passion of his life.

From Dennis Liwewe’s life we learn several things. First, we learn that regardless of one’s station in life, passion is an important element in living. It has been mentioned above that Mr. Liwewe was passionate. And he lived his passion. His passion was infectious. We saw it. We felt it. We heard it. He made us to live his passion. He made us to experience his passion. Building this nation, calls for a people that are more passionate for their country. Additionally, passion means that one puts the interests of the nation ahead of anything else. Nothing demonstrates passion more clearly than what someone does with his or her time. For Liwewe, it was time well spent doing something he had always loved.

Second, Mr. Liwewe’s life teaches us that one can make a huge contribution to a cause without necessarily being the central player in that cause. Liwewe loved football but he was not a great football player himself. And neither did he need to be. He never played for the national team. Yet, he still inspired many in the national team to play their best. He was a great source of pride and inspiration. Over his career as a commentator, he was the mentor of several young players. He was not that kind of mentor who went to the dressing rooms with the players. He was not their coach. His presence and his passion were enough to inspire greatness in the young players. Zambia is better and greater due to the inspiration so many of us got from the life of Dennis Liwewe. This nation will do better if it continues to draw inspiration from the life and times of Liwewe.

Third, Mr. Liwewe helps us to realize that life is not just about politics. At a time when our country has become too politicised, it is refreshing to note that someone could be a symbol of unity across party political lines. I do not know about others, but speaking for myself, I never heard Liwewe take a partisan political stance on any subject. We can learn from Dennis Liwewe that we can all be passionate about our country without necessarily throwing ourselves into the frenzy of political divisiveness. There is a life without politics, just as there is still life after politics. Perhaps, the cadres who are busy fighting each other and killing each other could learn from the life of Liwewe that we are, in fact, just one people in a country that is in love with its football.

Pafwa abantu, pashala bantu is a saying that expresses the important duty that each departed person leaves for others to do. Dennis Liwewe did his part and played his role. He lived passionately among us. He showed us the way. Nevertheless, after he passes on, it now falls upon those still living to carry on with his good work. This good work does not necessarily mean we all must become radio commentators, but rather that we should do our best to be that true expression of humanity. We should embrace others as well as embrace the unique gift endowed by our Creator. When all is said and done, it is that which is done for the good of others that will truly matter.

May Dennis Liwewe’s soul rest in eternal peace.

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

It is sad. It is bizarre. It is chillingly baffling that a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church now becomes the latest victim of a menacing phone call from the president of the our republic. According to reports, Bishop Lungu last month narrated in his homily in Chipata how the President phoned him and gave him a timely “warning” to stop involving himself in the debates surrounding the Zambian constitution. Weeks ago, Bishop Lungu opened the doors of his church for civil society organizations to meet and pray for the Patriotic Front government to fulfill its undertaking of delivering a “people driven constitution” which was initially promised to be provided in 90 days. This phone call from the president deserves some analysis from at least three fronts: common sense, common law and the constitution.

President Sata kissing the feet of Jesus

History is the best edifice of common sense. She who is oblivious to history can never be noble with common sense. In fact, nothing shows our lack of common sense more than when we ignore the lessons of history. The Roman Catholic Church has been a part of the Zambian public life for so many years that it is actually baffling for a government to begin picking fights with her. Put another way, the lessons of history do teach us very eloquently that no government or president has been successful in fighting the Roman Catholic Church with regard to issues such as the constitution, justice and good governance. In my assertions here, I do not in any way accuse His Excellency Michael Sata of lacking common sense, I am merely wondering why in view of the abundance of common sense the president decided to make that call to Bishop Lungu. Various governments in the past have used threats against the Roman Catholic Church, and all these threats have never succeeded in steering the church away from issues that really matter for the Zambian people. In 1982 Merdado Cardinal Mazombwe told President Kenneth Kaunda (KK)that “church and State relationships are always a difficult issue because it is the same human person who is political, social and religious, a member at the same time of political and religious communities. We cannot divide the human person, as though the body lives in the State and the soul in the Church.” In 1991, the Catholics joined forces with the rest of Zambians in hounding out the Kenneth Kaunda dictatorship. Using the Icengelo magazine, the mother church tapped into popular discontent with KK to push a democratic agenda for Zambia.

During the 1996 amendments to the constitution of Zambia, the mother church again joined forces with many Zambians to ask President Chiluba and his lieutenants Michael Sata and Godfrey Miyanda to desist from pushing through some unjust constitutional amendments. The trio succeeded with these amendments, but the mother church continued to be a voice for the poor. In many ways, the same church that had helped to hound out KK had by 1995 become KK’s defender when Chiluba tried to dribble UNIP out of the 1996 elections.

Again in 2001, Roman Catholic clergy made it clear: no third term. In their various pastoral letters the prelates of the Roman church have consistently sided with the poor of Zambia. This was the case in 1982, and it certainly shall be the case in 2014. It is therefore quite unreasonable for anyone to expect any less from the Catholic Church now. That phone call brings into contemplation the question of the correct exercise of common sense.

It is a notorious fact that the Head of our State does have a lot of powers at common law. However, within a common law understanding of the powers of a president, we must make it eloquently clear, that the powers of the Chief of State should be exercised reasonably. The right exercise of presidential power precludes the use of threats, insults, and mayhem to resolve national matters. To make it more specific, a Zambian president has a burden at common law to exercise common sense in the daily discharge of her duties. She cannot decide to do anything that comes to her mind. She is constrained by both the written and by the unwritten law. It cannot be legal that which inspires a president to make direct phone calls that border on unwarranted threats against citizens of our country.

Bishop George Lungu of Chipata

No one has the right to make threats against another. In Zambia, no one has the powers to interfere with another’s constitutional liberties except by operation of law. In our justice system, if Bishop Lungu has committed an offence, it becomes the duty of the police to investigate and for the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute Bishop Lungu. This is if at all he has committed a crime by praying for a new constitution. It is not incumbent upon our president to make calls threatening unspecified action on a citizen. We should all take great exception to such behavior. When we come to think of it, we are at a loss for words to describe these threats. Certainly, there is no soldier, or policeman, or any presidential operative who is going to riddle bullets into the Bishop’s chest. This is not the way we behave as a nation. We never resolve problems through bullets, but through ballot inspired dialogue. Our men and women in uniform have been very professional in their duties. These are the same soldiers who when it was clear that power had shifted from Banda to Sata in 2011, professionally run a transition like a mature country should. It is a serious misunderstanding on any person’s part to think these are the men that would go carrying out unspecified threats against Bishop Lungu. In Zambia, we should not threaten Bishops. Full stop.

I have mentioned it before in this column that the Supreme Court has been consistent in holding that the President of our republic has a special place within the Zambian constitution. Both Chief Justice Ngulube and Acting Chief Justice Chibesakunda have given reasonable rulings to impute reasonableness on the acts, status and mind of a president. That being the case, the President still remains a creature of our constitution. She is a subject of our laws. In fact, the president takes an oath of office to defend the constitution of our republic. As a subordinate of the constitution the president cannot just do anything that comes to her mind. She is restrained and constrained by the constitution of our republic. It is these constraints that made President Sata to make a U-turn when he nominated ten instead of 8 members of the national assembly. The president is not above the law. It is ridiculous for any president to depend upon the little immunity they have to begin threatening innocent citizens. Just as seen from the past: immunity can be taken away very fast.

It is beneath the dignity of our head of state to breath threats into the ears of a Bishop. Threatening Bishops is not going to help reduce Zambians’ desire for a new constitution. If President Sata continued on this path, there is no way he is going to succeed making phone calls to millions of other Zambians. Or may be we should all advise Hon Chikwanda to contract more Eurobond kaloba so that President Sata always has enough air time on his cellphone to place a million calls. It is about to get busy.

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

Several judges of the High Court of Zambia have been quite consistent and clear with regard to the evidence the prosecution needs to provide when proving the age of a minor in defilement cases. In following the 1973 legal precedence of the case of Phiri (Macheka) v. The People most judges have gone to hold that “age should be proven by one of the parents or by whatever other best evidence is available.” This case has formed an integral part of Zambia’s evidence law.

In a criminal case, the State has the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of a case. Main elements of most criminal cases hinge on at least two components: the prohibited act (called actus reus) and the required mental element (called mens rea) that goes with it. In the case of child defilement, the prosecution must prove that an accused had sexual intercourse (the act) with a child and did this intentionally (the mental element). As mentioned earlier, the prosecution that must prove that (1) sex took place, (2) it was with a minor, and (3) the accused did this intentionally (s.138 of the Zambia Penal Code). It would be beyond the scope of this article to analyse each of these elements in detail. I should leave that to a university course in Criminal Law or Evidence Law. However, I just wish to deal with one element involved in this section: proof as to age of a victim.

The Law of Evidence deals with how a party can prove its case before an impartial tribunal. There are several sources of Zambian evidence law. I will mention only those relevant to this article. The first one is statute law. For example, CAP 43 of the Laws of Zambia (The Evidence Law Act) contains some guidelines with regard to evidence law. Second, most of the penal code provisions do come with some guidelines of how a particular offence can be proven. The third source of Zambian evidence law is the common law. By this we mean the law that has come to us through the history of precedence as interpreted by the judges. In fact, a bulk of what constitutes evidence law today comes from this area of law. It comes from what judges have ruled about what can be admitted and what cannot be admitted in court. The fourth source of evidence law is the trial judge or magistrate who is expected to use discretion to admit or reject some evidence if they will be prejudicial, or if the evidence will put the administration of justice into disrepute.

With specific reference to defilement cases, it is settled law, through the 1973 precedence that in proving the age of a victim, the testimony given by a parent in court “is conclusive unless evidence to the contrary is adduced” (Justice Siavwapain Tembo v. The People [2011]). It cannot help an accused to simply dispute the testimony given by a parent of a victim while failing to adduce contrary evidence. When a parent to a victim of defilement testifies in an open court that a child is indeed a minor, any one wanting to challenge this testimony must, through cross-examination, discredit this testimony, or should provide contrary evidence. Failure to do so, unfortunately, could lead to a conviction.

While I cannot deal with the specific issue regarding the conviction and appeal of Mr. C. Dimba, who has been slapped with 18 years for defilement, it would be interesting to see how the judges will handle this appeal. As widely reported in the press, the convict is appealing on the basis that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence with regard to the age of the alleged victim. At the centre of this appeal is the denial, by the appellant that the victim is actually not a minor. The convict does not seem to deny that sex took place. Second, he does not deny that he did it intentionally. What he denies concerns the exact age of the victim. Without doubt, age is an essential ingredient of the offence of defilement (Mulonda v. The People, 2004). As such, what is at issue in this appeal is what weight if any, the trial court should have given to the testimony rendered by the parents of the victim in an open court. Again, this issue could hinge on how the Supreme Court will relate facts of this case with precedence already in place. Basing this appeal only on the reliability of a parent’s testimony is a very difficult proposition.

There have been comments about how that, in order to convict Dimba, the court must have been provided with “documentary” evidence about the age of a victim. Some are even suggesting that a medical or scientific proof should be provided to substantiate the age of a victim. This is where we need to differentiate reality from the fiction we find in Hollywood dramas such as “Criminal Minds” and stuff like that. In my opinion, all this obsession with scientific evidence is not as reliable as that provided by a parent of a victim. The viva voce (word of mouth) testimony given in a court of law is more like the golden standard of evidence. The word of mouth testimony given by a witness (the parent) in open court about what they observed with their senses is very difficult to dislodge. In this case, the parents had testified before the trial magistrate that this child was below the age of sixteen at the time this offence took place. You have to have a very strong case to be successful on appeal.

Convicted Musician “General” Kanene

The 2005 reforms to s.138 of the Penal Code expunged the defence of “reasonable belief” from the offence of child defilement. In 2011, however, this defence was reinstated. Parliament did well to reinstate this defence. A person who otherwise is guilty of child defilement could use this defence. It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under s.138 to show that they had “reasonable cause to believe, and did in fact believe,” that the child was not a minor. I think this defence takes care of some grey areas so that only those who are truly culpable should go to jail. However, it is interesting that Justice Mchenga did allude to this when he mentioned in his sentencing that the convict did seem to know that the girl was a minor by asking her “not to come in uniform, but come in plain clothes.” This is a very persuasive finding of fact that could prove critical going forward. I doubt whether this defence could be available to someone who knew very well that a girl was a minor! The more you know, the less likely that you could be successful in raising this defence.

For proof, the testimony of a parent seems appropriate. For punishment, the judges are meting out stiff penalties. For the careless, s.138 should be taken seriously. If they are below 16 years of age and you have sex with them, then you will go in for 15 years and above. That’s the law!

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

In a culture driven by headlines, our people mostly never take the time to read the fine print. Ours is a society, which ignores the body of any information in preference for what the headlines are screaming. Just a few weeks ago, the headlines squealed and most of our people believed that Kenya had established new polygamy laws. With that misleading information came the outraged. Although few had taken to read the actual law that the headlines were talking about, they rushed to condemn the new law that Kenya had enacted. Western media sources claimed that the Kenyan president “had signed a law, which will now allow Kenyan men to marry more than one wife.” This was the gist of the news. And this essence was clearly misleading. The headline flew very fast and many Africans, including some Zambians jumped on the bandwagon to condemn this law. This information was very disingenuous to say the least. Headlines claiming this are filled with half –truths. To be fair to a good conversation that Africans must have, we must relook at what the law actually says and why most African societies including Zambia need to reform and repackage its marriage laws.

Munshya wa Munshya

Just like any other law, this legislation is not perfect. There are some provisions that need refining. For example, it creates too many categories of marriages. It has quite a number of marriages; some are contracted under Islam, some under Christianity, others under customary law. It then has what it calls civil marriages. The law could need a little simplicity than this complex make up of these marriage categories. The new law also does seem to suggest that a witness of a civil marriage should not be “intoxicated”. It is quite surprising why it would contain such a provision. It does not define what is meant by intoxication. Nevertheless, it is trite law that a contract created while intoxicated still remains a valid contract. I wonder why it specifically prohibits intoxicated people from being witnesses to a marriage. The law also does run into definitional problems by trying to define what is meant by the Hindu religion. The definition goes to define Hinduism as “including Buddhism”. The Kenyan parliament is not a novice parliament to make such a definitional blunder. The law also forbids marriage between cousins. This proscription however, does not apply to marriages contracted under Islam. This ban would be controversial in Zambia, considering that some Zambian tribes do recognize customary marriages among distant cousins.

In spite of the obvious weaknesses in this piece of legislation, it is in my opinion a progressive legislation. First, it is quite significant in the way it raises minimum marriage age for ladies from the previously undefined age to the age of eighteen. Under this new law, a woman cannot be married unless she is eighteen. By far, this provision removes the ambiguity that came with some African customary practices, which had no clear minimum age for marriage. With this new provision it means no one using either tradition or religion can go marrying off young girls.

Second, this law attempts to consolidate into one piece of legislation several scattered provisions that dealt with marriage. The law repealed about ten other Acts dealing with marriage. It certainly has not simplified marriages and their statutory provisions, but it is good that now Kenyans will have to go to one piece of legislation and find the critical information they need about this important institution. Consolidation is good for laws. This is even truer for most the patchwork laws we inherited from England and Wales.

Third, this law has brought under statutory cover, the customary practice of polygamy. This is the part that got newsmen and newswomen around the world most interested. This law did not create anything new with regard to the practice of polygamy; all it did was grant statutory recognition to customary marriages that already have the presumption of polygamy. The law did not in any way impose the presumption of polygamy on Christian marriages at all. To put it simply, there is a presumption of polygamy on all marriages contracted customarily, but this is not the case with civil or Christian marriages as defined by this Act. Bringing statutory recognition to the customary practice of polygamy has several advantages. It certainly, could help partners in such polygamous relationships to have more access to property rights than is the case under customary practice. Additionally, bringing customary marriages under statute removes the second-class stigma assigned to such marriages. In Zambia, most marriages are contracted under customary practices. It is ridiculous that so many years after independence, we should still stigmatize and delegitimize customary marriages which most of our people contract.

This then brings us to the issue of polygamy specifically. Does this law now make Kenya more polygamous than was the case before the law? Obviously, the answer is no. As I have stated above, this law only grants statutory recognition to those marriages that until now had not had that recognition. Kenyan men will not suddenly go and get wife number two, three or four. If they did, it certainly is not because of this law!

There is need for critical reflection

We might need to look at the implications of this law on what is commonly referred to as “Christian marriages”. In Zambia, we do not have the stark distinction that Kenya does seem to have drawn between the “civil marriage” and the “Christian marriage”. Nevertheless, in Zambian marriages contracted in the church while still retaining the “Christian” fervour are “civil marriages”. To characterize these civil marriages as Christian while not extending the same to some customary marriage is a serious misnomer. This is perhaps where Zambian law needs reform. The only thing that should define a Christian marriage should be the faith of the people involved in the marriage and not the way it was contracted. It is ridiculous to only regard those marriages conducted under the “statutory” law to be “Christian” marriages while ignoring millions of other marriages involving Christians who nevertheless married under customary law. A customary marriage could still be a Christian marriage, and we might need statutory changes to accommodate this.

I have tried to be careful here not to delve into the debate of the moral undesirability of polygamy. I am also not going to delve into what should be the Christian view of polygamy. It is beyond this article. However, I have tried to challenge the misconceptions concerning this new Kenyan law. The law is not a polygamy law, but a marriage reform law. Looked at it from that perspective, we should all find reasons to move beyond condemnation to critical reflection.

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

The question is not really about whether President Sata is sick or not. The question is about how the nation and its political players should conduct themselves in moments of alleged presidential illness. When a president falls ill, or rather when allegations of presidential illness become apparent, we as a people have some choices. Some of these choices are terribly hideous. The first choice is to use the illness of the president as an opportunity for political posturing or partisan cannibalism. The second choice is to deny and deny. And then deny some more. There is a better choice, however. A choice far better than these two choices: a more humane way of doing politics. The rivers of national sanity and morality have never dried up as to deny us the opportunity to be civil when reacting to the misfortunes of our fellow humans. There is a healthier manner of how we should handle difficult issues adjoining a presidential temporal incapacitation through illness.

Levy Patrick Mwanawasa

Political posturing is never in the best interest of the nation. In fact, political posturing during rumoured presidential illnesses, has in the past, led to bitterness, angering hatred and obscene disappointment. For example, during the many illnesses of Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (president from 2002 to 2008), a very verbose leader of the opposition at that time wasted no seconds in using Mwanawasa’s alleged illnesses as a ticket to scorn Levy’s government and leadership. That same opposition leader mustered enough vigour to claim, quite undiplomatically, that when Mwanawasa was examined by doctors in India, “they found that there was no coordination between his brain and his mouth.” These were very harsh and discourteous words to come out of the mouth of an important leader of Zambia’s opposition at that time. What such sentiments went to prove was the unfortunate fact that taking such stances when a president is ill demolishes the good human spirit that should be resident in all of us during the misfortunes of others. Now that there are plausible rumours of the current president being ill, it is incumbent upon us not to treat President Sata, the way a sick Mwanawasa was treated. As the saying goes, “two wrongs never make a right.” We can never triumph over evil using evil.

The best we all could offer during this very difficult time are the finest wishes, extravagant prayers and resilient hope for the full recuperation of President Sata so that he could find the strength he needs and the fortitude he requires to fix the many problems that our country is facing. Zambia currently has a currency that is dropping in value like a ball stumbling from Lebron James’ huge hands. The Kwacha has hit K7 000 (in real money) to the US dollar. Students at the Copperbelt University (CBU) have downed their brains until their meal allowances are increased by at least 45%. They are asking for Ba John Phiri to address them. Roads that were built linking Ndola to Kitwe have developed severe potholes days after the contractors handed over the keys to Hon. Yamfwa Mukanga. Rupiah Banda’s flagship project stadium originally named “disaster stadium” by Ba Chishimba Kambwili is falling apart even before it is officially commissioned. It is still not known when this official commissioning will take place considering that both Kambwili and his boss missed the Sunday expected launch day. Old and finished ZAF aircraft are now murdering our soldiers like roaches. Defence Minister Edgar Lungu spends more time mourning soldiers killed during peace than during war. Our national debt, being managed by Bo Alexander Chikwanda, is rapidly dashing towards pre-HIPC points. PF contracted Kaloba currently stands at $4.5 Billion. Honestly, it will require the steady fortitude of a very fit president to preside over the recovery of this country. That being the case, we all do very well to hope and pray that His Excellency recovers quickly, for great is his work and enormous are his challenges. Some of these economic challenges he created them himself. Fya kuiletelela fye.

Munshya wa Munshya

The other choice of handling the alleged illness of a president does not inspire confidence at all. Even when it is so notoriously obvious that vintu sivili bwino, it is sad that the PF government’s default response to citizens’ concerns over the health of the president is that of don’t kubeba. This is sad. But knowing the vulturistic nature of our politics, PF government is denying it because somehow they feel like the political vultures are already circling. That should not be the case. During this time, the government should genuinely share, with the citizens, the state of the health of the president. And from there, ask the nation to pray and hope for a quick recovery. Stating that the president has malaria or pneumonia should not be taboo for any government. It should not be a taboo topic, definitely, not in our times. In fact, even if the illness were very serious, it would still be in order for a government to inform the nation so that goodwill and prayers are offered in return. Our country has excellent doctors in all hospitals to help when called upon. Great Zambian hospitals such as UTH, Chainama, Ndola Central and Levy Mwanawasa can always send their best physicians to help. Denials are hardly the best policy. Denials become even more ridiculous when evidence, as seen on TV, pictures and face-to-face, shows a complete different story. There is a saying, that “she who hides her illness risks embarrassment in death”. A government should be proactive in communicating such hardships instead of being mischievously secretive.

We should pray for Michael Sata

Zambia is a democracy. We cannot really completely eradicate the politics of opportunism during a trying moment like this one. Already, vultures in the ruling party are positioning themselves for a depraved feast at the slab of misfortune. A wake of vultures is ready. We have heard them in Mpulungu. They are loud and clear in Mufulira. The vultures have started to gather in committees. The wind is growing dark, and the energy is beginning to plunge. There at, perhaps, the allegations of the last breath, the queenmakers are rearranging their ugly seats casting lots and perhaps spreading bones. While we should not be surprised at this behaviour, we should nevertheless hope and pray that they do so in a humane form. There is still a way to transform vultures into doves. There is a way to redeem our politics from that of depravity to that of humanity.

The government of Zambia should be forthcoming with information. This is the best way to lead and to keep vultures at bay. The people of Zambia should also be clear about showing their true humanity. This is the best way to be citizens. The constitution of Zambia should be respected and Cabinet should only act when there is clear evidence of incapacity. But for now, all of us should keep praying and hoping that our problems and the many challenges we face are taken care of in the most humane way. Pafwa abantu, pashala bantu.

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

There is no doubting that the 30th May “midnight” court ruling in Malawi has significant implications for Zambia. In 2016, Zambia is likely to face a somewhat contentious election. That being the case, we have a lot to learn from the way Malawi high court handled the electoral petition presided by Mr. Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda. I do have issues with Mr. Nyirenda’s legal reasoning. However, I also recognize that controversial as it may be, the ruling has some positive implications for Zambian courts.

Rupiah Banda visiting Malawi after the elections

Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda of the Malawi High Court was called upon to decide on at least three questions. First, he was to rule on whether to hold the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) in contempt. These contempt charges emanate from injunctions and counter-injunctions filed during the ballot count. Second, he was called to rule on whether the law did in fact give the MEC power to conduct a recount of electoral ballots to ascertain a correct picture of the outcome. If this second issue is answered in the affirmative, the next question was whether MEC could extend the period of recounting beyond the statutorily stipulated eight days. As fate would have it, the 8 days was supposed to elapse that Friday evening. The MEC and an opposition party, the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) had applied for this eight-day period to be extended so that a better recount of votes could be conducted.

Justice Nyirenda is a 1986 graduate of Chancellor College at the University of Malawi. President Joyce Banda appointed him as judge in October 2012. Before 2012, Nyirenda served a couple of years as Senior Legal Officer for the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). He has also worked in legislative drafting in both Turks and Caicos Islands and Kenya.

The little background information I have provided is important in so far as it helps us to situate and contextualize the milieu from which Justice Nyirenda made his “midnight” ruling. Any court case is as good as the judge hearing it. From his reasoning we could ask better questions as to why he decided to reason a certain way.

To answer the first question, Judge Nyirenda discharged the contempt charges against the MEC. He correctly held that the applicants had not provided all the information needed to proceed with contempt hearings. The contempt charges for the MEC are quite unusual here because it does appear like the applicants had wanted to stop MEC commissioners from doing exactly what the law asks them to do: to count and recount votes after an election.

Judge Nyirenda obviously, did not want to hold MEC Commissioners in contempt and then worked backwards to find the reasons why he should not. This strategy did seem to work well. This should not come as a surprise. It would take unusual circumstances to hold a group such as the MEC commissioners in contempt of court. This is the same principle I saw working with Judge Eddie Sikazwe here in Zambia last week when he refused to cite Nevers Mumba and 45 other NEC members for contempt. Holding groups in contempt of court is too messy and judges are generally reluctant to do so.

On the second question, Justice Nyirenda answered in the affirmative. The MEC had the power to count and recount the votes. He interpreted the enabling legislation and the constitution. He then held that indeed counting and recounting of the ballots was within the perimeter of the MEC. This is a very important principle in administrative law. The power of an administrative body is primarily derived from the mothering statute.

Munshya wa Munshya

Judge Nyirenda, however, left the most bizarre answer to the third question. If indeed the constitution and the statutes do empower the MEC to conduct a recount, can the MEC apply to court to have this period extended? He answered “no”. At issue here was the provision of the statute. Statute states that the MEC is supposed to announce the election results within “eight days” of an election. Since the last day of the election was May 22, the eight days were going to elapse on May 30. In ruling that the results had to be released, the judge relied on the “literal rule” of legislative interpretation. He held that since the statute says election results should be announced in eight days, there was nothing he could do as a judge to extend that timeline. He claimed that the MEC was bound to follow this timeline and announce. The judge then made a philosophical point, “As a judge my role is not to make law, but to interpret it.”

Does Kenyatta’s ruling impact Zambia?

Judge Nyirenda’s holding on this third question is controversial for several reasons. First, he does not acknowledge the fact that the MEC had spent much of the eight days in court rather than in counting the votes. The judge could still have discredited some of that time so that the eight-day deadline begins to count only after his court ruling on May 30. Second, Judge Nyirenda’s ruling would lead to absurd outcomes. What good is this power to recount the vote, if it had to be done by May 30, the very day that he was delivering the ruling? Isn’t it obvious that it would be self-defeating for the MEC to be given broad power and yet have it restricted to just one hour? Third, Judge Nyirenda, as a skilled legal drafter himself, exploits the “literal rule” and relies on it to emphasize that the results should be announced within the stipulated 8-days. Perhaps, Judge Nyirenda needed to be reminded that the literal rule is hardly the best tool to use when interpreting text that has constitutional implications. The MEC was not asking for time to manufacture results. It was asking for time to verify the results. It should not take rocket science to know that the activity of verification might need a little more time, especially in the atmosphere as adversarial as that particular election.

Notwithstanding, the contentious issues concerning the third element. The positive aspect of this ruling is the fact that the court did not bow to pressure from a sitting president. The court showed independence and a clear commitment to follow the “letter of the law”. I have my own doubts about Justice Nyirenda’s reasoning. However, what I do not doubt is that Zambian judges might just find his courage insightful when their turn comes in 2016, or perhaps before that.

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

Trinity Western University is a Christian evangelical school located in the province of British Columbia (Canada). Students at TWU are asked to sign a community covenant agreement that, among other things, asks students to refrain from “sexual immorality.” Sexual immorality is defined as “sex outside of marriage”. This includes “homosexual sex”. TWU defines marriage as between a man and a woman. TWU believes that it has the freedom of religion to teach its basic moral codes that define sexuality in this way. The lawyers in BC have voted to withhold recognition of a law degree obtained from TWU due to this community covenant. The vote took place on Tuesday, 10 June 2014. The main issue being argued by opponents of TWU law school is that the community covenant is non-constitutional as it discriminates against homosexual students. A detailed analysis of administrative and constitutional law arguments are beyond the purview of this article.

To date, the evangelical school has stated that it proscribes “homosexual conduct” without proscribing “homosexuals”. The principle being “loving the sinner”, but not the sin. Recently, though the Supreme Court of Canada in Whatcott did seem to discredit this view. While Whatcott was a human rights case, it remains to be seen how applicable it would be in the case of TWU. Judges in Whatcott stated that you cannot discriminate or hate people’s conduct if that conduct is one that could be done by a particular and identifiable group. According to Whatcott, you cannot hate the homosexual sin while claiming to love the homosexual because the so called homosexual sin can only be done by a particular identifiable group of people who are homosexuals. So can TWU discriminate in its covenant on the basis of “homosexual conduct”?

The Supreme Court of Canada is likely to side with TWU – Munshya

Before Whatcott, TWU in similar facts won a case in the Supreme Court of Canada when the teachers regulating agency in BC sought not to licence TWU teachers due to the community covenant. In that case the Supreme Court stated that in order for TWU graduates to be sanctioned, there has to be a clear discriminatory conduct from TWU graduates while they are in employment. You cannot say that a teacher from TWU will discriminate against homosexuals in a classroom simply because they signed a community covenant. Is the Supreme Court of Canada going to follow its own precedence? Or will it be controlled by the newer Whatcott ruling?

I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule against TWU law school. It will instead find a way to balance the TWU teachers’ case and Whatcott. In fact, they will have to narrow down the issue to the question of whether a lawyer who signs a community covenant at TWU becomes unsuitable to practice law.

Let me know what you think.

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

The nights and days are very cold this month of June. But in spite of this, the leaders of this country did not spare our people in Mindolo another brunt exercise of power. The people of Mindolo woke up, one night, to a colossal noise of bulldozers and graders tearing through the walls of what had made their homes. There was no mercy. There was no pity. And the misery was ruthless. It does seem, as expected, that the government cared less about the plight of our now homeless citizens. These citizens now have nowhere to lay their heads and no place to acquire the comfort of a warm roof. Days after this unfortunate incident, the ruling Patriotic Front, through its Copperbelt leadership, expressed comprehensive ignorance about what happened to the over 300 families of Mindolo. They claim “ta twaishibe” until the minute bulldozers were on the ground grinding down the brittle hedges around fragile homes of our people. We would be more concerned if this were an isolated incident. But unfortunately, denial has become the order of the day in both the ruling party and the government it is claiming to lead. From police brutality to the economy, President Sata’s government has most surely become a government of “katwishi”. Ask them any important question, and their answer comes from a choice of synonyms whose meaning is repugnant to human politesse: don’t kubeba, katwishi and nshishibe.

A few months ago, President Sata’s minister of agriculture had no idea that since his party came into power the price of ubunga had gone up by almost 100%. Typical of a reckless administration, the response from the honorable minister was that of total surprise and unsurprising surly indifference. He had no idea that the cost of ubunga is beyond the reach of many Zambians. One then wonders how this group of so called cabinet claim to be running a nation when they are not in touch with basic realities of how much Zambians are paying for staple food. I would be curious to find out what the minister cooks in his house, since he has no idea how much a bag of roller meal costs. May be he has an incessant supply of chicken and chips beautifully delivered at taxpayers expense. As if that was not enough, when the same gentleman visited cotton growers, he again expressed total surprise at the plight of cotton growers. He claimed “nshishibe”, “nshaishibe” or stuff related to that. Zambia must demand that leaders desist from this katwishi culture.

The leadership of “katwishi” has led us and is leading us into serious economic doldrums. The essence of katwishi finds itself manifested in a government, which has no idea, of how much money the mining sector generates each year. For example, the honorable minister of finance has no inkling of how much money KCM, First Quantum or Mopani make each year. With this obliviousness, the PF government cannot effectively assist the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to tax these companies. When citizens like Pamela Chisanga take up these issues and demand that Mopani pays, the government not infrequently pleads the “katwishi” doctrine. They claim to not know. Sadly, it seems, we have entrusted government to a bunch of persons who are so reckless as to fail to account for the income generated by our supreme natural resources. We need a cure from this “katwishi” syndrome.

Failing to effectively tax the mining conglomerates, cabinet secretary has this week, nevertheless, found an easy way out of this predicament by asking for “nchekelako” from all public universities and colleges. These colleges will now have to remit 60% of their school fee earnings to the ministry of finance. When it comes to mines, the PF gives a katwishi answer, but when it comes to helpless public colleges, it abruptly arouses to suck the littlest blood trickling from the veins of broke public colleges. Zambians should be unanimous to demand better planning from the PF government.

Government of Katwishi

Another manifestation of katwishi concerns the soon-to-be established government airline. Honourable Yamfwa Mukanga has been quite consistent on this one. He claims that the PF government will not rest until a new government-run airline is established. He has since proclaimed that it will be launched on June 30^th2014. Our government has run an airline before. It was called Zambia Airways (QZ). The reason why this airline went into liquidation was that it was a loss-making venture. It had become a personal carrier for Kenneth Kaunda and his UNIP benefactors. Without reasonable profits, Zambia Airways started to extricate taxpayers’ money to keep it in the air. In spite of this overwhelming evidence with regard to the failure of QZ, Mukanga in 2014 wants to add another expense for the taxpayers. I wonder what we shall call this airline. May be Katwishi Airline would be an appropriate name to memorialize President Sata’s popular reference of his cabinet as “useless”. The Zambian treasury is broke. Our kwacha is losing value. We basically have no money in the treasury. The government of katwishi has now mercilessly squandered the little dollars Dr. Rupiah Banda and Bo Situmbeko Musokotwane had left in the Zambian coffers. If we are to follow up on how Sata spent Rupiah Banda’s billions, we would get a hazy answer: katwishi. Since we are broke as a country, it does not make sense that we should be spending billions we do not have to buy planes for a loss-making venture.

Besides, the last time Hon. Mukanga was called upon to appoint a genuine board for a parastatal company, he appointed PF cadres to Zambia Railways. We have been there before. There is no assurance that Mukanga will handle this airline any differently from the way he has mishandled Zambia Railways. He will go on to appoint unqualified PF cadres to run Katwishi Airways and further squeeze the taxpayers. Nothing demonstrates economic folly than going back to the very practices and policies responsible for burying us in the sand of economic stagnation.

Isn’t it ridiculous that when Ms. Mutale Nalumango visited Isoka, and the police abused their power by hounding her out of there, the answer from the police command was “katwishi”? They claimed total ignorance of this abuse of power. Similarly, Nevers Mumba goes to Eastern Province, and the first thing the police do is conceitedly escort him out of Nyimba. When challenged to stop this thoughtless abuse of power, the police command pleaded total ignorance. They said “katwishi.”

Our country can do better. But in order to do so, we might need to deal with the katwishi syndrome. We can challenge this attitude now, and if that fails, we have a good shot at stopping it once and for all in 2016. The katwishi PF-government could think that they are getting away with this for now. But very soon, the Zambian people will show them who is boss. And when that day comes, the Zambian people will be decisive and flawless in rebuffing “katwishi” and all of its pretentious cousins.

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

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

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

President Sata and Secretary General Kabimba

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

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

When a smuggler acts as President

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zambians are experiencing buyer’s remorse – Munshya

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

Guy Lindsay Scott

Never in the short history of our republic have we had a vice-president who is as marginalised as Guy Lindsay Scott. Effectively, this Patriotic Front government has managed to reduce the vice-president of our republic to a non-entity. As if it is not enough that Scott has no clue of much of the stuff happening in a government in which he is number two, the Speaker of our parliament ordered him to release a statement about the whereabouts of President Sata. The people of Milenge would call this “uku tumfya”. Kutumfya to ask Scott to release a statement when the gentleman is in the dark, as always. The statement Scott released to parliament is notoriously honest, scandalously ironic and goes to prove just how out of the loop Scott has been. That Scott has not resigned in spite of this rampant snubbing deserves an analysis of its own. But it certainly takes a lot of steel to be a Veep in a cabinet, which shamefully ostracises you.

Scott supplemented his parliamentary statement with a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview he had on Wednesday June 25 2014. In this interview he accused a “small tribe in the south of Zambia” as the source of lies, innuendo and rumours about President Sata’s health and controversial visit to Tel Aviv. Without, dwelling too much on the demerits of his insult of this “small tribe”, it seems that Dr. Scott seems to project his own insignificance in the Patriotic Front on to others.

Guy Scott, in spite of having the Zambian constitution on his side, has never acted as president. Foremost, the job of any vice-president is to act as president in the absence of a president. Additionally, a Veep is supposed to manage an executive transition in the event of a vacancy in the office of president. As an acting president, a Veep is supposed to call for fresh elections within ninety days. It is quite fascinating though that Scott has never, at any time, fulfilled his constitutional job description. Sata always leaves power in the hands of Dr. Scott’s unelected juniors. This should hurt. An explanation has been cooked up, that tries to justify this disregard of procedure by stating that Scott cannot act as president because he is a muzungu. I have searched the constitution of our republic, and it does not bar a Whiteman from acting as president. The decision to sideline Scott within the realms of the don’t kubeba power structure does seem to me that it is informed by racism or tribalism. What else could explain this clear preference for black Zambians over a white one? The irony is that this very tribalism that victimizes Guy Scott is the same one he is projecting on to others when he characterises those wanting information about his boss as a “small tribe” from the south of Zambia. This is the problem of racism and tribalism: it turns its victims into vicious tribalists themselves. The only way to help Dr. Scott, perhaps, is for the PF government to stop its policy of a racist embargo on Scott solely because of the colour of his skin.

It was on Sunday, June 22 that Hon Mwansa Kapeya released a government statement explaining that President Sata had arrived in Israel at “the invitation of President Shimon Peres.” This was surprising because the trip had not been previously announced. In fact, Kapeya seemed to have released the statement only after rumours had surfaced about the whereabouts of President Sata. Kapeya stated that Sata left Zambia on Friday June 20. So between Friday and Sunday, there was no word from the government about Sata’s whereabouts. This was a serious lapse in the judgment of presidential handlers. An invitation of our president by the president of Israel should never be a secret.

Kapeya also stated that Zambia’s Honorary Consular-General Ms. Ronit Hershkovitz received President Sata. This should make this trip quite official and it buttresses the reasons why the Zambian public should have been informed of it in the first place. After this statement from Kapeya, social media went into overdrive particularly when it became apparent that Peres would in fact be in Washington, DC and not Tel Aviv to host Sata. The response from Kapeya was to threaten jail for those doubting Thomases. Kapeya enjoys jailing, it seems.

And then parliament intervened. It was a Member of Parliament from Southern Province who raised a point of order requesting the Speaker to direct the PF government to clarify this Sunday statement. This honour fell on the leader of government business in the house – the vice-president. Unsurprisingly, Dr Scott’s statement seems to have contradicted Kapeya’s central assertion:

Unfortunately, it is also asserted that he is doing this at the invitation of the Israeli President Mr Shimon Peres. This is misleading because President Sata is not there on a State Visit but on a Private Working Holiday…Sata will be combining sight-seeing, relaxation and business meetings.

Scott then concluded by stating that this is all he could say without entering “into the fantasy world of the Zambian social media and its necrophiliac correspondents and editors.” Obviously, Scott is very ruthless with words. He is of British heritage after all. It is sarcastic that he could label social media in these insulting words when his boss runs a very popular Facebook page that has nevertheless not been updated for weeks. Sata’s Facebook page came with a lot of cimwela and was a reliable source of ZNBC main news. Surprise, surprise, Guy Scott today calls social media “necrophiliac”.

After this statement in parliament BBC asked him about whether President Sata has cancer. He answered, “I can’t know because I am not his wife”. Asked further about the rumours about Sata’s health, Scott answered it is only a small tribe in the south stoking these rumours.

It makes no sense to discriminate against Guy Scott – Munshya

Guy Scott could be right, he has no idea about President Sata’s health. In fact, he has no idea about many things going on in government. The reason is not really because he is not Sata’s wife. But rather that, in spite of being a vice-president, he has been erroneously marginalised based on the colour of his skin. While Scott salutes his unelected subordinate Kabimba as acting president in Lusaka, I hope Scott’s boss enjoys his time in the Jewish state “sight-seeing, relaxing and having business meetings”. The Jewish state has confirmed that President Sata is in Israel at the invitation of President Peres. This is a welcome reprieve coming half a week later. Nevertheless, while all this is going on, I hope Scott will not think that the health status of President Sata is a manufactured rumour by a small tribe. If that were the case, all of us, will then be that small tribe. Scott should make no mistake, if this small tribe decide otherwise come 2016; he and his boss will never go sightseeing in Tel Aviv at taxpayers’ expenses. Never again.

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

In the interest of state unity and national sanity, Vice-President Guy Lindsay Scott should either be fired or severely reprimanded so that he stops making statements that can stoke national panic. There is the sense in which Scott is trying to do anything possible to fortify Wynter Kabimba as the heir apparent to the Patriotic Front (PF) throne. I see nothing wrong with his exercise of democratic liberties: Ici kalilwa pa nsaka musumba wa bwali. However, Scott should exercise restraint and responsibility since he has picked a side in the internal battles of succession. He must desist from icilande lande. We have all been concerned at the sentiments that Scott spews out. But what he said this week as quoted in a Patriotic Front newspaper, is very disturbing. Scott stated that Mulenga Sata, Given Lubinda as well as himself are disqualified to stand as President of Zambia.

To come to this unfortunate conclusion, Scott relied on the 1996 Constitution which, in Article 34 (3) (b), states that a person shall be qualified to be candidate for president of Zambia if “both his parents are citizens of Zambia by birth or descent.” Scott used this article to buttress the position that Mulenga Sata as well as himself and Given Lubinda cannot possibly satisfy this constitutional requirement. It is believed that Mulenga Sata’s mother is of Malawian origin while Given Lubinda is of mixed race. Lubinda famously refers himself as a “zayelo”. Notwithstanding those facts, I find the Vice-President Scott’s application of law to these facts to be legally flawed and politically ridiculous.

Mulenga Sata satisfies Article 34(3)(b)

Zambia’s constitutional law comprises several elements. Two of these are relevant here. First, it comprises the written text itself. The second element comprises the rulings of the Supreme Court, if any, that touch on the meaning of the constitutional text itself. As such, if we are to discern what the text of the constitution actually means, we must look to the text itself, and then to the Supreme Court rulings that have interpreted that text. It is not enough to just read Article 34 (3) (b) and from there extrapolate that Mulenga Sata or Given Lubinda or Guy Scott are unqualified. If that were the case, there would be no need for law schools and consequently there would be no need for courts of law. The text that “both his parents are citizens of Zambia by birth or descent” is quite confusingly ambiguous. To resolve this we must ask ourselves: what does it mean to have “both parents being citizens of Zambia by birth or descent”?

President Sata with son Mulenga

The Supreme Court answered this question. This was in an election petition case in which President Frederick Chiluba was sued by Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika and others after the 1996 elections. Facts of this case are poignant. After losing the 1996 elections, Lewanika and his colleagues petitioned Chiluba’s election by alleging that Chiluba did not meet Article 34 (3) (b) of the constitution since his father was not a “citizen of Zambia by birth or descent”. It is ironic that Chiluba became the first target of the law, which observers believe was originally passed to bar his nemesis Kenneth Kaunda, and his many colleagues of Malawian descent. Nevertheless, the Lewanika v. Chiluba case provided an opportunity for the courts to interpret this provision and help clarify this “parentage clause”. And true to common sense, the Supreme Court was not very pleased with this parentage clause. Had this clause been an ordinary statute, the judges were willing to struck it down. They couldn’t because it was a constitutional provision. The only thing they could do was to provide an interpretation. And until this interpretation is overruled by the Supreme Court itself, what the judges stated in Lewanika v. Chiluba remains law today and should govern how the law should apply to Mulenga Sata, Given Lubinda or even the muzungu Guy Scott himself. To state this simply, the current constitutional law in Zambia with regard to presidential eligibility is contained in Article 43(3)(b) of the constitution as well as in the case of Lewanika and others v. Chiluba.

First, In Lewanika v. Chiluba, the Supreme Court held that a popular insinuation that the presidency is intended for indigenous black Zambians is, for a lack of a better term, “nonsense.” Well that is not what the judges said. They would not use such a language. They put it in more polite terms. As far as the judges are concerned, 34(3)(b) cannot be interpreted as to mean that bazungus and ba zayelo are barred from the presidency. Bizarrely, the Supreme Court even went on to state that a Chinese baby adopted or present in Zambia before independence would perfectly satisfy 34(3)(b).

Second, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that parents must be Zambian citizens applies to those who were present in Zambia, or could have become Zambian at independence in 1964. Essentially, regardless of where Mulenga’s mother hailed from, if she was present in Zambia on 24 October 1964 or could have become Zambian on that date, she satisfies the requirement of being a Zambian by birth or descent. Additionally, if Given Lubinda holds a Green National Registration Card and either his parent is Zambian, he would satisfy 34(3)(b) too.

Third, what is even more critical in the Chiluba case was that the Supreme Court held that even if Chiluba’s father had been the Congolese-born Chabala Kafupi or the Mozambican-born Jim Zahare, it would not matter as long as these gentlemen were ordinarily resident in Zambia in 1964 or had “belonged to Northern Rhodesia”. Belonging to Northern Rhodesia was given a wide and generous interpretation covering indigenous tribes as well as Europeans or Chinese. Here is a quotation from Chief Justice Nglulube:

“…there were no Zambian citizens as such prior to independence and that Zambian citizenship and nationality only commenced on 24th October 1964. This assertion which we accept as technically and legally correct means that the constitutional provision regarding parents or anyone born prior to independence who are or were Zambian by birth or by descent can meaningfully only be construed as a reference to those who became Zambians on 24th October 1964 or who would, but for their prior death, have become Zambians on that day.”

If Guy Scott has surrendered his birthright to Kabimba he should find other reasons for justifying it rather than try to insinuate that Mulenga and Lubinda, bonafide citizens of our country, cannot possibly aspire to be president. If Zambians want Mulenga Sata to be president he should be welcome to aspire to this office. He certainly appears to be more decent than this unloved gentleman Scott is trying to shove under our throats.

Munshya wa Munshya

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

At the age of 50, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Mumba Malila is one of the youngest Zambians to have ascended to the apex of our courts. We should heartily congratulate him for this feat. Called to the Zambian bar in 1989, Malila’s twenty-plus years of experience as a lawyer place him in a very rare class. There could have been no one better qualified to take up this position than this gentleman. We should commend President Sata and all those concerned for having made this selection. With a swift ratification through parliament, there seems to have been consensus that Malila was the right person for the job of Supreme Court judge. I find several things that stand out with the choice of Malila.

Supreme Court of Zambia

Mumba Malila still has about 15 years to contribute to the life of the Supreme Court before he can consider obligatory retirement. In fact, while Zambian judges are constitutionally supposed to retire at 65 (Article 98[2]), the same constitution provides for a presidential retainment of a judge beyond retirement age. Since most Supreme Court judges do stay on after reaching the retirement age, Malila could possibly have more time at the court beyond 2030. This might help provide the stability for a court that sees far too many changes in judicial personnel. There is no doubt that the Zambian Supreme Court needs some stability. And this stability can best be achieved by hiring much younger and more vibrant persons. This relative young age also means that Malila begins his job with some level of the necessary independence and certain security of tenure. Since he will not be a subject of a judicial contract at least until after he reaches 65, he could serve far much more independently than his colleagues most of whom have already reached retirement age. The Zambian legal fraternity should expect no less independence from Malila. He takes on a huge role. He has huge expectations hoisted upon him.

Justice Mumba Malila SC

As a Supreme Court judge, Malila should have the freedom and the necessary independence to promulgate human-rights friendly values in the developing jurisprudence of our nation. His most crucial contribution to our nation was when he served as the second-ever chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Zambia (HRC). President Levy Mwanawasa appointed him to this role in 2004 replacing Justice Lombe Chibesakunda who was the inaugural chairperson (1997 to 2004). Previously, Malila had served mostly in commercial law areas. He also had a stint at the University of Zambia’s prestigious school of law. Malila handled his new 2004 role of defending Zambians’ human rights very well. His stint at HRC saw him get elected to become a vice-chairperson of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (serving from 2006 to 2011). He was, undoubtedly, a great advocate for the poor of Zambia. It is therefore, not surprising that President Mwanawasa later promoted Malila from chairperson of HRC, to becoming Attorney General of Zambia (AG) just a couple of years later. It was somewhat our expectation that Malila was going to take his human rights inspired worldview to his new role as Attorney General. But understandably, we all got disappointed.

It did appear like Malila had abandoned his faithfulness to protection of human rights. He started to defend even the most despicable of violations from the Government of Zambia (GRZ). As Attorney General, his major client had become the Government of Zambia and its executive. In fact, as AG he became an ex-officio member of the Zambian cabinet. The Malila who stood for human rights, had become, in my opinion, a part of successive governments which were oppressive of those rights.

We never hesitated to criticize Malila’s service as Attorney General – Munshya

In our writings, both in the Zambia Daily Nation newspaper and on the www.eliasmunshya.org blog, we did express concern at some positions Malila had taken as Attorney General of Zambia. I felt that he had abandoned ordinary and basic human rights in his desire to defend his client, the GRZ, at all cost. For example, we expressed our concerns over his justification for the Public Order Act under the Michael Sata presidency. We expressed our uneasiness over his arguments in supporting the retention of Acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda, even after the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) had expressed their discontent. We disagreed with the position he took in trivializing the genuine concerns that Dora Siliya and others had when a support staffer of the judiciary, called Terry Musonda, purported to issue a judicial judgment. We sharply criticized Malila’s court submissions on this matter. We differed with Malila on many points related to the above-enumerated items. In one of our articles, we had stated that Malila could easily make one of the worst Attorneys General Zambia has ever had. We offer no apologies for so holding at that time. Our criticism was a product of its time. Now however, we must have a relook at Mumba Malila.

Now that he has been appointed as Supreme Court judge, I believe that he will be able to exercise the necessary judicial and institutional freedom necessary for him to return to a more humane consciousness in our jurisprudence. In this new role, he would now be able to retain the independence previously unknown to him due to the precarious nature of his role as AG. His appointment to the Supreme Court provides for him some form of opportunity for penance. Additionally, as a judge, Malila can now freely practice what he wrote in the African Human Rights Law Journal (AHRLJ, 2012). In that journal, he provided a legal commentary on the case of Stanley Kangaipe and Another v Attorney General (2010). What is particularly interesting is the following quotation from his writing:

“…The judicial officer should not be tied to the strict letter of a legislative provision where matters canvassed before him concern important questions of human rights. This is particularly so where the law is manifestly unjust. The judge is urged to approach the provision purposively to place it in comport with the recognised human rights norms and standards. It is only then that the law can remain relevant to new challenges.”

Malila’s position here is consistent with eminent scholar, Professor Muna Ndulo’s argument that “the literal rule of legal interpretation should accede to the purposive rule where matters of human rights and the constitution are involved.”

As such, the greatest hope I have in Malila’s court appointment does not rest on his performance as Attorney General; rather it rests on what he could potentially bring to a Supreme Court deeply buried in jurisprudence less favorable to human rights. We await the emergence of human rights influenced jurisprudence from Mumba Malila, a new judge for a modern Zambia.

This article also appeared in the print version of the Zambia Daily Nation. It appeared on Friday, 11 July 2014 Munshya wa Munshya column features there every Friday.

By Elias Munshya, M.Div., LLM (Candidate)

Human Rights activist Brebner Changala sought leave of the High Court of Zambia to commence judicial review proceedings into the Zambian cabinet’s failure to enquire into President Sata’s apparent ill-health.

High Court Judge Isaac Chali issued his ruling today, July 11 2014. He has denied Changala leave to proceed. Here is a of the judgment: Changala v. Attorney General 2014

We will provide an analysis of this ruling at a later stage.

Brebner Changala

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

 And then we all saw the pictures. They came 24 days after President Sata’s unannounced departure to Tel Aviv, Israel for a “working visit.” In the pictures taken with a Nikon D90 by Thomas Nsama, on July 14, between 9:02 and 9:34, President Sata could be seen addressing a cabinet meeting. Most ministers were present in those pictures. Conspicuously missing, of course, was Hon. Wynter Kabimba who had travelled to South Africa for a conference on “constitutionalism and the rule of law.” Quite a paradox, we must confess. It was President Sata’s Press Aide George Chellah who released the pictures to the press. There was no story accompanying the pictures. The only thing explained was the fact that President Sata was addressing a Cabinet meeting that day. While it is almost difficult to tell the actual wellbeing of a person by looking at a picture, one can safely infer that President Sata looked very fit on those pictures. He definitely did not appear like one walking out of a coma. As Robert Mugabe would say, he looked as “fit as a fiddle”.

The walk on picture

On his famous Facebook page, President Sata released those same pictures, and then informed the over 100,000 followers that he’s just had a cabinet meeting that morning. President Sata then went on to give a laundry list of more promises that he was going to work on. In the evening main news, ZNBC Television copied that Facebook posting and repeated the same laundry list of projects the President had promised to work on. With that ZNBC news, the announcement of the return of a man who had not been seen for 24 days was now complete. What an absurd way to return.

President Sata did owe some kind of explanation to the nation about his 24-day absence. It was not enough to just address cabinet, take a few photos and then pretend as if everything is alright. A lot had happened in 24-days and it is only fair that he clears up some issues connected with that absence. It is not alright to just dish more promises on Facebook. Zambians do not need more promises than they do need to be assured that their Head of State is not only alive, but is also well. It is not promises Zambians needed during this time. They expected a greeting from President Sata and some explanation on the lines of “bane nalifuminepo nomba nimbwela. Nali endafye bwino uko naile”. But he said no such thing. He just walked into a cabinet meeting, took pictures and left the people of Zambia to dry.

There is a sense in which the speculations around President Sata’s health are not healthy for Zambia. But the actions of the President are also quite questionable. Instead of helping to clarify these difficult issues, the President and his handlers are stoking more gossip. The government cannot just be blaming “small tribes” from the South about these rumours. It has to come to terms with its own actions and take some responsibility. How does sending of photographs of a presidential cabinet meeting ever help to resolve the problems? Couldn’t government and State House have known that the still pictures will just raise more questions than answers?

It has been customary for a sitting president of Zambia to have a ZANIS news crew available to him all the time. It is quite absurd that State House chose to ignore this crew when it came to the brief reappearance of the President. In fact, ZNBC had to depend on the President’s Facebook page for news in connection with the reappearance of Michael Chilufya Sata. This is not only shocking but also questionable. When people question this wisdom, government reacts and tries to push back with brutal threats only fit for Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and not our Zambia. Honestly, the Bemba say: ukuteke mbwa mano. Governing is difficult. But it also takes a people of wisdom to govern well. While it is true that some of our people are determined to misunderstand whatever government is doing, we cannot help but wonder why government action seems to stoke and not halt those misunderstandings.

It is not enough to keep blaming “evil people” about their wishes for President Sata to be sick. Government should act appropriately so that it is clear from the start that they are not hiding anything. This whole episode has been so pathetically managed that no reasonable person can trust government on this issue. This PF government should do something better to help contain these rumours.

President Sata and his cabinet

Does President Sata have “haters”? I bet he does. We all do. For sure after the ruling from Judge Chali in the Changala v. Attorney General case, this newspaper does have “haters” too. Those haters include the ruling of Judge Chali itself. Should we then blame Sata’s haters for wishing him sick and dead, I bet not. Democracy implies a governance structure that includes dealing with opposition, detractors and those who are plainly silly and petty. Ukuteke mbwa mano means that democracy calls for those in power to exercise good judgment and leadership in view of these detractors. As far as Zambia is concerned, we shall always have those who want to use gaps like this one to their own political advantage. But what we should not tolerate is a government that uses this justification to lie to the people of Zambia. It is easier to deal with the truth than it is to deal with lies. If Zambians are told the truth without deceit, our people can be spared the agony of guesswork that keeps nurturing the tree of gossip.

What happened to the use of the good old microphone and a ZNBC video camera? – Munshya asks

While President Sata was gone, there were reports from the Israeli media that in fact he had not travelled to Israel to sprawl on a beach. Israeli media reported that he had gone to seek medical attention. There is no reason why our head of state should be ashamed of this fact, if indeed it were true. He is the President and we have the responsibility to take care of him in the finest of the world’s hospitals. But denying this reality not only annoys our people, it also gives the impression that Zambians are being taken for fools. If indeed the President is sick, why not just say so and move on? And if he is not sick, why not have him directly address our people?

There has been too much speculation for the past 26 days. Can the President please put these speculations to rest? He should do so through the means we all know. What happened to the use of the good old microphone and a ZNBC video camera? Putting pictures on Facebook just won’t do.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘On Facebook: President Sata and the absurdity of his rule through pictures’ Elias Munshya Blog (July 18, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

This article appeared in the print edition of “Munshya wa Munshya” column on Friday, July 18 in Zambia’s leading independent newspaper the Zambia Daily Nation.

Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

The City of Lusaka, as messy as it is, is still very strategic to the economic interests of our country. We must take great care of the hands that feed us. As a nation, we must arrange and repackage this city in ways that would ensure development for its people and generally for Zambia. The government should repackage Lusaka at two levels: first at the political administrative level and secondly, at the municipal level. There is just no other way we could solve the urban problem presented by Lusaka than finding different ways of how to run this capital city of our republic.

There is hope for Lusaka

A number of analysts have pointed out the infrastructure deficit in Lusaka. I will not repeat those concerns here. They are eloquently loud and insolently clear. Lusaka is catering for far too many people than it was originally designed to hold. We have slightly over 2 million inhabitants in Lusaka. With this population increase we must change our approach to the way we govern and lead this city. The Patriotic Front government should begin to prioritize the local government administration of Lusaka. I wish to propose some reforms for the city of Lusaka and with that the province of Lusaka as well.

At political administration level, the Province of Lusaka should be split into two so that the current city of Lusaka boundary becomes a province on its own. The new province must have its own provincial minister and administration. Transforming the current Lusaka city into a province will ensure that the provincial administration takes the time to concentrate on trying to resolve unique issues faced by this huge urban dump. Currently, the Lusaka Province political administration spreads from Chirundu to Lusaka. This is a very huge area incorporating rural areas as well as the metropolitan Lusaka. Under current circumstances, the provincial administration will have to spread resources between the urban and rural areas. From experience, we know that challenges faced by the city dwellers are somewhat different from those in rural Lusaka province. Balancing these disparate needs is a huge challenge. Having the urban Lusaka become a province on its own could mitigate this. Consequently, if rural areas are unglued from the city, it will give time and space for these rural areas to develop and to craft a development agenda suited to rural realities. It would be a win-win situation.

Arguments have been made to divide Northwestern Province into two or three provinces. In fact, the PF government has moved to create a new province splitting the Northern Province into two. Muchinga has become Zambia’s 10^th province. From this we can tell that land mass is the major determinant in President Sata’s local government strategy. I do not fault him for this. However, added to this land mass strategy should be the population density strategy. Using the density strategy it is clear that the City of Lusaka already carters for far more people than the entire Copperbelt Province. Lusaka city has more people than both Muchinga and Northern provinces. Additionally, Lusaka city population is more than Luapula and Northwestern combined. If there is any reason why this city should be made into a province, this should be it.

The two Satas – The President of Zambia and the Mayor of Lusaka – 2014

The changes I am proposing at the political administration level should also be happening at the local municipal level in Lusaka. The current city of Lusaka is unsustainable under one municipal authority. We have to think differently. The PF has been on rampage creating close to 30 new districts from 2011 to date. Most of these new districts are in rural areas with far fewer populations. Again, I think there is good reason to create new districts in Lunga, Nsama, or Chembe. But while doing this for rural areas, the PF should also look at the urban strategy and perhaps create some districts in the current Lusaka city municipality. It is absurd that the City of Lusaka should have one local authority presiding over close to 2 million inhabitants. The residents of Lusaka are the least represented per capita in terms of municipal representation. There is a smaller councilor to citizen ratio in Milenge District than in the Lusaka municipality. This is even though Lusaka city supplies more economic value to Zambia than Milenge. We must provide to Lusaka the local government profile best suited to its needs. The Lusaka Civic Centre just cannot effectively provide services to 2 million people.

Hope for Lusaka, hope for Zambia – Munshya

At municipal level, Lusaka city should be divided into four or five smaller municipal units that are more manageable. These municipal units could be divided along constituency lines. So Matero could be a municipality, Mandevu its own municipality and so on. These new councils could have their-own councilors and mayor. Smaller municipal units will be closer to the people. Smaller municipal units will leverage resources far much better than can a Mayor who presides over 2 million people. In fact, with 2 million people, the current Lusaka City arrangement is so politicized that any resources it has will always go towards the areas where the politicians live. This is no wonder the City of Lusaka fire department has diverted its fire trucks to water President Sata’s “ulunkoto” at State House and surrounding areas. Perhaps time has come to stop this abuse, and let the people of Matero or Mandevu to have a local government closer to them. If Munali, became a municipal unit, it could collect levies and deal with municipal issues better suited to its unique needs.

Smaller municipal units also make sense for Lusaka in terms of spreading the Lusaka wealth. Imagine what Mandevu could do if it begins levying its own market levy and its own business licenses. It could also provide employment for countless young people bringing development to their local areas. Smaller municipal units could also easily leverage donor funding and support. Currently, the city of Lusaka cannot do this in its current form. All resources get diverted to the rich and powerful areas, to the amayadi. In the current arrangement, Woodlands, Kabulonga and State House will always take priority. This must end. And the best way to end it is by giving power to the people and let the locals of Kabwata to control their own local resources.

Further centralization of power is not good for the development of an overgrown city like Lusaka. To help Lusaka flourish, we must change something about it. We must begin to think differently. We must leverage the population that Lusaka currently has. We must take the population as a blessing. We must invent new ways of providing services to this huge population. There is no better way to get started on doing this by truly devolving power to the smaller units. Having started on this new local government agenda, the PF government should expand it to include not only Chembe in Luapula but also Chawama in Lusaka.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘Splitting Lusaka into two: Leadership of hope for Zambia’s capital region’ Elias Munshya Blog (July 22, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

Some Members of Parliament (MPs) are demanding for a pay increase. And our people are quite justified in their outrage. This is even sincerer since there is an assumption among our people that MPs are well compensated already. It is controversial to justify a salary hike for MPs at this time when there is apparently a wage freeze for all public workers. At least, that is the position of the Zambia Congress for Trade Unions (ZCTU). The economic difficulties brought by the no-clue government of Michael Sata affects all Zambians equally. That being the case, it is problematic to insist that MPs salaries should be increased without recourse to all other workers countrywide. There is wisdom in the idea that if MPs want their salaries increased, they should equally fight for all other public workers.

Hon. Catherine Namugala (MMD, Mafinga) believes that the current salary levels for MPs are too inadequate. Zambia’s popular online publication, the Zambian Watchdog, has issued an opinion supporting the salary increase. On the other hand, leader of Zambia’s biggest political party, the MMD, has expressed reservations about this salary increase. While the cost of living has gone up, Dr. Nevers Mumba nevertheless believes that this particular salary demand has come at the wrong time. There are many who agree with him.

There is obviously a legitimate philosophical discussion to be had about salaries, wages and related matters. How much is enough? We could debate for millennia on this. I wish to ague, though, that MPs should be compensated at the same level as cabinet ministers. Harmonising MPs salaries with that of ministers will help remove the incentive that seems to attract MPs towards the carrots dangled from the Executive. In our system of government, it is easy for an executive President to swing candies of ministerial privilege on unsuspecting MPs so as to lure them to her side. If this incentive is removed we would be closer to assuring a truly vibrant parliament. Consequently, harmonisation will create some level of egalitarianism within the august house. It seems, quite unsurprisingly, that some MPs demand for higher salaries because they see that their colleagues in government do seem to have better privileges than they do. As such, viewed from an economic comparative perspective, the floor of the house becomes not just about the political affiliation; it often turns out to be a divided trajectory between the privileged executive members and the ordinary backbenchers that are paid less. There is some sense in addressing this in the interest of democracy.

Hon. Catherine Namugala (MMD) is asking for more money in her pockets

A harmonised salary structure is good for our democracy due to its attractional character as well. The quality of our parliament is dependent upon the quality of the MPs it can attract. If we want to attract more vibrant citizens, we should be able to pay a just wage for those we wish to attract. There is some argument by some of our people that only those financially successful in life should be able to aspire for parliament. This thinking is abhorrent to democratic principles. Parliament should not only be a place for the filthy rich. It should be a place for the ordinary citizen. Restricting leadership only to the rich has the consequence of confiscating governance from the ambits of ordinary citizens into the hands of the privileged few. In order for parliament to be a place for vibrant young professionals, it should be able to compete in the marketplace for that talent. While it is true that there is some level of personal sacrifice that goes into aspiring for parliamentary leadership, we should not make it more difficult for younger women and men to want to aspire for parliament due to an archaic and unworkable salary structure.

Harmonising salaries in parliament means that the current MPs will consequently get slightly higher salaries than they do now. But that will only be a smaller concern in a bigger picture: the picture of raising the profile of an MP to that of cabinet minister, at least in the salary and wages sense. Consequently, instead of thinking of such a salary hike as being a burden, we should look at good pay for MPs as the needed investment in our democracy. We cannot afford to have MPs’ independence sacrificed by sectarian interests falling from the dangled carrots of the executive. Most of the opposition MPs who crossed to the executive branch could not have done so, had they not had the financial incentive to do so. To reform parliament, we must be willing to think outside of the box. Salary harmonisation is such thinking.

Salaries for Zambian MPs need to be harmonized with that of cabinet ministers – Munshya

Harmonising MPs pay with that of ministers is good for its impact on the hospitality expected from MPs. In a nation like ours, MPs are not only political representatives; they are also expected to provide financially for some of their constituents. This is perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the role performed by MPs. And when MPs try to explain this reality, we should listen to them and dialogue instead of dismissing it.

Traditionally, tribal leaders such as chiefs and village heads, provided hospitality from the resources gathered from their subjects. So the quality of hospitality was dependent upon the goodwill and generosity of the public. In our modern society, however, the reverse seems to have happened with regard to political leaders such as MPs. Some members of the public expect the MPs to leave some financial help each time they visit their constituencies. This help can range from basic assistance of the vulnerable to helping out at funerals. And many are the funerals among our people. We are a suffering nation and we must all sympathise with each other. Members of Parliament who are not responsive to these needs are usually labelled as selfish, even if they have no personal resources to help. Most of these MPs do not simply have sufficient resources from which to assist all the needs in their constituencies. Until our society changes the narrative of the roles MPs should play in the constituencies, we have a duty as a people to listen to MPs like Namugala who try to explain how difficult it is for MPs to be able to provide for so many of our people. I believe most MPs want to help from their own personal funds, but can’t afford to do so. While there is no way that our government can make all MPs afford to help as much as they would like to, we should sympathise with those MPs who try to explain their plight. Harmonisation, in my opinion, while not being the magic bullet to resolve this financial problem, would go along way in helping our democracy.

While I am not too sure about how much is really enough for an MP’s pay, I am very sure that harmonising their salaries with that of cabinet ministers will be a good idea for our democracy.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘Should Zambian MPs get a salary increase?’ Elias Munshya Blog (July 28, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

 The Zambian state has a legitimate interest in enforcing the law. The state is well within its powers to try and apply immigration laws. Those who are in our country illegally should be made to account for their abuse of the law. I do support the Zambian state in its desire to bring some sanity to our borders and ensure that those who visit Zambia do so in compliance with our statutes. However, in enforcing the law, it is important that the state acts fairly, proportionally and reasonably. Those who exercise power have a duty, both fiduciary and constitutional, to be sensible. A democratic state, like ours, that chooses to enforce laws must do so within constitutional boundaries. The state has an obligation to pay attention to the rule of law each time it conducts an operation of such magnitude as the one conducted by police and immigration this past weekend. Statutory powers should not be taken as a license for mischievousness on the part of those who wear state uniforms and carry machine guns.

Police and immigration officers went to two churches in Lusaka and conducted what they claimed was an operation aimed at arresting “illegal immigrants”. The two churches raided were having regular worship services on a Sunday. The first church is located in Chibolya and the other one is located in Kabwata. According to the Immigration Department spokesperson, they conducted this operation in churches because “churches are harbouring ‘illegal immigrants’”. Notwithstanding, their official duty as law enforcement agents, I find their action of raiding churches to not only be ridiculous but actually absolute nonsense. There is no justifiable reason why the immigration department should raid worship services in Lusaka on the pretext of arresting illegal immigrants. It does not make any sense. The action by police and immigration was excessive and lacked any constitutional justification.

This action by police is a violation of the freedom of worship. The fact that armed paramilitaries decided to enter sacred spaces of a people worshipping God is a serious assault on the liberties of our people. It is drivel to claim that the state can send soldiers to the churches just because those congregations have some illegal immigrants worshipping. There are other ways through which police and immigration could arrest illegal aliens. They could arrest them on the streets, in the markets and in many other places. Police could just go to Soweto Market and find numerous illegal Chinese aliens selling tomatoes, chickens and “chibwabwa”. However, police breaking into churches in order to commit this sacrilege is morally wrong.

President Michael Sata of Zambia

It is telling that, police raided churches of the poor of Kabwata and Chibolya. From the names of these congregations, it does appear that they are independent churches. They do not belong to the mainline traditions. There have been insinuations by some Zambian government officials threatening to close these churches. The idea that smaller churches mushrooming in our compounds should be banned and closed, is itself a serious violation of the liberties that our people have to worship God in the churches they choose. I find it unacceptable for the state to use its power to order citizens which church they need to attend. We do not need government to tell us which church is better than the other. Government has no role whatsoever in adjudicating competing religious doctrine. It does appear that these armed officers chose these small churches simply because they could get away with it. They targeted the poor. There is no way they were going to enter a Roman Catholic parish and do what they did. I appeal to the PF government to guarantee liberties for our people. If indeed, there is any problem with some doctrines being taught in these new churches, it should not be the government’s role to decide for Zambians which doctrines they should embrace. The pretext that they are going to be closing churches and banning ministries belongs to the old and tired times more barbaric than ours. Kaunda effectuated an embargo on the registration of new churches. We all know the kind of government Kaunda led. It was a dictatorship whose philosophy has no place in our modern democracy. We refuse for the PF government to return this country to the days of “by air” militias.

If some of the members of these churches have committed a crime, please arrest them. You can arrest them in their homes, on the street, or at their work places. Please do not go and disrupt a church services and check NRCs of those in attendance. This is not the Zambia we expect.

Raiding churches is an assault on liberty – Munshya wa Munshya

Immigration action over the weekend will send chilling effects to church leaders. It will also arouse suspicion among church members. Pastors, elders, deacons and ushers in the churches should not be checking for passports before they receive new members. Pastors should not be immigration officers. The accusation that the church is harboring illegal immigrants is equally absurd. How can these two churches that in fact meet in rented community halls “harbor” illegal immigrants? Where do they harbor these immigrants? Is it on Sundays for 3 hours? How does having immigrants in church on Sunday, in a rented community hall, amount to harboring “illegal immigrants”? Police and Immigration should not be accusing the church of this serious crime, especially, not under these circumstances.

Churches in our country should continue to receive people in their services. Grace Ministries Mission International should continue breaking bread with all believers without the fear that soldiers will break-in to intimidate innocent worshippers. The pastors of Pentecostal Assemblies of God (Zambia) assemblies should not be asking members about their nationality or whether members have an NRC or not. The ushers of St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s churches should not have to check someone’s passport before they let them take Holy Communion at the altar. Equally, those churches in our compounds, mushrooming as they are, should have the liberty on Sundays to meet and dance with others without being suspicious of each other’s origins and nationality. There is already enough suspicion between Guy Scott and Mulenga Sata over the nationality of Mulenga’s mother. We refuse that the PF should spread this umulomo to the churches. In the church, we kneel and dance together as one people redeemed by Christ. If immigration officers want to arrest someone, they can do so, somewhere else, and not in the church.

I urge the so-called church mother bodies to stand up for religious liberty. She who assaults liberties of these small churches will one day also assault liberties of the so-called big churches. Injustice to the little among us should be regarded as injustice to all. It is in this respect that we should all condemn the action of the police and immigration officers.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E., ‘Assault on liberty: Why Immigration Zambia was wrong to raid churches’ Elias Munshya Blog (August 1, 2014) (available at http://www.eliasmunshya.org)

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

There is no evidence to suggest that Nevers Mumba had, two weeks ago, approved of the action by MMD party cadres to sing lyrics mocking the disability of Hon. Nickson Chilangwa. In this article, I make no such allegation against Mumba. However, that unfortunate event provides us with an opportunity to address such issues. Chilangwa has lived with a slight physical disability since childhood. He limps in one of his legs. Mumba was addressing a political rally in Luapula Province when this happened. Chilangwa is a Member of Parliament and senior PF party leader in Luapula.

In responding to the cadres’ behaviour, Chilangwa expressed regret that Mumba could allow such terrible scorn at a political meeting. He also mentioned that he has learned to overcome stigma associated with his disability. This week, MMD Secretary Muhabi Lungu exonerated his boss, stating that Mumba is of such good character that he could not possibly have mocked a Zambian based on their disability. I believe him. However, the fact that a few rogue cadres could use Chilangwa’s disability as a mocking point deeply disturbs me. Our nation needs to move beyond stigma of the disabled. Zambia is one nation. In this nation we have people living with different challenges and yet they are all part of the tree that keeps the roots of our nation vibrant.

Academia refers to this kind of stigma as “Ableism”. According to Carmelita and others (2010) ableism is -

“an all-encompassing system of discrimination and exclusion of people who live with developmental, medical, neurological, physical, and psychological disabilities”.

Schwarzbaum & Thomas (2008) defined ableism as a “negative judgment about the characteristics and capabilities of an individual with a disability.” According to J. Mung’omba (2008), Zambia is home to over 256,000 people living with some form of a disability. About 5% of these live with mental disabilities.

Hon. Nickson Chilangwa, MP

Ableism could be attributed to our traditional worldview, which regards suffering in general and disability in particular as bad omens. Such suffering is usually blamed on the spiritual world. It is, therefore, not surprising that a Zambian would seek to “establish communication with the spirit world” to manipulate it in order to “bring security in a dangerous world” (Turaki 2006). Both Gray (1990) and Kunhiyop (2008) acknowledge that Africans’ conception of evil takes it as that which destroyed life, health, strength, fertility and prosperity. Suffering at both personal and community level was believed to be evil, and was mostly attributed to lack of adherence to taboos and rituals. It was believed across tribes that non-adherence to strict religious ritual would naturally invite the wrath of the gods and, therefore, cause untold suffering. The consequence of such a worldview translates into “ableism”. Unfortunately, each time a person living with a disability is mocked; we give credence to such ideas, which belong to a generation more barbaric than ours.

Ableism could also be attributed to scarcity of economic resources. Zambia has a population of 14 million living in an area of approximately 750,000 kms². The gross domestic product of Zambia stands at $20 billion. Following the 3-years of gross economic mismanagement by President Sata and his crew, we could be talking of lower figures by next year. With so many people chasing so few resources it is clear that those living with disabilities become the casualties of this stampede for resources.

Zambians need to address some disturbing beliefs that perpetrate ableism. Some of these beliefs are a combination of tradition and plain nonsense. For example, albinos just on the basis of their skin disability are quite mistakenly considered to have some extra-spiritual powers. In neighbouring Tanzania, ritual killers, believing that albino body parts can be used to make someone rich, have murdered albinos. Even though this situation has not reached this level in Zambia, it is clear that there is a general stigma attached to albinos perpetrated by myths that don’t make sense.

“We will build Zambia together as one people, regardless of our physical abilities or disabilities” – Munshya

Hon. Chilangwa as a person living with a slight physical disability has done well for himself. He is a faithful member of the United Church of Zambia. He also runs successful businesses. He is living his great potential as a member of parliament. Nevertheless, our parliament should continue advocating for legal reform in this area. J. Mung’omba (2008) does cite the Persons with Disabilities Act (1996) as one of the most forward-looking legislation. However, we must not stop there, we should also work towards reforming laws such as Article 65 (1) (b) of the Constitution which disqualifies a candidate who is “under any law in force in Zambia, adjudged or otherwise declared to be of unsound mind”. While the constitution does not define “unsound mind”, this phrase could be used against some people faced with even mild mental illness.

The impact of ableism is obvious. Just like other forms of prejudice, ableism discriminates against citizens. It makes the majority feel that they are superior. It leads to all forms of unfair treatment of the “other”. Zambia is celebrating 50 years of political freedom. But what value is this political freedom if, 50 years after independence, we would still be mocking some among us simply because they do not share the same physical abilities as we do?

Ableism causes the nation to not use the full potential of its citizens. People who live with a disability are as gifted, in so many ways, as anybody else is. The consequence of discrimination is that the society would not benefit from their talents and abilities.

Ableism also leads to discrimination in education sector. In spite of poverty, most children in Zambia do get into grade one. However, many of these grade one spaces are designed for able-bodied students. In addition to the fact that there are no suitable facilities for use by the people living with disabilities, there are not enough spaces in schools that would be more geared towards teaching children living or born with disabilities (Nabuzoka & Rønning 1997). Failure in the special education sector means that young children are left without an education, critical to their service to the country. Once you add stigma to this mix, schoolyard bullying becomes even more lethal. We must end stigma against our people.

Chilangwa is 45 years old now. He is a senior leader of our country. He has overcome the stigma in many ways. Mocking him should not be justified in our society. He is an inspiration to all young people. If we are to build Zambia, we will build it together as one people, regardless of our physical abilities. It is one Zambia, many abilities!

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

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias (2014), “Limps of hope: Hon. Chilangwa, stigma and hope for Zambians living with disabilities”, Elias Munshya blog  (8 August 2014) (www.eliasmunshya.org)

Zambia at 50: Essays in honour of Zambia’s golden jubilee
Between now and October 24 2014, Munshya wa Munshya column will be running special golden jubilee essays. The first one in these series is “’Top Soil’: Chinsali and the making of the Zambian nation”

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

What makes Chinsali great is not necessarily because it is home to the Bemba people and their Bisa relatives. While some say Chinsali is “top soil” because of the Bemba people, I find that what makes Chinsali great goes far beyond that. It is the fact that it became a point of assimilation for many other tribes. With the founding of Lubwa Mission by an African evangelist, Chinsali would epitomize the character necessary for the founding and survival of a future Republic of Zambia. In that respect, it became a paradigm for the rest of the nation. Its story became the story of Zambia. Of all the fifty places, people and events that have shaped Zambia in the past fifty years, Chinsali tops them all. Chinsali is home to several of Zambia’s greatest: David Kaunda, Kenneth Kaunda, Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe, Kapasa Makasa, Paul Mushindo, Mama Kankasa and Nevers Mumba among others.

It was around 1900, when a young black preacher known as David Kaunda, left Livingstonia Mission (In Nyasaland) to evangelize a neighboring tribe in Chinsali (North-Eastern Rhodesia). The distance between Livingstonia and Chinsali is about 500 kilometers. When Rev. Kaunda founded this church at Lubwa, he had no idea how this would set the character of a new nation.

If the Scottish missionaries had settled as strangers in Livingstonia (Nyasaland), David Kaunda’s strategy of evangelizing the Bembas meant that he was going to settle among them as one of them. He got assimilated quickly and became a subject of Chief Nkula. What happened here was by no means strange in colonial Africa. With migrations and cross-migrations, tribal loyalties gave way to assimilation and social sedimentation. As such, what was happening in Chinsali was not unique to it. It was part of the whole story-taking place across colonial Africa.

Kaunda’s work at Chinsali also goes to show just how Christianity spread across Africa by Africans’ own involvement. Obviously, by the time of the Kaundan evangelization, the Bembas had already come into contact with Christianity from Roman Catholic missionaries at Ilondola. But Kaunda’s insistence on starting a mission shows that in spite of Catholic influence, he knew that there was still a place for protestant Christianity in Bemba and Bisa lands. This act gives the religious pluralism character of the future nation of Zambia.

Lubwa Mission

In 1924, David Kaunda and his wife Helen had child number eight, a son they called Buchizya – the unexpected one. By naming this child, Buchizya, David Kaunda displayed a tension between his Bemba identity and that of his original heritage as a Nyasalander. Buchizya would lead a future nation of Zambia to independence as one country. However, Buchizya was only, but one of the several young boys and girls who attended the mission school at Lubwa. His contemporaries Kapwepwe, Lenshina, Mama Kankasa and several others grew up within the worldview of Chinsali as a place bringing different people together: from neighboring tribes, to churches and religions. Buchizya would later be called Kenneth David Kaunda (KK), adopting his father’s first name as his middle name.

KK grew up with some tension as a young boy, the tension of being a stranger, while at the same time trying to negotiate assimilation as a subject of Chief Nkula. Even after tribal assimilation though, rumours and suspicions still haunted the Kaunda family. Even if David and Helen’s many children were born in Bemba land, there was always that suspicion that they were in fact aliens. It is this that makes Chinsali a paradigm for the rest of Zambia, a people having to negotiate identity, citizenship and all the misconceptions that came with it. But this never affected how KK took the value of what it meant to be a Bemba subject and future citizen of the Republic of Zambia. He took Chinsali as a critical place to his own identity.

When in January 1964, Kenneth Kaunda finally makes it to become the first black Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia; the trappings of Chinsali would still draw him. One of his first difficult decisions was to confront what he felt was a danger to national stability: Alice Mulenga Lenshina’s Lumpa church. Lenshina adds to the list of influential religious leaders in the history of Chinsali and the nation. Just like Buchizya, she too was educated at Lubwa Mission. However, she felt that both the Catholics and the Church of Scotland were not chaste enough for the kind of religious purity God desired. The church that Reverend Kaunda founded was no longer responsive to African needs. Lenshina provided what Lubwa Mission did not provide: robust worship, singing and exorcism. Alice also believed that God had appointed her to establish Zion, God’s kingdom on earth, with her as the Lenshina (from “Regina”, “queen”). Some reports suggest that Kaunda’s mother Helen and his brother Robert did become members of the Lumpa. Due to a mix of politics, and perhaps family consideration, Kaunda found the Lumpa church unacceptable. He responded with brutality and the exact sequence of events remains disputable. A descendant of Lenshina, Margaret Mwila Buter (An elected city councilor in England), has written an exciting version of the Kaunda massacre of the Lumpa. It is beyond this article to delve into that substance.

Buchizya

After the October 1964 national independence, Kaunda, aware of the integrative nature of his upbringing in Chinsali, desired to create a tribally diverse cabinet. While his own self-identity was that of being a Bemba from Chief Nkula, Kaunda by-passed his fellow Bemba Chinsalian Kapwepwe when choosing a Vice-President. Kaunda’s logic was flawless. It did not make sense to have two Chinsalians as president and vice-president of a new Zambia. As such, he looked to Reuben Kamanga an Easterner (believed to be originally Nyasalander) to be Vice-president. This is the decision Kaunda would live to regret. In spite of Kaunda’s assimilation into the Bemba commonwealth, there was still some lingering suspicion that he was indeed not Bemba enough. So when he opted for Kamanga as Veep, this confirmed the suspicions of the Chinsali group. However, after some political engineering, Kaunda had to appoint Kapwepwe Vice-President after the UNIP convention of 1967. Two Chinsalians had in fact become president and vice-president of the new nation. In 2003, Zambia’s president Levy Mwanawasa appointed another Chinsalian, Nevers Mumba (b. 1960), to become vice-President of Zambia. No other district in the history of Zambia has had this many leaders among the top-two cabinet members.

The controversies of tribal affiliations, identity, and citizenship continue to dog the new nation long after the arrival of David Kaunda into Chinsali. However, from the example of assimilation of Kaunda and his family, we find the hope of a new united nation. It is that and the many other historical figures in our nation that fortify Chinsali as the most influential districts in the last fifty years of our nation.

Chinsali is the most influential district in the history of Zambia – Munshya