CHIEFS' SUPPORT UNLAWFUL

By Gershom Ndhlovu

 Supreme Court judgements, by their nature of being unchallengeable, become law or precedence as the lawyers call it, and have to be followed as such. Clearly in this election campaign, one Supreme Court judgement has been ripped to pieces may be because the culprits have been queuing to support the ruling MMD presidential candidate Rupiah Banda.

A few months ago the Supreme Court nullified the Mwansabombwe seat which was held by PF's Samuel Chitonge after the 2006 elections but was challenged by MMD's Maybin Mubanga on account of Senior Chief Mwata Kazembe supporting Chitonge to the disadvantage of Mubanga.

Principally, the Supreme Court observed that Mwata Kazembe prevented voters from choosing a candidate of their choice because he supported the PF and its candidate.

“From the evidence,” according to a story carried by the Zambia Daily Mail at the time, “the court noted that Mwata Kazembe was an influential figure whose action was illegal.”

The court, according to the story, pointed out that the constitution and the Election Act did not allow a chief to exert undue influence on his subjects and reference was made to the case of Sikota Wina who petitioned Mulobezi MP Michael Mabenga on grounds that an induna ferried supporters to a secret meeting. The court noted that in this case, Mwata Kazembe was not an ordinary induna but a senior chief.

In contrast with the judgement in the Chitonge case, the nation has in the last few weeks witnessed a whole array of chiefs being paraded to endorse Banda's candidature. One wonders if the Supreme Court judgement in this case only applies to parliamentary candidates and not presidential candidates. But since an election is an election regardless at what level it is, whether local government, parliamentary or presidential, the same rules should apply and fairly for that matter.

If the Supreme Court found Mwata Kazembe's actions illegal in the election of Chitonge in 2006, the actions of chiefs who are being paraded all over the country to openly support Banda are definitely illegal and it is high time someone blew the whistle considering that a legal precedent has been set by no other than the highest court in the land.

Chiefs by their nature are influential to not only people living within their chiefdoms but to their subjects living in other parts of the country. We all know how deferentially subjects behave towards a chief or even a headman, when he is visiting an urban area such that if he or she said that she supported one presidential candidate in, say Namwala, his or her word would reverberate around the country knowing that his royal highness has spoken on behalf of his subjects wherever they may be in the Republic of Zambia.

People should not underrate the influence of chiefs by thinking that this only ended in their chiefdoms. I have in the past covered chiefs visiting urban areas and in some instances, urban-based subjects visiting chiefs and seen for myself what transpires when subject meets chief. To dismiss it as a mere customary thing would be very naïve for anyone.

Similarly, to dismiss the influence of chiefs in an election such as the forthcoming presidential by-election would be suicidal for any politician. This is is the reason why the rule book vis-a-vis Chitonge's judgement should be thrown at these chiefs and whoever is seen to flout it, should be dealt with accordingly.

Knowing the character of most of the chiefs, they receive “gifts” from politicians who visit them and then make careless political statements to justify the gifts. Today's chiefs are no different from the chiefs of several centuries ago who sold their subjects into slavery for bottles of rum, coloured cloth, salt beads and mirrors.

The only difference is that today's chiefs would be “herded” into the comfort of some lodge for a few days, pampered with the most expensive and potent alcoholic drink and at the end of the day, awarded with fat brown envelopes and they come up with the most absurd of statements in support of a particular candidate. This is no different from selling their subjects into slavery.

Rigging of elections is difficult to prove but certain occurrences during elections may point to that. In the rural areas where results wipe out the gains of opposition parties in urban areas, the ferrying of ballot boxes by ZAF helicopters is, in my view, a very sensitive issue that needs to be addressed seriously and with the urgency it deserves.

In 2000, I had an opportunity to cover a by-election in Mufumbwe were I witnessed ZAF choppers ferrying ballot boxes from polling stations in outlying some as far away as 400 km.

Not that anything untoward that I can remember happened in that by-election but given that there are so many places like Mufumbwe where these choppers criss-cross the countryside and what is of concern is that there is not enough room on the choppers to carry all of the participating parties' agents to keep an eye on the ballot boxes on their way to central counting places at council offices.

When one hears statements that this or that candidate will never be allowed to rule Zambia, then you wonder who determines that. Is it the people who control elections or the citizens who cast their votes? Is this at the point when rigging takes place to keep out the unwanted leaders from State House?

In the last few weeks I have such statements from people who should really know better. The best way to show that people have the power to chose who leads them, they must vote convincingly not to leave any doubt as to who they want as president rather than have their intelligence insulted.

A leader Zambians chose should not be voted for because he has dished out a lot of brown envelopes, sugar, mealie meal or has bought many drums of Chibuku, but one with the vision to take the nation beyond the poverty that many of our citizens are chained to.

 

 

 

 

 

IS POLITICAL EXPERIENCE CRUCIAL?

By Gershom Ndhlovu

“Experience is the excuse of the incumbent over the ages. Experience is what they always say when they try to stop change. In 1979, James Callaghan had been Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor before he became Prime Minister. He had plenty of experience. But thank God we changed him for Margaret Thatcher.

“Just think about it: if we listened to this argument about experience, we'd never change a government, ever. We'd have Gordon Brown as Prime Minister – for ever…

“The risk is not in making a change. The risk is sticking with what you've got and expecting a different result. There is a simple truth for times like this. When you've taken the wrong road, you don't just keep going. You change direction – and that is what we need to do. So let's look at how we got here – and how we're going to get out.”

These were the words of opposition British Conservative Party David Cameron at his party’s annual conference last week and they ring true of the current Zambian campaign period in which the older candidates in the forthcoming presidential by-election, MMD’s Rupiah Banda and PF’s Michael Sata both of them in their 70s and both of whom have been on the political scene even before UPND’s Hakainde Hichilema was born, have been deriding their younger opponent as lacking experience in government.

Sata even goes farther by contemptuously referring to Hichilema or HH as he is popularly known, as an “under five”. I am not a fan of Cameron and his Conservative party, but for once, I agreed with him on the issue of experience as an excuse to block the much needed change in our situation.

For ages now, our own leaders, past and present, have referred to the youth as future leaders but one wonders when that future for the youths to take over will come. Or is it the case of those old men and women who used to say “ndise mayusi,” loosely translated as we are youths and never getting to admit they were past their sell by date?

Examples of what harm the so-called experience can do in the running of a country abound. The leader of one neighbouring country has been at the helm for close to three decades and he is not getting any younger and yet the economic and political situation that country is in a serious mess it can only take a miracle to change things.

Our very own President Kenneth Kaunda was Zambian president for 27 years in a government in which both Banda and Sata cut their teeth and where did he leave us? There were long queues for basics like Ebu, a smelly carbolic soap, pasa mulopa buns and just about anything until came along someone who did not have experience in government, Frederick Chiluba who--let us face it--changed a lot of things for the better.

May be by a miracle, our own “experienced candidates” both of whom are claiming to carry on with the late President, Levy Mwanawasa’s legacy will truly turn round the fortunes of the 80 per cent of the population leaving in poverty, something they failed to do when they had the chance. On the other hand, one would hope that the younger candidate would inject fresh blood and energy in the running of government along corporate lines which, in any case, is the norm in the globalised world.

The days of running government just for the sake of it are gone. This is the reason why we still have people in government who want to give themselves huge salaries, comparing themselves with corporate managers, but not delivering the goods to the shareholders, the citizens who also pay the taxes on which state machinery runs.

On account of age, and corporate experience, Hichilema would probably provide that magical hand that Zambia needs for now.

 

I was shocked to read about Solwezi Central Member of Parliament Benny Tetamashimba saying that he drove the most expensive GX in the country and that he could manage to buy any vehicle on earth.

If Tetamashimba was an MP for Lusaka Central, he could be excused because quite a few constituents there would afford to have bespoke Rolls Royces made for them, but that coming from an MP of Solwezi Central where few people can afford a bicycle not to talk about a Corolla, is a bit insensitive.

Just last week, a junior British minister, Tom Harris was sacked by Prime Minister Gordon Brown for an insensitive comment he made asking why the credit crunch currently affecting Britain and other western countries which has seen people lose jobs, companies closed and banks collapse, made people “so bloody miserable.”

But in Zambia, MPs and ministers can get away with it by laughing at their poor constituents who cannot afford to “slaughter” women and drink from expensive hotels or buy wheelbarrows and bicycles because they are poor. What is sickening is that for the rest of us, “kulyamo fye” is the buzzword. That is why the distribution of mealie meal and sugar to would be voters appears normal.

Principled men and women like James Lukuku are demonised for not taking advantage of the kulyamo fye culture which surprisingly, is defended by some clergymen and journalists, at least in private.

If the president, acting or substantive, cannot fire such ministers, the people themselves can fire them by not voting for them at the next election. This is the only way our public servants will show respect to us if they know that their utterances hurt us.

And talking about MPs, some MPs supporting Rupiah Banda’s candidature are arm twisting the electorate by saying that even if they vote for an opposition leader for the presidency, the MMD MPs are in majority and would make it tough for the new leader to pass laws.

In one of my earlier columns, I stated that it was possible for MPs to dissolve themselves quoting a relevant Article in the constitution, but because of their selfishness, they had no compelling reason to do so.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

By Gershom Ndhlovu

History has that nasty tendency—to repeat itself.

Thank you, James Lukuku, former New Revolutionary Party (NRP) national secretary, for “confirming” what we always suspected since the days of former President Chiluba’ attempt to go for a third term.

At that time, chiefs, churchmen, some non-governmental organisations and characters of all hues and shades would allow themselves to be assembled to the public calling for Chiluba to go for a third term.

For some of us who were unfortunate to work in state-owned newspapers, it was such a pain in the wrong place to be subjected to write stories from statements brought to newspapers from State House, sneaked in by District Administrators or brought by brazen NGO leaders, all supporting the third term.

A group of radical journalists could whisper among themselves about the possibility of money exchanging hands for people to be so paraded. Some gullible people even had the chance of being accommodated at exotic lodges such as Lilayi Lodge for a reward of a moment’s appearance on TV and their names appearing in newspapers.

The most unforgettable episode of that Third Term tragic-comedy was the 90 Pentecostal pastors bussed from Ndola to make fools of themselves by lending credence to the charade the majority of well reasoning Zambians were saying no to.

What was unfortunate at the time was the conspiracy of heads of state-owned media institutions who could alter the outlook of the next day’s paper even when it was about to go for printing if a statement came through State House or certain influential NGOs of the time supporting the third term. It was sickening!

If what Lukuku has exposed, and indeed chief government spokesman and minister of information Mike Mulongoti has admitted, that the MMD “helps” smaller parties, the nation should shudder to think about what “help” the chiefs who have joined the “Vote Rupiah Banda” chorus receive through the District Administrators who always seem to be there when the statements are made and, indeed, all others who have suddenly fallen in love with the man who shares his name with the currency of Indonesia which he used to boast about in the past.

Surely, political parties that have no money have no reason to exist if they are going to be parasites of the ruling party. Strangely enough, these opposition parties come up with all sorts of absurd statements not only against other opposition parties, but flabbergasting statements in support of the ruling party at venues that straight forward opposition leaders just dream about.

If it is alright for the MMD to support other parties through the back door, why has it always opposed suggestions by citizens to the Constitution Review Commissions that have been constituted under its watch, that government should financially support political parties particularly those with members of parliament?

If the MMD is able to dish out money like it allegedly did to the NRP recently, can someone explain if the ruling party has liquidated the huge debt it had a few years ago which resulted in one former trustee even losing his farm because he used it as collateral for the party’s debt?

May be it is time, MMD members and the nation at large demanded to see the MMD’s statement of accounts since it has been in government for 17 years now and it is therefore “public property”, to see where it gets its money from and how it spends it. This is the only way citizens will clear their minds that “ako kanono” given to someone was not from state coffers.

The country has had an opportunity to learn from the episode of the plunder of national resources for which former President Chiluba is facing court charges. The people need to be alert to be on guard against such nefarious activities by leaders.

Zambians living today should make their leaders accountable because they, themselves, will be answerable to more enlightened future generations who would question why the country they would inherit will have been left in a mess even when it was endowed with plenty of natural resources.

 The NRP case needs to be taken up by all governance institutions such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, Electoral Commission of Zambia, Human Rights Commission and related NGOs to get down to its root. Those found culpable, whoever they are, must be prosecuted in accordance with the law. My worry though is that when it is an opposition party involved, such institutions move in even swifter than lightning.

 

 

Am I surprised that Information and Broadcasting permanent secretary Emmanuel Noel Kapaipi Nyirenda has banned live phone in programmes on private radio stations? No, I am not.

Nyirenda was, under Kaunda’s regime, plucked out of the media to go and work as a diplomatic at the Zambian High Commission in London and he was recalled, he was posted to Cabinet Office were he worked as an under secretary. In 1992 he was appointed as Zambia Daily Mail managing editor until 1995 when he was transferred to the Times of Zambia in the same capacity.

Nyirenda changed the way the two newspapers reported and wrote stories to an extent where his legacy still remains, almost six years after he left the Times. Reporters always kicked off stories with a reaction from government and relegated whatever anybody said against the government to the very last paragraph or paragraphs.

Nyirenda’s reasons for banning live phone in programmes do not hold water because he knows the existence of the laws of civil and criminal libel for which whoever falls short of the same, is hauled before the courts of law and where liable, they pay damages or go to jail.

Equally, in terms of biased coverage under the electoral laws, liable media organisations are supposed to be carpeted by the Electoral Commission of Zambia which would impose whatever penalties are prescribed under that law.

QFM and other radio stations should have been subjected to the same existing laws rather than be banned by the whims and caprices of a permanent secretary who probably wants to secure himself a job in the new administration.