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

 Zambia has seen no court case full of stuff only fit for reality TV than the case of Lewanika & Others v Chiluba (1998). Mention it. And you would most probably find it there. A president who seemed to have had no idea about the identity of his father. A picture that disappeared at night only to reappear days later on the desk of a government director, doctored. The case had allegations of illicit sex, secrets and added mysteries.

It all started in 1996 when President Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba (FJT) and his MMD government bigwigs, Miyanda and Sata, hatched a clever plan to prevent Kenneth Kaunda (KK) from contesting the 1996 elections. I must note here that Miyanda denies such characterization. Nevertheless, their plan involved an amendment to the constitution to restrict the presidency only to those whose father and mother were “Zambian by birth or descent”. KK complained that this constitutional provision was unfair and was aimed at stopping him. Apparently, KK’s star was rising again after the 1991 bruising defeat. “Mu cipyu”, KK boycotted the elections and urged his UNIP party to do the same. The boycott came as Chiluba’s early Christmas present.

In pushing through this constitutional amendment, Chiluba invoked Kaunda’s deep-rooted nightmare: the fact that his parents were Nyasalanders. These are the same hitches that had dogged KK even before the founding of Zambia. It was a notoriously open secret that nearly everyone knew in Chinsali that KK’s father and mother were actually not natives of Chinsali. However, KK became an influential leader of the independence movement leading up to the liberation of Zambia. In spite of this history and suspicion, KK overcame this prejudice to lead Northern Rhodesia into an independent nation of Zambia. This year, Zambia celebrates its 50 years of independence. Before and after 1964, though, friends and enemies would use Kaunda’s Malawian heritage as a weapon of convenience when their positions became threatened. Certainly, even democrat Chiluba succumbed to this temptation to corner a founding figure of our republic.

Kenneth David Kaunda

What is mostly bizarre, however, about the 1996 story is the irony buried in it. Chiluba won the 1996 elections handily, delivering a blistering defeat to Mbikusita-Lewanika, Mung’omba and Chakomboka. And then all hell broke loose. Lewanika decided to challenge the election of Chiluba based on the same law that Chiluba had originally created to bar Kaunda. Lewanika and his colleagues challenged Chiluba on the basis that he could not be president since his father “was not a Zambian by birth or descent”. The bed of thorns Chiluba had weaved for Kaunda was now getting warm for him to sleep on it. Lewanika and his friends were not bluffing – Chiluba’s father was not a Zambian and as such, he could not possibly be president of Zambia.

When Chiluba came up with the 1996 amendment, he should have known that his own parentage was more questionable than Kaunda’s. But in keeping with common human weakness, FJT probably felt that he was safer than KK. Kaunda’s father was a famous evangelist well documented in history, but Chiluba’s father wasn’t. Chiluba wanted to use this as a way to cast suspicions on KK.

During the Lewanika v Chiluba trial it emerged that on his passport applications and affidavits before he became president, FJT swore that his father was a Jacob Titus Chiluba of Chief Lubunda in Mwense. However, when filing in his candidacy for the 1996 elections FJT declared that his father was a Mr. Jacob Titus Chiluba Nkonde of Lengwe Villange in Kawambwa. This was a serious discrepancy. Another colourful figure testified, at trial, to have been Chiluba’s biological father. Chabala Kafupi claimed to have had an illicit sexual relationship with FJT’s mother Mama Kaimba. It was from this affair that Chiluba and his twin brother were born at Chibambo Hospital in what is now called Congo DR. Other witnesses, in the same case, testified that Chiluba’s father was actually a Jim Zahare from Mozambique. In the proverbial dock was a president of Zambia, whose parentage was now under legal microscope. If Kaunda’s undoing was that his father was a Malawian, Chiluba’s own undoing was the fact that there were four possibilities of his father: Chabala Kafupi a Congolese, Jim Zahare a Mozambican, and the two others Chiluba had self-declared.

How would the judges make sense of all this? Well, judges do what judges want to do. They had to come up with a creative way to settle this. In explaining their reasoning, they delved into citizenship; Cecil Rhodes’ settling into Africa; British jurisprudence and then concluded Chiluba was validly elected regardless of whether his father was the Congolese Kafupi or the Mozambican Zahare.

In retrospect, the 1998 ruling absolved Kaunda. It meant that he could have successfully filed in his candidacy in 1996 even if his father were Malawian. The outcome of this case undermined Chiluba’s original motives for barring KK just as it bolstered Chiluba’s own presidency regardless of what Chabala Kafupi had testified. Most importantly, this ruling defined for Zambia, the meaning of citizenship denied to Zambians since 1964. This ruling added the new meaning to what it meant to be a citizen.

Frederick Jacob Titus CHILUBA

1998 was not the last time Zambia was to hear of the Lewanika v Chiluba case, however. Shortly after the Supreme Court had rendered its decision, two controversial gentlemen: Mushota and Katyoka decided to sue Kaunda claiming that he was “stateless” since he had not applied for Zambian citizenship. As if it could not get any bizarre, Ndola High Court Judge Chalendo Sakala agreed with Katyoka and declared Kenneth Kaunda “stateless.” When Kaunda’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, one of the authorities they relied on was Lewanika and others v Chiluba. They claimed that the Supreme Court had already ruled on such matters: Kaunda was a bonafide citizen of Zambia regardless of the purported nationality of his father. Lawyers also relied on the Chiluba case to assert that citizenship was conferred to people like Kaunda who were ordinarily resident in Zambia on the eve of independence. Before the Supreme Court could rule, Katyoka conceded and decided not to go on with the court process delivering a victory to KK.

Akashambatwa Mbikusita-LEWANIKA

Sixteen years after Lewanika v Chiluba, we seem to be facing the same challenges. President Sata doesn’t trust his vice-president Guy Scott due to his Scottish heritage. In turn, Scott does not trust Sata’s son, Mayor Mulenga Sata, due to the Malawian origin of his mother. Scott has also stated that “zayelo” Given Lubinda is probably disqualified from the presidency. But if we are to resolve these problems, we have to look to Lewanika and others v Chiluba, and realize that Scott, Lubinda, Mulenga and others like them are bonafide Zambians who satisfy all the 1996 amendments regardless of the colour of their skins. It is this powerful truth that makes Lewanika v Chiluba the most influential ruling in the 50-year history of our jurisprudence.

Lewanika & Others v. Chiluba is the most significant court ruling in our 50 year jurisprudence in Zambia – Munshya

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

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias. (2014). “Lewanika and Others v Chiluba (1998): The most significant court ruling in the last 50 years” Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) 25 August 2014

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

When Wynter Kabimba got implicated in the oil scandal in 2012, we called upon President Sata to suspend him so that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) could freely investigate the matter. Sata said no! In 2013, when Wynter stated that the PF would rule for over 100 years, we expressed our concerns at the dictatorial and undemocratic tendencies that started to develop in him. Sata looked the other way. When Wynter stated that Zambians wanted to return to a one party state we gave our opinion. We stated that Wynter was getting it wrong on democracy. We again called upon Sata to fire him. But Sata instead, promoted Wynter and left him to act as President. When in June 2014, Wynter claimed that he had smuggled Kenyans through Nakonde to rig the 2011 elections in Sata’s favour, we said his statement was a falsehood and absolute nonsense. By this time, Sata was nowhere to be seen. He had gone AWOL. We said what we said and we still do believe that Wynter Kabimba’s politics were repugnant to democracy. We stand by what we said about Wynter, but there is more that must be added: Wynter was only but a minute symptom of a grander disease. Firing him does not heal the disease; it only postpones it to another day.

Kabimba and Sata – the good days

Kabimba has been fired not as a way to stump out corruption in Sata’s crooked government, but rather to entrench corruption. Ever since President Sata assumed power, he has never acted, not even once, to stump-out corruption. Instead, Sata has both tolerated and exacerbated corruption. Sata has not acted on several allegations of corruption involving his officials. A publication has shown us evidence of questionable deposits into the bank account of one of Sata’s many sons. Sata has not acted to stop the rampant corrupt dealings involving the Road Development Agency (RDA) that operates from State House. Several ruling party stalwarts have illicit RDA contracts. GBM is alleged to have been a principal supplier of goods and services to the Ministry of Defence, the same ministry he served as minister. In 2011, at the onset of the don’t kubeba government, Apollo Enterprises, a company belonging to Finance Minister Alexander Chikwanda was, without tender, given the contract to rehabilitate State House. Chikwanda never declared interest. Chikwanda is also alleged to have shares in a company supplying Zambian mines in 2014. While these allegations have not been proven in court, it is prudent to have police investigate them. Nevertheless, when the allegations were revealed about Chikwanda’s involvement in these illicit contracts, the result was a witch-hunt that led to the dismissal of Kabimba. Sata acted against Kabimba to protect the corruption of one against that of the other corrupt. This makes the sacking of Kabimba to be an activity of the corrupt against the other corrupt. It is not a fight between good and evil but rather a fight between one set of evil against another set of evil.

President Sata must resign for the same reasons that he has fired Wynter Kabimba. The problem with Wynter is not his alone. President Sata himself created them. What is even more painful is that in firing Kabimba the president has not moved to change the corrupt system that breeds the Kabimbas of this world. The president has gone on to unilaterally choose a new Secretary-General in a way that is repugnant to democracy. Wynter has gone the same way that he came. Without changing the system, we have no guarantee that Edgar Lungu will do anything different from what Wynter did. President Sata has changed the personnel, but he has not changed the system that is responsible for breeding the mayhem. I cannot celebrate the dismissal of Wynter simply because, his replacement comes with the same platform and template that gives way for undemocratic tendencies. The firing of Wynter removes a person called Wynter but retains the same corrupt template in its place.

Sata should resign because, in neglecting to give reasons why he fired Wynter, he has created an avenue for gossip and wanton political recklessness. Under the Sata presidency, State House has been reduced to an orgy of gossip, misinformation and “chilande lande” with no one seeming to be in control. I am surprised that the President chose to fire Wynter through a press statement without caring to let the nation know reasons why he was fired in the first place. Wynter was the Chief Executive of the ruling party. He was a senior cabinet member. He has acted as President of our republic. Surely, for a person of such stature, the president owes a duty to explain to the nation why he decided to drop him. President Sata should not be running our country as if it is his own village or household. He needs to know that Zambians want to get answers from him. He needs to talk to us. He needs to answer questions from the press. He cannot just wake up one day, fire Wynter through a press statement and hibernate back into oblivion.

After the fall of Wynter several ruling party cadres are now claiming that life will be better for them. Some in Kaoma are even saying that it was Wynter that led to their poverty. GBM led a march in Kasama to celebrate the dismissal of Wynter and pledged unwavering support to President Michael Sata. What a reversal! Isn’t this the same gentleman who in 2013 claimed to have fallen out with Sata based not on Wynter but on Chitimukulu Kanyanta-Manga?

By the actions of the Patriotic Front cadres, it does seem as if Wynter was the President who made all the decisions. If indeed, even a portion of all these power-allegations against Wynter were true, then they are a damaging indictment against the judgment and leadership of President Sata. How is it that President Sata allowed an unelected Kabimba to have so much sway over what is constitutionally supposed to be done by a president? Surely, it cannot be Wynter’s problem alone. Could it be that the president is unfit to rule? From the Post editorials, it appears like they are willing to unleash the truth about the state of President Sata’s perceived “weaknesses and failings”. But Zambians of course know that there is something fundamentally problematic with the health and wellbeing of the President. Firing Wynter does not solve the problem of President Sata’s own inefficiency and unsuitability to hold office. Firing Wynter has not resolved any problem. That which is a problem with Sata cannot be resolved by firing a person other than Sata. Sata has failed Zambia, and Wynter was only a symptom of the wider failing of the leadership of Zambia’s fifth president.

President Sata should resign – Munshya

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

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias (2014). “Sacking Wynter Kabimba: Implications for Sata’s presidency”. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (1 September 2014)

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

In the 50 years of our independence, what really sets us apart as a people is the ability to reflect on issues after we have done our celebrations. Perhaps, after we have downed bottles of Kachasu and emptied tins of champagne, we really do come round to look at issues more critically. After we recover from Katubi and Katata, we always ask ourselves the critical question: “why were we celebrating in the first place”? Had it not been for this analytical character of our people, Zambia would have long disappeared from the face of the earth. No politician can hold Zambians hostage. In fact, no amount of the celebrations of even the most popular among our politicians can bewitch the democratic character of our people. We always come around.

Wynter is gone. Let’s celebrate over Katubi & Katata.

A few days ago, if not a week ago, Zambians from all around the country, at least from the towns and villages we received reports from, had taken to potholed streets to celebrate the fall of Wynter Kabimba. There was a festive atmosphere among many that, somehow, the fall of Kabimba had given the nation a new break, a new dawn. Some Patriotic Front (PF) cadres in Kaoma under the influence of Shake Shake stated that they were happy with the fall of Kabimba because “he was the main hindrance to their development.” They mused that, Kabimba had brought them a lot of poverty, and as such, his firing will now truly bring “more money in their pockets”. In Kasama, GBM also led a march of PF cadres thanking President Sata for firing Wynter. Again, PF cadres danced and drank. A week could be a long time in Zambian politics. The same GBM who had been disowned by the PF structures in Kasama was now leading the same structures in disowning Kabimba. Some reports claim that the fall of Kabimba was celebrated in the same way, the PF electoral win in 2011 was celebrated: people spontaneously taking to the streets to drink, dance and cause mayhem in the hope that finally an answer had come. But did an answer really come? Or it is still the old story of people taking to the streets to celebrate a political milestone that eventually leaves them hungrier than before.

Days after celebrations of the fall of Wynter, several Zambians are asking themselves: “why were we celebrating in the first place?” In any case, how did the firing of Wynter come about? It is these questions that perhaps could bring some sobriety to a nation drunk on the good news of Kabimba’s firing. To me the dismissal of Wynter has not really resolved the main issues facing our country. In fact, contrary to the Kaoma cadres, the canning of Wynter will not lead to more money in their pockets. They are likely to continue suffering just like they were suffering under Wynter as Secretary General of the Patriotic Front. The reason is simple: the fall of Wynter has not fundamentally altered the character or the nature of the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) as a party that has no plan for the development of Zambia. It is ridiculous to expect anymore from the PF. It has no program to fight corruption. The PF has borrowed more money than any government in the history of Zambia. Rupiah Banda left reserves in the coffers that Sata and his PF have squandered on activities that do very little to help the nation develop. Having inherited Rupiah Banda’s Formula One road development plans, the PF have gone overboard to grant themselves contracts through the Road Development Agency (RDA), which unfortunately operates from President Sata’s office at State House.

With the firing of Wynter, President Sata has undoubtedly gotten rid of a very contentious and divisive figure in Zambian politics. But without a clear departure from the politics that made Wynter in the first place, I doubt if there will be real change in the way Sata and the PF handle issues of governance. As a demonstration of the fact that it will be business as usual, President Sata went on to personally appoint a new Secretary General of PF in the same way he appointed the guy he had just fired. Such actions are repugnant to democracy. Unless we change templates in Zambia, we are likely to be facing the same issues over and over again. That which is a problem with a template can only be changed if we reformed not only the persons, but also the templates themselves. We cannot resolve systemic deficiencies simply by changing people around. This is why, no amount of firings or sackings can bring about the change we need if the structures, templates and systems remain the same.

Going beyond Wynter has several implications. Zambians need answers as to how they are being governed. It does seems like a private newspaper that is an ally to both President Sata and Wynter Kabimba appears to be confirming Zambians’ suspicion. For its part the newspaper has gone to state that the firing of Wynter might have to do with President Sata’s “challenges, weaknesses, lapses”. The newspaper has not elaborated on this, but has further warned that if anything happened to President Sata, it will be the fault of they who engineered Wynter’s sacking. In the midst of this confusion and uncertainly, it is incumbent upon Zambians to demand answers from State House as to what these challenges, weaknesses and lapses are considering that they have led to the dismissal of a guy we all thought was the emissary of the president.

Munshya wa Munshya

Zambians, as stated above, need to take seriously efforts at reforming not just the people, but also the structures and the templates of our government. This is more reason why we need to pay attention to the constitution making process. I believe that the constitution making process is an integral activity to the good governance of Zambia. While I do not believe that a good constitution by itself will guarantee good governance, I believe that a good constitution could help us a great deal in putting structures in place for good governance. What is really shocking out of the Kabimba saga is just how an unelected person managed to climb up to the highest echelons of power. Indeed, as mentioned above, without a clear reform to our systems, another person after the image and likeness of Kabimba could easily do the same thing.

Today Wynter Kabimba is gone. However, in our celebrations of his fall, we must be mindful of the fact that the struggle for a better Zambia continues. Problems in our country are bigger than Kabimba. As such, we need to go beyond him and capture the real issues stealing the prosperity of our people. This we must do even if we are faced with “challenges, weaknesses and lapses”.

>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation:

Munshya, Elias. (2014). “Challenges, weaknesses, lapses: Beyond the sacking of Wynter Kabimba”. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (12 September 2014)

E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

Many have eloquently told the powerful story of the founding of the United National Independence Party (UNIP). I should not retell that story here. My concern now is to acknowledge that UNIP remains the most significant political movement in the history of Zambia. If we are to be faithful to the Zambian golden jubilee story, we must be faithful to the story of our country that considers the role-played by UNIP. Nevertheless, with this in mind, it is prudent to discuss how this great movement got reduced to a level where it is basically extinct in 2014. What happened to UNIP?

Some analysts point to the 1991 election loss as the primary reason why UNIP is dead today. With due respect, I find this reason not to be compelling. In as much it was a very desolate loss, UNIP could have survived and, in fact, it did survive for several years after 1991.

United National Independence Party (UNIP)

Some have suggested that UNIP has died due to poor leadership from its president Tilyenji Kaunda. If parties died just because of bad leadership, almost all parties in Zambia would be extinct by now. Most parties in Zambia do actually have bad leadership. I know of a political party currently run by a president who has not been seen in public for over 90 days. That party is still winning elections in spite of its president being AWOL. That being the case, Tilyenji’s no-show in UNIP cannot be reason why his party has become extinct.

The other reason proposed is equally deficient: that of internal squabbles. All parties in Zambia do face internal squabbles. But these squabbles do not lead to the demise of these parties. The Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) has had its own squabbles. The Patriotic Front (PF) has squabbles every day. There is always a fight between the A-Team and B-Team. The United Party for National Development (UPND) was itself embroiled in serious squabbles after the death of its founder Anderson Mazoka. Internal squabbles are insufficient to explain the fall of UNIP.

When UNIP lost power in 1991, it had a series of seats in parliament. In fact, all of the parliamentary seats in Eastern Province were held by UNIP. It had 25 out of the 150 seats in the 1991 parliament. Relatively speaking then, with 25 seats UNIP was still a significant political force. Having sunk so low, the only way for UNIP was for it to rise from the ashes of the 1991 defeat. And rising it did rise.

President Kenneth Kaunda

What is telling about the 25 seats was the fact that they were regional seats. This is perhaps one of the most important trends in strong parties in Zambia; they must first and foremost have a strong regional base. If UNIP was going to rise out of the ashes of 1991, it needed to preserve this regional base and then build from there to grow back its share countrywide. Any political party that does not have a regional powerhouse cannot survive in the Zambian political landscape. Post-1991 UNIP was going to become a nationally significant party again only by building from its regional base of Eastern Province. What was true for UNIP in the 1990s remains true for all other parties today. Let me take the UPND for example. The power of the UPND lies primarily in its regional base of Southern Province. If it loses that support, it would become extinct as well. As such, there is some hope for UPND as long as it can build upon its regional base and then expand into other areas as well. Expanding it must do, but it cannot go for the false security of expansion at the expense of losing its base. The same applies to the ruling PF. At the time it was founded in 2001, the PF became a party for the discontented urban areas as well as a non-compromising regional base of Luapula-North corridor. If the PF loses this base in the North, it could potentially be extinct too. In fact, the PF can spread into other areas, to become a resemblance of a national party, by first recognizing its strength as a regional party. In Zambian politics, any political party of consequence must have the backing of a region. You lose a region you are gone.

This is the greatest challenge faced by Nevers Mumba’s MMD today. If MMD does not commandeer a loyal region in Zambia, it would be extinct. Its resurgence depends upon its ability to hold a region, and then from there rebuild its national character. Those in MMD that are thinking that it will remain a balanced national party do so at their own peril. Most indications are showing that the stronghold for MMD is ironically going to be the Eastern Province. If they lose the East, MMD will be toast for they will not have any regional stronghold from which they can plot a political revival.

Having looked at present realities, we must now return to how UNIP handled its regional power after the 1991 elections. By 1993, it had become apparent and clear that the resurgence of UNIP had commenced. After the jostling of internal power politics, Kenneth Kaunda returned as party president. By 1995 Kaunda and his UNIP were again causing headaches for President Chiluba’s MMD. Some Zambians were indeed seriously considering voting UNIP back into power. The founding political movement of the Zambian nation was winning back its support.

Kenneth Kaunda

President Chiluba knew the political threat posed by Kaunda’s UNIP in 1995. With Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta as party vice-president, it had become apparent that UNIP was looking to expand beyond the East. To forestall this growth of UNIP, Chiluba came up with the 1996 constitutional amendments, which purported to stop both Kaunda and Inyambo Yeta. The parentage clause was inserted to bar Kaunda whose father and mother apparently came from Nyasaland. Yeta was also barred by the constitutional provision that prohibited traditional chiefs from participating in active politics. However, the way UNIP decided to react to these provisions is what killed it. Had UNIP decided differently, it would still be present today!

Kaunda and his party vice-President decided to lead UNIP into a boycott of the 1996 elections, “mu cipyu”. National politics should never be decided “mu cipyu.” This was a bad call on Kaunda’s part. It is a no brainer that he was victimized and was indeed unfairly treated, but Kaunda’s decision to boycott the 1996 elections meant that UNIP would cease to represent its regional Eastern block. With the loss of that Eastern region came the rapid fall of a party that once led Zambia into independence. Ironically, the same man who built UNIP to its climax in the 1960s also presided over its downfall in the 1990s. With that 1996 boycott, Kenneth Kaunda hammered the last nail in UNIP’s coffin. As we reflect on the past 50 years of our independence, I just hope MMD, UPND and PF will learn important lessons from the rise, and fall of UNIP. But are they?

UNIP is one of the most significant political movements in Zambia’s 50 years of nationhood – Munshya wa Munshya

>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation:

Munshya, E. (2014). “Fall of Kaunda’s UNIP: Zambia’s 50-year lesson in power and politics”. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (12 September 2014)

Chikwanda and Lungu

You’ve all read the wiretap story from The Post about Chikwanda having a conversation with The Post’s employee. I also wiretapped Chikwanda. This time he was talking to Acting President Edgar Lungu. The issue with my wiretap though is that it is true and I have the tape to prove it. Anyway this is how it went.

Edgar Lungu: Ba mudala mwa lenjamba. Ninshi ulwambo so?

Chikwanda: Mwaice wandi tu be practical. Before nshila asuka, teti unweko ka good, red French wine?

Edgar Lungu: Ehe ba mudala kuti nanwa, as long as na mukwata ko ka crate ka Mosi.

Chikwanda: Efyo na kutemenwa mwaice. Waliba close na bantu elo walikwata na humility. Ani crate iyi.

Edgar Lungu: No problem ba mudala. Ni pali cimbuya kaili. Mwe ba Bemba, katwishi nga muli ba Bisa, mutila “ici kalilwa pa nsaka musumba wa bwali.” Nga katubi, katata na lutuku ili kuti?

Chikwanda: Iyo ifyo nshinwa. Nwafye ama “wines” abalumendo bandi bantumina from London. Any way uyu ceremonial umusungu, tatu mfwana iyo. Alintumina utusungu tubili. Nakene fye njebele naliba moral ine. Twali leniko Fraud Mmembe.

Edgar Lungu: Naumfwa mudala, aleni natu bombeshe apo absent landlord tala bwela. Teti cimoneke bwino ukumusha eka ne cilafi.

Chikwanda: Nifyo fine mwaice. Here, more red wine from France. At least we are not owing ZRA K24 Billion, yet. Natu kolwe apo Disaster Msiska talaisa tupinda VAT. Ine nalikwata sana ama company ayengi. Pressure nai fula sana nomba.

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

There is a little problem, however with this conversation. It seems it is real only in my mind. – Munshya wa Munshya (Additional edits to the original post).

There is a little problem, however with this conversation. It seems it is real only in my mind. – Munshya wa Munshya

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

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

King Mwanawina III

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

President Kenneth Kaunda and King Mwanawina III

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

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

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

The story of Zambia is incomplete without Mwanawina III – Munshya

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

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

Suggested citation:

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

E. Munshya, LLB, M.Div.

Dr. Rupiah Banda has all the reasons in the whole world to be angry and to be outraged at the way the party that defeated him in the 2011 polls is handling national affairs. The economy is in crisis. National security is now just a wiretap away. Our country has lost its international profile. Banda’s successor “niba katekela mubwendo.” Even our own parliament now does not want private media to cover President Sata due to “security concerns”. Rupiah Banda planned all the little infrastructure development we are seeing today, but the PF is behaving as if it was their genius that made it. In many ways, the PF government has failed miserably and any leader such as Rupiah Banda should be furious! I support him on this.

To be outraged is one thing, however. What really matters is what Banda can do about this outrage. Interestingly, there is a growing chorus of some “concerned Zambians”, who are calling for him to make a political comeback. For his part, President Rupiah Banda has not curtailed that debate. He has instead castigated those opposed to Zambians calling for his return. Being a democrat that he is, President Banda is asking for a robust debate to continue about whether the Zambian people want him to return or not. Indeed, no one in Zambia should be stopped from expressing their opinion to call back Banda to deliver us from this clueless don’t kubeba. But since Banda wants to hear from Zambians, I must add my voice. It would be a bad move for himself, for the MMD and for Zambia to have Rupiah Banda return back to the political fray.

Rupiah Banda’s 2011-concession speech is perhaps one of Zambia’s greatest political speeches. I would put it on the same level as President Kaunda’s Independence speech and Chiluba’ inaugural address. In that conceding speech, Rupiah Banda asked for peace to prevail in the nation. He counseled the winners to treat the defeated with dignity. He then encouraged the young people to take over the leadership of the country. He also availed himself to provide guidance and counsel to the nation. A few months after that loss, Banda relinquished his MMD presidency and the party found a new leader. In confirming, Banda’s foresight, the MMD found a younger leader: Nevers Mumba.

Dr. Rupiah Bwezani Banda

But as expected, Nevers’ leadership was not going to be the magic wand for the MMD. It is ridiculous to suggest that a new MMD president would restore the popularity and clout of the MMD overnight. This is where the anti-Nevers cartel in the MMD got it wrong. Mumba or any other person could not have possibly redeemed MMD that easily. The MMD had lost an important election. It now is in opposition. Its stature as a ruling party had been diminished. To rebuild it needed patience, unity and support from all the concerned. The problem with rumours of President Banda’s return is the destabilizing effect it has on the MMD and on the leadership of Nevers Mumba. It does not matter that Rupiah Banda could be adopted by a different party. Just the idea of his return is enough to destabilize the MMD and Zambian democracy.

Rupiah Banda still has huge clout in the MMD. This should be expected. To date, MMD campaign materials being used in by-elections still bear his portrait. In the East, where MMD is the strongest, it is clear that the party remains strong there due to RB’s influence. It is for this reason that Banda should exercise wisdom and leadership by stopping those calling for his return, as it would subvert the party.

If Banda wants to remain true to what he said in 2011, he should support the younger people instead of allowing himself to get into the political ring again. Not that I have anything against age, no one is born old, but we should clearly remind ourselves that if RB stood in 2016 he would be around 80-years old. Nevertheless, the MMD under younger leaders now looks like it can rebuild. After the election of Muhabi Lungu as national secretary, it now seems like the MMD can get reorganized.

Eastern province is in many ways a democratic hub of Zambia. The East does some amazing things to our democracy. The converse could also be true that democracy can be killed much more easily in the East. Just when we had the East as a great UNIP stronghold after the 1991 elections, it was Kenneth Kaunda’s continued interference in the affairs of UNIP that led to its great instability in the East. Had UNIP continued with its strong showing in the East, Chiluba could not have had the majority he had in 1996 to reverse much of our democratic gains. But Kaunda insisted on a comeback that hurt UNIP and hurt Zambia in the long run. I am afraid that, just was the case with Kaunda, Banda’s desire to return does have the potential to destabilize the MMD in the East and in essence kill the MMD.

If Banda were to decide to return, I have no doubt that the East would support him. Nevertheless, even if the East supported him, he is likely to lose an internal MMD poll if he were to challenge incumbent Mumba. The reason is simple: the internal party polls in Zambia never support challengers of the incumbents. Party polls in Zambia are never free and fair. Mumba is likely to beat Banda if the MMD went to polls. But the political fallout is likely to damage the MMD brand further.

For the MMD to survive, it needs the Eastern Province. Without the East, the MMD will crash. Every political party in Zambia must be a regional party first before it becomes a countrywide party. It is from regions that any party in Zambia can then plot its national growth and appeal. The PF’s region is clear for all to see, Luapula and other Bemba speaking regions. Sata does not need to campaign in Luapula. For the UPND it is the South. Hakainde gets huge votes there. For the MMD it has happened ironically, that it is the East. It is this East support that Rupiah Banda must direct towards the current MMD president.

The accusations against Nevers are quite unfounded. No one in MMD was going to redeem this party. This party must start afresh. It needs support. It needs sympathy. It now looks like it has a brilliant duo heading it: Nevers and Muhabi. They need to be given a chance. If Rupiah wants admiration, he must channel his political clout properly for the good of the party and the nation.

Rupiah Banda’s return will hurt and divide the MMD – Munshya wa Munshya

Muhabi Lungu was a UNIP firebrand when Kenneth Kaunda led to its downfall in 1995. It would be terrible to see Muhabi Lungu preside over the death of another party, the MMD, with the infighting that could rock the nation, if Rupiah Banda were to challenge Nevers. The young Muhabi should not become an undertaker in the death of political parties in Zambia. He must be given the chance to serve the MMD and work with Nevers to help the MMD rise from its ashes. For the sake of the MMD and Zambia, it would be a bad idea for Dr. Rupiah Banda to tolerate the idea that he could be President of Zambia again.

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

Suggested Citation: Munshya, Elias. (2014). “Bwezani Nafuti: should Dr. Rupiah Banda return to active politics?” Elias Munshya blog. (www.eliasmunshya.org)

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

President Kenneth Kaunda and King Mwanawina III

After 50 years of independence there is need for Zambians to begin reimagining the myth of their nation. The story of our nation needs to be told in a fresh and new light. Each time a nation or indeed an individual celebrates an anniversary; there is a great temptation and pressure to focus only on the past rather than on the future. This is the temptation we risk falling for, this 24^th October 2014. From 1964, there is a possibility that we will begin looking back over the years and let nostalgia pervert our ability to imagine a future ahead of us. We could spend all of the time and effort at seeking to recover the fossils hoping to get inspiration from our past. Regardless of how glorious the past has been the people of Zambia should use the past as a springboard to a new imagination of a future. This is not to mean that we should dishonor the past, but rather that we must use the past only as a backdrop of inspiration for tomorrow. The nation that was not has now been, for 50 years. It cannot return to the past, but it can only spring to its future. To do so, we will need courageous imagination to foster a unity needed to face the challenges of tomorrow rather than the ambiance of yesterday.

We need to reimagine our education system. For any nation to prosper, it needs an educated citizenry. This education must be in areas that our economy needs most: science and technology. The government and the business sectors should begin investing in those educational programs that offer a promise for the future. No doubt, we have had a proliferation of universities in the past ten years. This is only but a beginning. Government now needs to put in place a qualifications framework of some sort so that quality is assured. Zambia right now is not facing a university problem more than it is facing a university “quality” problem. Regardless of how many new universities we build in Chinsali, without quality we would only be digressing and not progressing. Fifty years after independence, it becomes necessary to establish a national qualifications framework that could both accredit and regulate the universities around the country. Additionally, it is no secret that most of the universities have gone into the humanities. I have no problems with humanities. I have read humanities at both universities and seminaries. I love humanities. But Zambia also needs sciences and technology. Government and the private sector can invest in higher education that produces suitable graduates in the sciences and technology. It is unacceptable that fifty years after independence we still cannot design a single “fosholo” to help mine copper in Kansanshi. With a new imagination and new incentives, I have no doubt that a future Zambia can create the higher educational framework for the good of our common tomorrow.

We also need to reimagine and reevaluate our dependence on copper. It is rather shocking that fifty years after our so called independence our country still depends upon copper for its economic survival. Now copper is a finite resource, it is a diminishing resource. The problem with such dependence is that our economy oscillates according to the performance of copper in Beijing and London. We must face the honest assessment that, Zambia has no economic future without economic diversification. Regardless of how glorious the past of copper has been, we have to reimagine a future of Zambia that is less dependent upon copper. With fertile land that is the envy of millions and water so abundant as to quench the thirst of billions, we have no justifiable excuse to fail in agriculture. We need a fresh imagination that takes our minds off copper to other things such as agriculture to develop our country.

In terms of politics, we have made giant steps since 1964. We have had five presidents. We have done mature transitions from one leader to another. We have a judiciary that is relatively independent. We have a somewhat workable constitution. And in the little areas it is not working, we are making effort at changing that which needs to change in this 1991 constitution. We are a talking people, and we do not take kindly to governments that want to desecrate our liberty to speak and to assemble. That being the case, we must continue in the same spirit to safeguard our democracy. The greatest defenders of any democracy are the ordinary men and women around the country. Democracy belongs to the people. As such, the people of Milenge as well as Mwinilunga should continue participating in the democratic process. We should continue to vote and make our voices heard. It is our democracy. It is our country and we have a duty to hold leaders accountable. We must build on our democratic success over the last fifty years to build a more robust democracy for the next fifty years and beyond.

On the eve of Zambia’s Independence – 23 October 1964

Zambia is not necessarily our heritage more than it is our destiny. Heritage connects you to the past, but destiny connects you to the future. Our republic should connect us not only to our past, but also to our future. Zambia should be a collection of people united in their imagination of the future rather than a morgue of people united only by a common past. A past is limited, while a future has unlimited. Together, we are creating a destiny called Zambia. Each day is an opportunity to build a nation and to help imagine that place we desire for ourselves and for our children. Destiny looks at other Zambians and collaborates with them in building a future for the people of Nakonde as well as Chirundu. It is not enough to share a common past, what we need now is a commitment to share a common future. This has implications. Tribalism can easily be defeated if we all decided to focus more on the destiny we are trying to create rather than on the heritage whose past we may not all share. To create a future for Zambia means we have to go beyond the limits of our own tribes to capture out of other tribes a common dream for Zambia. Destiny means we should find it repugnant for a cabinet to feature only one tribe or region. Destiny is welcome of others and this is the welcome we need for Zambia and her future. A Zambia at fifty should be accepting of a Vice-President Guy Scott not just by the colour of his skin, but rather by the content of his passion for our nation. When we condemn tribalism, we should also condemn racism and the evil that comes with it. Zambia belongs to all. It belongs to the Bantu, the Ng’uni, the Luba-Lunda migrants, the Mfecane raiders, the Bantu Botatwe, the Makololo invaders as well as the descendants of the Europeans. It belongs to all.

To a nation committed to a bright future, we should all say happy 50^th Anniversary, Zambia.

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

President Sata in Church

As Zambia celebrates her fifty years as an independent nation, there is a great temptation to only look at the good events that have shaped the nation and completely ignore the sad stories. Indeed, there is a lot we can talk about the good stuff that have evolved over our times in the young nation. Independence Day was certainly a great time of celebration. October 24, 1964 set off huge festivities in the land. Beyond 1964, many more outstanding moments have shone through the dimmed clouds of a youthful country. Great leaders have arisen and throughout the fifty years, they have inspired the confidence of the young and old alike. However, regardless of how gallant the story of Zambia has been, it would be unfair to history if we do not take the time to remember and observe those moments of adversity that our nation faced. The character of a nation is demonstrated by how it handles moments of great temptation and trial. We need to pay a tribute to a resilient nation that in spite of adversity has managed to rebuild and redefine itself for the good of posterity. Disasters have come and gone, but a resilient nation has stood “strong and free”.

Zambia

Copper is the economic lifeblood of our nation. Mines are, therefore, strategic to our development. Each day, thousands of miners stroll into the belly of the Zambian earth to extract copper, cobalt and other minerals. Their safety is a priority. However, in 50 years of our independence one mining disaster shook the foundations of the new nation. On 25 September 1970, barely six years after independence, hundreds of miners reported for work at a shaft below No. 3 Tailings Dam in Mufulira. They went into the shaft to operate the mine as they had been doing for years. Eighty-nine of them never returned from that night shift. An underground breach of a tailings dam led to its collapse resulting in the deaths of hardworking miners. The sweet smell of political independence had now given into a bitter pill of disaster. A new nation was facing an accident that would shape it for decades to come.

In this article, I am not trying to apportion blame, but to celebrate the resolve of a nation in the face of adversity and danger. Following a commission of inquiry conducted to study the cause of the Mufulira mine accident; it was found that there had been some missteps in the management of sinkholes. The accident was indeed preventable. From the recommendations of the commission, several steps were taken to make mining safer for the future of Zambia. It was due to some changes made after 1970 that mining in Zambia experienced some relative safety afterwards. As we celebrate fifty years of independence, we should have, in our memory, the men who perished in that accident.

Decades after the Mufulira Mine disaster, another industrial accident shook the nation. Around April 2005, 51 workers were killed in an explosion at Bgrimm Explosives Zambia Limited. The most painful aspect with this accident is that it was completely avoidable. At 50 years, Zambia should remember her citizens who died through this avoidable chaos. The challenge remains for government and citizens to work together to make workplaces safer. We do not need another Bgrimm disaster.

The greatest disaster to strike our nation happened on 27 April 1993. The nation had just voted in a new government two-years prior. There was a lot of promise for the rebuilding of our democracy. With regard to sport, our national football team was doing very well. It was the year we all hoped Zambia would win the Africa Cup of Nations and perhaps qualify to the World Cup. That team had great players whose discipline and dedication were admired by many: Mankinka, Mulenga, Mutale, Numba, just to mention a few. But on 27 April 1993, disaster struck. An airforce Buffalo plane carrying the national team had crashed into the sea off the coast of Gabon. All the members of the football team and the crew perished in that tragedy. The nation was in shock. We could not just believe what had happened. We all wondered the turpitude we ever committed, as a nation that could have resulted in that terrible retribution. Rumours swirled about what could have caused that disaster. That accident became the worst we have ever seen. Oceans of tears flowed freely from the eyelids of exhausted citizens. Zambia was in mourning and it was terrible.

President Kenneth Kaunda, a weeping prophet

But like all great nations, Zambia persevered through its mourning period. Led by President Frederick Chiluba, the nation found solace in God. We mourned. We cried. We prayed. We wept. We then came together and out of that tragedy came the resolve to rebuild and push on as one nation. Undeniably, after that tragedy, Zambia arose afresh as a nation just recovering from disbelief. The new football team inspired by that loss did so well and emerged second at the 1994 Africa Cup of Nations. However, the most potent tribute to the heroes of the 1993 crash took place in Gabon in 2012 when just as few kilometers from the coast of Gabon, the Zambia National Team beat Cote D’Ivoire to scoop the Africa Cup of Nations. As a further testimony to the character of our country, most of the players in Gabon in 2012 were barely toddlers when the 1993 team crashed in Gabon. Indeed, “pafwa abantu pashala bantu”. On the ashes of disaster, was born a new resolve to show the true character of a nation – “proud and free”.

There would be no space in this article to mention all the tragedies from which our nation has recovered and continues to recover. In 2005, 45 pupils died in a road accident in Kawambwa. We should remember them. In 2013, over 50 people died in the Chibombo accident. We should remember them. In early 1990s, a cholera outbreak in Kitwe left hundreds dead. We remember them. During the Mushala rebellion, hundreds died. We should remember them.

When Sports Minister Chishimba Kambwili named the new Lusaka stadium – Gabon Heroes Disaster Stadium – like one man, the nation petitioned the Patriotic Front government to drop the “disaster” term. In honour to the 1993 team, the name of the new stadium was shortened to “Heroes Stadium”, the term that shows the attitude Zambians take to disasters and tragic circumstances. Beyond these disasters and tragedies, the nation stands and sings a song of Zambia, the land of work and joy.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2014). Zambia at 50: A tribute to a resilient nation. Elias Munshya blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (24 October 2014)

 E. Munshya, LLB (Hons), M.Div.

A discussion must be had about the role that Zambian music has played in the making of our nation for the past fifty years. There is great wisdom in the saying that music is food for the soul. However, with regard to nations, music is also food for national identity and national myth making. While there will always be arguments about what really comprises Zambian music, there should be no argument about the fact that music has had an enormous impact upon the identity of our country. In 50 years, we must look back and re-listen to the tunes and lyrics that have come from the minds and hearts of our artists.

Music has united the nation. It has held Zambia together. It has helped ferment political revolutions as well. Music has also helped to teach our nation. Dandy Krazy’s “Don’t Kubeba”, is one of the most politically influential songs in the history of Zambia. There is no song that captivated the political landscape so much as the “Don’t Kubeba” song in 2011. This don’t kubeba song is contentious for the subject matter it deals with and for the genre of the music itself. This genre of music has become very popular among artists in the last ten-years. It is mostly over-processed and generated from computer simulations.

Emmanuel Mulemena

Beyond that, however, the most popular songs in the history of Zambia have seldom been political. In fact, even the most popular musicians to grace the Zambian music stage have been apolitical in many senses. These greats include: Mulemena, Chishala, Chilambe and Chris Chali. To this list I must add the latest singers such as the Shatel duo, JK, and Macky II. The legend PK Chishala for example, never wrote a politically charged song except for “Common Man” which he released much later in his carrier. It might have come as an exception rather than the rule for him. On the other hand, Maiko Zulu can be distinguished as the only of musicians to dedicate almost all of his music to politically themed songs. The “Mad President” track, released during the Mwanawasa regime, is one of the most provocative songs ever done by a Zambian criticizing a sitting president. Petersen Zagaze and, now Pilato have also gone into the political fray.

During the one-party state, all musicians were by default members of the one-party state. They would from time to time be expected to churn out songs in praise of the ruling United National Independence Party (UNIP). But beyond that, Zambian music continued its apolitical stand until very recently. During the Chiluba regime, there were always one or two artists who released a song or two criticising the regime. One of those is “tomato balunda”, which was a hit only for a month or two.

Chimbayambaya nsenda – P.K. Chishala

Chishala’s “Common Man” came as a surprise because in his entire career he had shown some indifference to politics. He never sung in praise of the Kaunda regime, and neither did he ever sing for the Chiluba regime. It was therefore a shocker that he would pen a song that essentially acknowledged the difficult economic situation that the “common man” was experiencing under the liberalisation policies of the Chiluba government. Chishala’s hit song was “Pastor”, a notorious song he released in 1985. In that song, he quite controversially, narrated the story of a randy pastor. The most provocative aspect of the song were words Chishala put into Pastor Changwe’s mouth: those talking about the alleged infidelities of Bible characters. Nevertheless, this song proved to be a hit and it propelled Chishala to immediate stardom. After “Pastor”, Chishala would release other songs such as “Church Elder” and “Na Musonda”. He also penned some songs based on Ushi mythology and folklore such as “Impumba Mukowa” and “Muchibolya”. The song “Chimbayambaya Nsenda” almost certainly crowned PK Chishala as the true professor of Zambian music. With his music, the nation sang, danced and together imagined a more thriving nation.

Mayenge Asoza

Amayenge is perhaps the most consistent of all Zambian bands. Whereas, almost all the great bands are long gone, the evergreen Amayenge Asoza continue to surprise. Most importantly, the death of its leader Chris Chali did not lead to the demise of the singing group. The most famous of Amayenge’s song is “Bamu kaika ten wala”, a hit highlighting child marriages and related issues. After 50 years, the nation will continue to benefit from the music prowess of this dynamic singing outfit. Rumour has it that the Amayenge are working on a new album. It should be very welcome considering that Zambia has been bombarded by too much over-processed computer generated music. A few artists however, are trying to deliver us from this over-processed music; these include Scarlet Mwana-Okondewa (whose album used live instruments).

Serenje Kalindula Band also deserves recognition. Their songs based on both Lala folklore and popular culture proved popular in their days. Other bands that stand out include Oliya Band, Masasu Band, Lima Jazz Band, and Green Labels. Masasu’s “Kabelebele” should add to the list of Zambia’s greatest songs of all time. Uweka Stars’ “Grace”, combines the active Eastern beat with some Nyanja folklore. Recently, a band that tried to emulate these great bands was Chingola’s Glorious Band. Under the leadership of Chibesa, Glorious Band tried to revive the fallen Kalindula live music. Chibesa penned songs such as “Isambo lya mfwa” which became an instant hit. A few years after the release of their first album, the same curse that has struck most Zambian bands also struck the Glorious Band: all the band’s team members died within months of each other obliterating any hopes for the revival of live Kalindula music. Compared to musicians in other countries, it is rather astonishing, the rate at which Zambian musicians die.

Music is food for national identity and national myth-making – Munshya wa Munshya

Pompi and Nathan Nyirenda are the gospel artists that have tried to redefine gospel music. The two seem to have distinguished themselves as Christians doing Zambian music, rather than as Christians doing Zambian Christian music. With “Mwe makufi” Nyirenda has perched himself as one of the most gifted singers and musicians Zambia has seen. Jojo Mwangaza took music to another level by taking rhumba tunes and christening them with gospel lyrics. The result of Mwangaza’s music is that for those Christians who feel they cannot dance to “worldly” music, they are welcome to dance to the same rhumba music only replaced by Bible verses. Some musicians such as Ephraim have made it clear that their music is exclusively “Christian” music and they are “Christian artists” first before anything else. Ephraim has combined nearly all genres, borrowing from Kalindula, R n B, Rhumba and Nigerian music.

Currently, the hit song all over Zambia is “Belinda Nafwa”. Its genre is the same, as Dandy Krazy’s don’t kubeba music. Its lyrics however, seem to be resonating among Zambians due to insinuations about sex and HIV/AIDS. Though over-processed, Chester’s voice proves the fact that the story of the greatness of Zambian music is still in its development. For the next fifty years and beyond, Zambian music will continue to grow and with that our nation.

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

Suggested Citation: Munshya, E. (2014). “From ‘Pastor Changwe’ to ‘Belinda nafwa': 50 years of the music that defined Zambia. Elias Munshya blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (24 October 2014)

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

Guy Lindsay Scott

The President of the Republic of Zambia, Michael Chilufya Sata has died. He died in a London hospital on 28 October 2014. Sata died the same week that the nation was celebrating 50 years of independence from Great Britain. The question grappling the nation right now is whether the nation’s Vice-President Guy Lindsay Scott satisfies the constitution to be an Acting President for 90-days before calling a special election to replace Michael Sata. The complication with Guy Scott is that his father and mother are Scottish. In fact, Guy Scott is perhaps the only white Vice-President across the African continent. According to the Zambian constitution, one can only satisfy the constitutional requirements to be a presidential candidate if both parents of the candidate are “Zambian by birth or descent”. There are two sides to this issue: those who argue that Scott does not satisfy this requirement and those who argue that he does. In order to shade light on this issue, I must begin with some boring yet important stuff.

Sata and Scott

According to both the written and unwritten principles of the Zambian constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court of Zambia are the primary interpreters of the constitution of Zambia. This means that if there is any ambiguity in the constitution we should look to the court’s interpretation for guidance. In this constitutional set-up, the written constitution of Zambia and the ruling of the courts of law, together comprise what we should refer to as “constitutional law”. Constitutional law seldom refers to the text of the constitution alone. In most cases, the constitution is sometimes vague and some concepts such as “parent” or “Zambia” need further illumination and explanation. According to stare decisis, courts are supposed to follow the precedence set by the higher court in a hierarchy. Of principal importance in our judicial system is the idea that the courts of law do in fact play a huge role in interpreting the law and their rulings become binding. In stare decisis, if the ratio decidendi of one case can sufficiently be applied to another case, we have the obligation to follow the ruling of the precedent. With these boring principles in mind we can now turn back to the Guy Scott issue.

The constitution of Zambia is clear. For one to be a presidential candidate in Zambia, his or her parents must be Zambian by “birth or descent”. The question is what does this mean? It could mean many different things to different people. However, if the Supreme Court answers the question of what this means, it should settle the matter. This is because this is the system we have chosen for ourselves. It is our rule of law. It is the way we handle contentious issues. We take it to court and the courts give us an interpretation. In 1998, the Supreme Court answered this same question. In Lewanika and Others v Chiluba, the court was asked to disqualify Chiluba from the presidency because his father was “not a Zambian by birth or descent”. The petitioners presented several versions with regard to Chiluba’s father. There was a Zairian Chabala Kafupi and the Mozambican Jim Zahare. Chiluba the defendant offered an alternative version of his parentage and claimed that his father was actually from either Kawambwa or Mwense. But that is beside the point. The Supreme Court assumed the facts as avowed by the petitioners and ruled that even if Chiluba’s father were a Zairian or a Mozambican; Chiluba would still satisfy the constitutional requirement of having parents being “Zambian by birth or descent”. The ratio decidendi, or the reason for the ruling is based on several principles. First, the Supreme Court erected a wall of citizenship and held that the republic of Zambia was actually created on 24 October 1964. Having been so created on this date, those who were ordinarily resident in Zambia on this day became citizens of Zambia. For such people, there is no need to inquire into the citizenship of their parentage, as none of their parents would qualify as “Zambians” because there was no nation called “Zambia” before that. Second, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement for “Zambian citizenship” might make sense later in the history of Zambia. But even then, it would still create problems for the future of Zambia. Third, the court then dealt with racial issues. They made it clear that an assumption that the constitution deliberately discriminates against whites or Chinese does not make sense. In order for such an assumption to be made, the constitution should explicitly state that. Having explicitly not isolated one tribe or one colour, the court could find no justification in upholding this discriminatory part of the constitution especially as far as presidential eligibility is concerned. Fourth, having been cognizant of the political rhetoric that accompanied the “parentage clause” enactment into the constitution, the court relied on the actual text of the constitution, embraced its absurdities and offered an explanation that was consistent with Zambian history and principles of fairness and justice.

After the ruling in Lewanika and others v Chiluba, the question is whether the ratio decidendi of the case can be sufficiently applied to Guy Scott’s situation. Guy Scott was born in the then Northern Rhodesia, and acquired Zambian citizenship at independence in 1964. Having so acquired that citizenship, there is a legal wall that makes the citizenship of his parents invisible and inconsequential to his legal status as a founding citizen of Zambia. Additionally, even if his parents continued being citizens of Britain, it should not affect his own satisfaction of the Zambian constitution since the “Zambian by birth or descent” requirement does not apply to him and to many others who became citizens of Zambia when the nation was created in 1964. Following the Chiluba case, it is clear that just like Chiluba satisfied the constitution in spite of the possibility of a Mozambican or a Zairian father, Scott would also satisfy the constitution in spite of his British father. The Guy Scott case has facts, which can meet the ratio decidendi of the Chiluba case.

Having offered this legal explanation. I must confess that there is more to life than just law. While Zambia remains a nation ruled by law rather than men, it is incumbent upon the leaders and the people to find a political solution to some contentious issues. Those who do not want Scott to lead a transition should do so without unnecessarily abusing the law as justification. The law is definitely on the side of Guy Scott. I am not too sure though whether the politics are on Scott’s side. I have tried to answer the legal question. I will leave it up to the cabinet and the people of Zambia to answer the political question. At the end of the day, our nation should stand as one during this time of transition. May the soul of Michael Chilufya Sata rest in eternal peace.

Note: Those seeking specific legal advice should consult members of the Zambian bar. I am not a member of the Zambian bar. I am in the process of applying for a student-at-law status in the jurisdiction of Alberta, Canada. I hold an LLB (Honours) from England and have completed all coursework towards the award of an LLM degree from Northwestern University (Chicago, IL).

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2014). After the cobra: what does the law say about Vice-President Guy Scott? Elias Munshya Blog. (found at http://www.eliasmunshya.org) (28 October 2014).

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

President Sata with President Kenneth Kaunda

Michael Chilufya did not have one life. He had many lives. His relatively long life, by Zambian standards, where life expectancy is around 45, mean that there is a huge span from which one could chose his story. Like many of his contemporaries, very little is known of his childhood. Born in 1937, there is very little known about the young Sata except that he was born in Mpika and went to primary school there. Around 1964 during the fight for the country’s independence some accounts situate the young Sata as a constable in the colonial police force. There are some accounts that he spent some years in the United Kingdom after serving as a colonial police officer in the 1960s.

Sata rose to national fame and notoriety when in the late 1970 and early 1980s he emerged as a talkative member of the United National Independence Party (UNIP). This political recklessness did wonders for him. He quickly caught the eye of the then President Kenneth Kaunda who appointed him District Governor of Lusaka and later as Local Government and Rural Development Minister. In many ways, Sata was different from most of his political contemporaries. Most of his colleagues were mostly educated and had stints in the Foreign Service. Sata never had the luxury of the two. He never served in the Foreign Service and his education level remained humble. Nevertheless, in spite of that, he still managed to catch the attention of the nation and that of Kenneth Kaunda. As Lusaka Governor, the tough talking and pragmatic Sata embarked on a modernization program for the city. He presided over the building of the flyover bridges over the town-centre and established a quasi-private company to take care of the water reticulation system in Lusaka. That company has continued to this day.

The Late Michael Chilufya Sata

When in 1991, the dawn of multi-party democracy rose over Zambia, Sata was among some UNIP loyalists who crossed over to the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) late. As a politically cunning and calculating tactician, Sata chose to remain in UNIP until late so as to perhaps get the best of both worlds. When he joined the MMD, he became an instant hit. At the MMD convention of April 1991 Sata was elected chairman of local government. He pledged his total support for President Chiluba and the two became political confidantes. To be clear, Sata had the political clout of his own within the MMD. In Chiluba’s government Sata served various portfolios. He worked as a Local Government Minister. During his tenure in this portfolio, allegations of corruption surfaced. But was cleared by both his boss and the Anti-Corruption Commission. He also served as Health Minister. Chiluba’s choice of Sata for the health portfolio surprised many because some thought that Sata was not intellectually sophisticated to lead a portfolio that had medical doctors and nurses. But Sata excelled in this ministry. Hospitals became cleaner. Morale among health workers was revamped. The straight talking Sata encouraged nursing schools to admit Enrolled Nurses so that they could become Registered Nurses. Under his watch, he changed nurses’ uniforms to include the wearing of pants. Sata also served in several other portfolios such as Labor and as Minister-Without-Portfolio.

Sata’s politics, however, during the first term of the MMD did have enemies. The most vicious of the fights was between himself and the then Vice-President Levy Mwanawasa. After realizing that he could not break the bond between Sata and Chiluba, Mwanawasa resigned from the vice-presidency citing irreconcilable differences with Michael Sata. For his part, Sata claimed that Mwanawasa was a political novice whose skills were only good for the practice of law and not politics. The resignation of Mwanawasa would see Sata being elevated to more visible status within the party and the government. Indeed, after the 1996 convention, Sata became National Secretary of the MMD. As Chief Executive of the MMD he became the architect of the Chiluba political engineering.

Michael Sata with Hakainde Hichilema

After the 1996 elections, Sata mostly served as a minister-without-portfolio in Chiluba’s cabinet and as the MMD’s Chief Executive. Throughout all this political career, the down-to-earth man of the people image made Sata very popular on the street. He was a lovable character. When speaking to the people, he would use the common language that citizens on the street could understand. He was a constant feature in the media. He was a story maker. Towards the end of Chiluba’s second term, rumours started swirling that Chiluba was interested in going for the third term. For his part, Sata appeared to have been the main architect of this initiative. He advised Chiluba to appoint District Administrators to bring “government close to the people”. Nevertheless it was clear that this initiative was really about the Third Term.

In 2001 when it became clear that Zambians would not support Chiluba’s Third Term bid, Sata had some hope that it was he that the party was going to adopt to succeed Chiluba. Shortly before that, Sata as National Secretary presided over the expulsion of over 50 senior members of the MMD including the country’s vice-president then, Christone Tembo. If there was anyone who was playing his cards well, it was Sata. But Chiluba had other plans. At a party meeting at State House, Chiluba influenced the MMD to pick Levy Mwanawasa out of political retirement to become the party’s candidate. This infuriated Sata. There was no way Sata was going to support his nemesis Mwanawasa as presidential candidate for his MMD. In 2001, Sata broke off from Chiluba, left the government house and formed his own party, naming it the Patriotic Front after Mugabe’s party in Zimbabwe.

Chiluba and Sata – as MMD leaders 1991 to 2002

After leaving the MMD, Sata became a fierce critic of both the MMD party and its new president Levy Patrick Mwanawasa. It seems like the old enmity had resurfaced. The politics was brutal. For Sata, Mwanawasa was a cabbage. In his campaign messages, Sata claimed that Mwanawasa was so sick that his mind and his mouth had stopped coordinating. With these attacks against Mwanawasa and the MMD, Sata’s political star started to rise. His anti-capitalist and anti-Chinese messages found a home among the urbanites. His Patriotic Front party started to pick seats in the by-elections the first one being from the Copperbelt. Yamfwa Mukanga won Kantanshi seat with the support of the Cobra. Something happened however, that seemed to have changed the Cobra’s attitude towards Mwanawasa. Having been a strong critic of Mwanawasa, Sata changed after he himself got a heart attack only to be evacuated at midnight by Mwanawasa. When Sata returned to Zambia, he had the change of heart. He met Mwanawasa at State House and from that meeting the two became friends. Sata’s illness and Mwanawasa’s reaction to it had helped these political leaders come to some agreement and cooperation.

When Mwanawasa died in 2008, Sata joined the nation in mourning his friend. However, he quickly found another enemy, the vice-president Rupiah Banda. In the presidential by-election of that year, Sata was brutally defeated. But by this time, it was clear that his political star had only gotten brighter and it was just a matter of time before he would win the presidency. And sure enough, three years later, Michael Chilufya Sata delivered a blistering defeat to incumbent Rupiah Banda becoming Zambia’s fifth president.

There were a lot of expectations on the shoulder of the new leader. But within the first week of winning, Sata went beyond the limit of how many people he could nominate to parliament. He presented ten names instead of eight. He was forced to retract. He appointed a cabinet full of his relatives and fellow tribes mates. What had been an election of hope quickly gave to despair. To invest in infrastructure development, he borrowed heavily from the Eurobonds. And then one year into power, his physical and mental health started to deteriorate. His close confidantes denied that there was any problem. In fact, they said that he was working very hard behind the scenes.

Sata leaves behind a divided party and nation – Munshya

To his credit, in spite of his invisibility, the business of government continued being carried out. The loyalty he commanded seemed surreal both within the party and the government. Reports of his death emerged on several occasions but each time it was rumoured he had died, he would emerge looking stronger than before. On 20^th October 2014, he was flown to London for what officials said was going to be a medical review. He died in London on October 28 2014. He was 78. He leaves behind several children. And for sure, he leaves behind a divided party and nation. However, one thing can never be denied of Michael Chilufya Sata: he was the cobra who charmed a nation.

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

Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2014). The Cobra Who Charmed a Nation: The Life and Times of Michael Chilufya Sata. Elias Munshya Blog (found at http://www.eliasmunshya.org) (29 October 2014)

A gentleman by the name of Micheck Shulumanda has asked a few questions over the propriety of Guy Scott acting as president. He is challenging the use of Article 38 instead of Article 39 when deciding who should act as president. I wish to provide some answers.

1. If the President appointed Minister of Defense and Justice, and PF Secretary General Hon Edgar Lungu to act under Article 39 (1), on what basis did the Attorney General advice Cabinet that Dr. Guy Scott is the rightful person to Act?

Article 39 operates when a President is alive. Article 38 operates when a President is “dead” and there is a vacancy in the presidency. The death of Michael Chilufya Sata triggered the operation of Article 38 as a vacancy due to death arose.

1. Why did the Attorney General only rely on Article 38 which deals with vacancy in the office of the Presidency without addressing himself to Article 39 (1) under which Hon. Lungu should have been appointed since the President left the country for medical purposes?

There was no need to address himself to Article 39 because President Sata died. When a President dies, a vacancy in the presidency is declared and that triggers sections of the constitution that deals with a “vacancy”. One such section is Article 38.

1. Why is it that President Sata never allowed Vice President Guy Scott to act as President if not for the reasons that he was incapable to perform functions of the office of President? Why should he act now that he is dead?

I do not know why President Sata never allowed Scott to act. Guy Scott can act now that President Sata is dead, because as you have said it, he is dead. President Sata and his actions or inactions are never a source of constitutional law in Zambia. The source of Zambia’s constitutional law are as follows: (1) the text of the constitution, (2) the judgements from the Supreme Court and the High Court, (3) unwritten conventions from our English Common law heritage, (4) Acts of parliament. His Excellency President Michael Sata or any president are not a source of Zambia’s constitutional law. Guy Scott is acting now, because there is a vacancy in the presidency on account of the death of an incumbent.

1. Was President Sata on the wrong side of the law when he asked others to act even when the Vice President was verily available in the country?

This question has no relevance to the matter at hand. The question is not about whether Sata was right or wrong, but rather what should happen in the event that there is a vacancy in the presidency. According to our constitution, the repository of Executive power in the event of a vacancy in Zambia is the Vice-President.

So has, Attorney General Musa Mwenye committed treason? Not a bit.

RE; PURPORTED SUSPENSION IS ILLEGAL AND HIGHLY PROVOCATIVE UNDER THE PARTY CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF NATIONAL MOURNING

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

Michael Chilufya Sata

The passing of President Sata has been devastating to the nation. But while the nation mourns, we should never forget that the President was a father, a spouse, a grandfather, an uncle and a close relative to some citizens among us. The loss that these relatives have suffered is surely personal, deep and disheartening. Relatives and close friends are shedding inconsolable tears, weeping and mourning this loss. Indeed, while political cadres are busy beating each other up and causing confusion, we must never forget that, there is a tangible family grieving. In this period, we need to give the respect due to the First Lady and her family. During this difficult time, we must sympathise, empathize and share in the sorrow of this loss. It is not time for politicking.

Just as Hakainde Hichilema has said, the time for politicking will come. This time, we must exercise utmost grace to each other as we mourn. Acting President Guy Scott and Secretary General of the Patriotic Front Edgar Lungu have now signed a joint statement assuring the nation that they will behave themselves properly as we go through this mourning period. We must commend these two gentlemen and all the people that surround them for coming up with a ceasefire while the nation goes through this difficult time. It would be ridiculous for these guys to be “hiring” and “firing” each other while the body of the late Michael Sata lies in state at Mulungushi. Indeed, politicians must not turn this personal loss of the Sata family into a hive of “pangas” and “chipaye”. President Sata should be mourned in peace, tranquility and respect. He really deserves that.

Signing President Sata’s book of condolences at Mr & Mrs Mate’s residence in Cochrane, AB, Canada

Each of the late president’s relative or close friends will deal with this loss differently. Grief is very personal in many respects. No one should dictate to another how he or she should mourn his or her father, uncle, or grandfather. There is no one-way of mourning the late President Michael Sata. As such, the period of mourning itself should be an exercise in tolerance and patience. Relatives and close friends should know that the nation joins them in this loss. A grief psychologist Kubler-Ross has identified five stages that are typical during the time of loss. On average each person undergoing grief goes through these stages. The first stage is denial. Usually, when we receive sad news, the first reaction we lean towards is to deny it. We don’t want to hear the desolate news. There are many in the nation and indeed in the family that at first experienced denial. It is very normal to undergo this stage. When the news is very sad, it is a human reaction to want to deny its reality.

1937 to 2004

The second stage of grief is anger. Anger can come in different ways. It could come from a spouse who feels like she did not do enough. It could come from a relative who feels there might have been a better way to handle the loss. Anger could from children who feel like it did not have to be. During loss, like the nation is experiencing right now, it is easy to plunge into anger. In some instances, family members, in anger, begin to blame each other for their loss. Very often, a widow gets blamed for her spouse’s death even if she had no hand in it. This is not fair. While, it is normal for a grieving person to be angry, one thing we should never allow is to let anger lead to irrational and unfair choices. Anger is a powerful human emotion. It is a part of our humanity. During loss, it would be perfectly all right to experience this emotion. However, after we have experienced anger, we should transform it into something meaningful. The greatest respect we can give to the memory of President Sata is to transform the anger, arising from the loss, to something more positive for the nation and the family.

The third stage in the grieving process is bargaining. In grief, the bargaining stage is where one begins to “bargain” within themselves. They begin to try and soften the pinch of loss or death. At this stage, most people begin wishing something could be done about the loss. For Christians, they begin giving God conditions. They feel and think in terms what-ifs. The bargaining stage is where one begins entertaining the idea of a “resurrection”. It is a stage of wishing the departed would come back. When bargaining, a person experiencing loss could even decide to give up something valuable in the hope that doing so would make God change his mind and restore the loss.

The fourth stage is depression. The depression stage is where “we feel sad” about the loss. Here grief takes us to the level where nothing can sooth. The depression stage is that stage of loss where no one can see or feel. It is a personal stage. No one can really know how painful your loss is. Each person experiences this stage differently. It is all right to feel sad. We are human after all. We are bound to feel sad. Jesus himself wept at the loss of Lazarus. The children, the spouse, the relatives, and the close friends of the late President should be joined by the nation in feeling sad over this loss.

The Cobra who charmed a nation

The fifth stage is acceptance. Now this stage is not about feeling that the loss is “okay” but rather feeling that this loss is actually real. In the acceptance stage, the loss event is accepted as valid. You are not trying to deny it exists, but rather you recognize the pain and embrace it. In this stage, you let go and recognize the inevitable. The acceptance stage is the most powerful of all these stages. It is challenging though. It is challenging in the sense that most of us as humans are reluctant to come into terms with our pain. We do not want pain. We do not want to be reminded that the president is no more. But painful as it may be, it is important that we move towards acceptance. Acceptance of loss is epitomized in one Ushi adage which states that “pafwa abantu pashala bantu”. This adage reinforces the idea that those that have lost a father, should take courage in the fact that the father did indeed leave behind warriors to take over from where he left. It is this courage that leads to acceptance of the grief.

Regardless of what we say about loss, however, there will never be a replacement for those that have departed. The pain is real. The loss is painful. But after we have grieved, it will be time to pick up the pieces and try to move on, with hearts still reeling from the pain of the loss. But as a tribute to the life of the departed, we must not give up on life. We must do all we can to make Zambia a better nation for it is through this action that we will truly demonstrate our fidelity to the life and times of Michael Chilufya Sata.

This is a statement issued by the MMD Secretariat and Media Team today, November 16 2014

Nevers Sekwila Mumba

The Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) has unanimously adopted MMD President Dr Nevers Sekwila Mumba as its candidate for the upcoming presidential by-election. After a lengthy meeting that started in the late afternoon on Sunday the 16th of November 2014 and ended almost at midnight, the MMD National Executive Committee (NEC) resolved that Dr Mumba was the duly elected MMD president and as such is the automatic candidate for any presidential election.

The NEC had met to consider this matter among other items that included the MMD’s participation in the upcoming by-election, resource mobilization and the possibility of making alliances with other opposition political parties. The NEC has given a full mandate to the president to investigate possible election alliances and to consider what role former president Rupiah Banda would be best suited for in the run up to the by-election.

The MMD constitution does not provide for another election during the time there is a sitting president, nor does it allow the NEC to overturn the decision of the MMD National Convention which was last held in May 2012 and saw Dr Mumba elected by 70% of the vote in the second round of an election that used the 50%+1 system.

Kuli ba Mama Kaseba:

Intanshi mutende!

Before I proceed any further, let me state out-rightly what this letter is not about. As a person who strongly believes in women’s rights, I must commend your decision to stand as presidential candidate within days of burying your spouse. Indeed, every woman must aspire to provide leadership to this great country. Your ambition therefore should be encouraged. I also should assure you that your decision to stand has somehow provided that needed courage for all women all over Zambia. Indeed, there is no minimum time required for mourning. There is no one-way of mourning our beloved ones. Usually, traditions have been used to shackle good women, especially after the death of their spouses. Your bravery to provide your candidacy for consideration, therefore, should be commended. I therefore do not condemn you for taking this courageous step. You have done well. I want to live in a Zambia where women will indeed have the liberty to make decisions based on what they feel is right. The time should come when women should stand against traditions that have the potential to subjugate. As a spouse, you have a say in the way you want to mourn or not mourn the departed. While it is true that it has only been a week since your spouse was put to rest, we should commend you for wanting to carry on the legacy that he left behind. And in your own way you have chosen to continue the legacy. And that Ba Mfumu is where I find the problem.

Kanabesa, the reign of your late husband was controversial for our country.  Your spouse presided over a nation that has emerged more tribal and more nepotistic than any other president that has ruled our country. In three years we have accumulated more kaloba in billions of dollars. If this were the legacy you want to carry on, I would ask you to re-examine your heart and think again. Zambians are not naïve; we have seen how that the Zambian diplomatic corps now comprise your relatives and those of your late husband. Surprisingly, there are a number of diplomats whose only credential is that there were at one time very close personal friends of your spouse. I believe that part of the diplomatic corps should be scared now that you are aspiring to replace President Sata. But there is another cadre of diplomats that your candidacy will protect – your relatives and those of President Sata. If you say that this is the legacy you want to carry on, I should be the first one to state that please Ba Mfumu reexamine your decision.

Dr. Christine Mwelwa Kaseba

From the civil service to the army, and parastatal organs, your relatives have greatly benefited from you being First Lady. Ba Mfumu your actions while First Lady in looking out only for the interest of your family creates reasonable suspicion in my heart that you do not mean well for the future of our country. Do not get me wrong. You do seem to be a great woman. You are educated. You do have a great experience as a medical doctor serving the needs of our poor at the University Teaching Hospital. But when we look at the government and see how many of your bululus are in office, it darkens our hearts and makes us wonder whether your reign will be any different from that of your late husband. As Laura Miti has rightly put it: “I just don’t want anyone from the Sata family. We need to dismantle the nepotistic edifice built in the state by the Sata presidency.”

Michael Chilufya Sata

When your husband was ill, we all saw that he had lost weight and that he was not alert at all. He was visibly sick, very sick. We meant well when we asked that your family consider withdrawing him from power so that he could concentrate on getting better. Who knows? May be he could have lived a little longer had he been away from the pressures of the State office. But our advice was met by repeated injury from yourself and those in his government. Even when he was addressing parliament, as frail as he was, the images of your beaming smile has despoiled our memory. We knew there was something wrong. But your smile tried to cover it all. You should not be blamed for the actions of your spouse, but it certainly creates questions in some of us to wonder what really was going on. As a spouse, were you complacent in keeping your husband going even when he had no capacity to provide leadership to our country? Now that you are aspiring to lead our country, it is in good conscience that we should ask these questions.

I am Ushi from Milenge, and as a people from the pedicle, we all know how widows become the first suspects after their spouses have died. That tradition is deplorable and we must condemn it. We should preside upon families to treat widows with all dignity and respect. As the Glorious Band sang in “Isambo Lya Mfwa”, it is unfair to heap the blame on the widows. That being the case, ba mfumu, we have a few questions that need answering considering that you are putting your name forward.

Obviously, we cannot insist on traditions now, when during illness our calls for humanity and Ubuntu were rebuffed. We cannot insist on a period of mourning now, when even at the time that Michael Chilufya Sata was visibly sick and incapacitated, all we saw was a cadre of people wanting to continue profiteering from the palms of a sick man.

I do not have confidence in your candidature. Your desire is to continue with the same legacy of corruption, nepotism and tribalism started by your spouse. You do not provide anything new and your time at State House as a spouse of President Sata inspires little confidence. You are a woman nevertheless and in a country that has been destroyed by men in power, it might be a source of relief to have a woman in power. But I really doubt if this woman should be you.

For now, I wish you well and hope that all goes well with you and yours. But please if you get elected to the presidency stop nepotism and tribalism and please help Zambia reduce on its appetite for “kaloba”.

Napwa Niine,

Munshya

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

Nevers Sekwila Mumba

If RB wants to stand, it would be great for the likes of Mulusa and RB to form the Movement for Bwezani and Mulusa (MBM) so that they can field RB. They should leave the MMD so that the party functions under the leadership of its elected president. What RB is doing to MMD, is not leadership but treachery. This is not how an elder statesman behaves, this is the way a spoiled child behaves. In other words and indeed for a lack of a better term what Rupiah Banda is doing can be called “Ubuloshi.”

No one should ever defile Rupiah Banda’s right to aspire for the presidency. He is a very old man, but he is a citizen nevertheless with full constitutional rights to stand for the presidency. Our constitution gives rights to babies as well as very old men and women. However, what is really offensive and unacceptable is corruption, theft, treachery, nepotism, and “ubu loshi”. You might ask me what is “ubuloshi”? I do not mean that RB ni ndoshi, here is my definition of political “ubuloshi”. Going behind the back of an elected leader and engineering a “political comeback” by poisoning the minds and hearts of the very people that were responsible for the failure of the MMD in the first place.

Handing the torch of leadership to the young is not easy. It requires great discipline from the old. It is remarkable that Mandela did it. Banda has the right to contest on his party which he and Mulusa will form, but he should not bring this confusion and tumult to the MMD. Why should these UNIPIsts be allowed to kill the MMD just like they killed UNIP? Nevers Mumba could not have come up with any magic to change the declining fortunes of the MMD within 3 or 5 years. It would take time and sacrifice and discipline. Evidence is there to prove that parties usually decline when they have a transition in the presidency. The same happened to UPND, but UPND is on the upswing, do you know why? It is because, they kept the young HH even when everything was showing that he was losing it, and now the UPND is being rewarded.

The same should happen to the MMD. Give Mumba a chance. A chance to make mistakes. A chance to be himself. A chance to reinvent the MMD. A chance to work on himself as a leader. A chance to be a true political candidate. But even before he could even cough, Rupiah the poisoner Banda wants to come back through the back door.

So what happened then to the speech RB gave in 2011. What happened to all those lectures he gave at Boston University ? This is the problem when a leader hires speech writers to do speeches for him. RB is not committed to any thing he read because the speech was just written for him. My advise to RB is to go back to his lectures at Boston and to reread the speech his consultants wrote for him in 2011.

As for Mulusa and all the young like him, it is disappointing, very disappointing to say the least. For now, we await the formation of a party of Mulusa, Muhabi Lungu and RB because Nevers Mumba is likely to win the court case.

If the MMD is not happy with Nevers, wait for the general conference and vote him out fairly. Not this game. If Nevers is being disrespected because he is a former pastor, then we all who are connected to churches should be very concerned. You killed MMD. You stole using MMD. You did all sorts of wrong using the name of the party, and now that you wanted someone to lead you you went begging to Nevers and you elected him overwhelmingly. It is shocking that you want to kick him out and bring back the very guy who made MMD to lose in 2011. Ninshi? Sata afwa and Rupiah Banda feels like he can bounce back?

I do love Rupiah Banda. He is a very kind old man. He looks to be very humorous. He is a statesman. He has respect all over the world. But this treachery is unacceptable. My advice to him is ” Bo Bwezani, form your own party and leave MMD alone.”

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

The news came as a shock to me. Like most deaths, the passing of Dr. Myles Munroe was completely unexpected. He was flying to a meeting he was hosting in The Bahamas when his private plane hit a crane and disintegrated. All the nine passengers including Dr. Munroe’s wife Ruth died on the spot on November 9 2014. The Prime Minister of Bahamas, Perry Christie, remarked that the passing of Dr. Munroe was a huge loss to the island. Indisputably, Dr. Munroe had risen to be the most internationally influential preacher the commonwealth of Bahamas has ever produced. On many levels, the passing of Dr. Munroe has been a loss to his family, his church, his international followers and indeed to his native country. Munroe held three bachelor’s degrees, a Master of Arts degree and an honorary doctorate degree. He was a lecturer, advisor, pastor, and best-selling author.

I had the privilege of being introduced to the books and tapes of Dr. Munroe very young in my life. I started listening to Dr. Myles Munroe in my teenage years. My friends and I found the teachings from Dr. Munroe to be quite spiritually stimulating, emotionally vigorous and intellectually challenging. In the early nineties, a deacon in my home church in Chingola, the Grace Fellowship Family Church, lent me a book by Dr. Myles Munroe. I was only sixteen. But the book “In Pursuit of Purpose” changed my life. Henry Charles Sichone was a very dedicated church leader in Bishop Mumba Kalusenga’s congregation. He now provides leadership to a ministry called “Praise Ministries”. He had a home library where we could borrow books. It so happened that while he was sorting his books, I saw him tack away the book “In Pursuit of Purpose”. When I asked if he could lend it to me, he cautiously gave it to me with strict instructions that I return it in good condition. I had no idea just how much of an impact that book would have on my life. I am really glad that I came across that material. Dr. Myles Munroe helped shape my life through that book.

The Word of Faith Movement has received a lot of criticism. However, I find that some criticism to be quite unfair. While it is true that some within the faith movement only taught the idea that in order to make it in life you have to just “claim it”, there were other teachers who taught hard work, self-discipline and perseverance. Dr. Munroe belonged to the latter. There are several principles I learnt through the life and ministry of Dr. Myles Munroe.

First, Munroe taught about personal purpose. He taught that one’s fulfillment in life depends on them doing and becoming what they were born to be and do. This statement is quite liberating. I remember as a teenager reading through this statement and determining from then on that my fulfillment was not dependent on what my parents told me but on what I felt was God’s purpose for my life. It was this sense of personal purpose that led me to enroll in a theological college immediately after High School in Chingola. I have tried to pursue my personal purpose since then.

Second, Munroe taught about excellence. It was not enough to just know one’s purpose. Each person must work on excellence. The whole reason why we have a purpose to fulfill in life is because purpose brings something we can excel at. This is perhaps one of the most fundamental principles. The purpose of life is not to be rich or to be powerful, but rather to satisfy the primary reason why you exist. It is not about trying to be someone else, but it is about being an original. For some personal excellence might mean having to integrate several facets of life. Munroe was a preacher, lecturer and leadership consultant. It took excellence to integrate all these roles.

Dr. Myles Munroe

Third, Dr. Munroe taught about death. According to him, the grave is the richest place on earth because in it is buried great dreams that were never fulfilled. To motivate people, Dr. Munroe came up with a plan. The plan was about disappointing the grave. Instead of dying with a lot of potential, Munroe encouraged people to die “empty”. For him, a good death meant dying after you have fulfilled your purpose and emptied each and every piece of ideas or thoughts for the good humanity. Two weeks before his death, Munroe encouraged a TV audience to die like he was planning to die “empty”. The thought of human mortality does besiege each one of us. Existential questions abound in our minds. However, we should concentrate on ensuring that each day we live is spent emptying ourselves for the good of humanity. Indeed, after many lessons from Munroe, I am determined now more than ever to not only live purposefully, but also aspire to die “empty.”

Like many of us, Dr. Myles Munroe did have critics and detractors. He too had some debatable teachings. I am familiar with some of the controversial teachings later in his ministry. However, these controversies were never grave enough to warrant the criticism he received from some quarters. As a dispenser of concepts and ideas, Dr. Munroe did get into trouble. One of the most controversial aspects of his teachings has to do with his “Kingdom Theology”, which did seem to justify colonialism. Additionally, his teaching that “Christ” could be distinguished from “Jesus” was also quite controversial. For sure, the orthodox view is that, the man Jesus is actually the Christ. The humanity of Christ cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ. The human Jesus is the divine Christ. Weaknesses sometimes do show that we are all just human after all. Even the unimpeachable life of a great man like Myles Munroe could have some blemishes here and there. That is the hallmark of our own fallible humanity.

“A great man who died empty”

Years after I first encountered the teachings of Dr. Myles Munroe, I got to listen to him personally at a leadership conference in Swaziland. It was around the year 2000. The first meeting was at Lugogo Sun Hotel where he taught about leadership. The second meeting took place in Manzini where he spoke about the principles of purpose. It is these same principles that I had read about in his book “In Pursuit of Purpose.” I was just so glad that I could listen to him live. He appeared to be a very courteous fellow. After the Manzini meeting, I rushed to the stage, handed him a paper and he autographed it for me and for a hundred others that had jostled for the front. I have always had in my mind a desire to visit his home base in the Bahamas. But he died before I could travel to listen to him there. For sure, he died a great man. But he also died empty. He fulfilled his purpose and I just hope that each one of us will live to fulfill our own purpose and then die “empty”.