Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) president Leornard Hikaumba says safeguarding of personal interests is what has derailed the merger of ZCTU with the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Zambia (FFTUZ).
Mr Hikaumba said informal discussions were underway between the two unions and hoped that workers’interests would be prioritised as opposed to personal interests.
Mr Hikaumba who said this on Zambezi FM Radio in Livingstone yesterday monitored by ZANIS.
He warned that coming up with many unions would weaken the union’s voice adding that the fragmentation of unions has led to leaders dealing with each other instead of
dealing with the plight of workers and described the whole move as unfortunate.
”We in the leadership are a problem with the merger. We have however exchanged
letters and have had informal discussions and with time, I hope we shall discard
personal interests and look at interests of workers and this is the only way we will
achieve something,” he said.
Mr Hikaumba called on all Zambians to come up with a smaller number of unions.
He said many uinons have made negotiations with Government to take much longer
because Government had to negotiate with seven different unions all representing
public service workers.
Unions are just like mushrooming churches. They want money from members.
A tale from Luanshya’s Walale compound
By Bivan Saluseki
Sunday September 16, 2007 Print Article Email Article
I would love to have my children delivered in a maternity ward too, says Jean Nsamba a mother of eight children, all delivered with the help of traditional birth attendants (TBA).
Jean, 30, lives in Luanshya’s Walale compound and less than 100 metres away from her home is a clinic, while Thomson Hospital is about two kilometres away.
Her first child was born in 1992.
Jean says she cannot afford the luxury of delivering in the safety of a maternity ward helped by qualified health workers because of the charges involved.
“They charge K1,000,†she says.
Too little, you might think.
But Jean says she cannot afford to buy items such as napkins, baby powder, gels and other items, which the nurses demand.
“We need money to access them. I have eight children now and all of them have never been born in hospital. I have never used a maternity ward. These children have never seen even an inside of a maternity ward,†she says. “Most of us here stay home. We are helped by traditional birth attendants from the village here. They don’t charge us. They just help us deliver. We depend on their generosity.
“I have never entered the inside of a maternity ward. I hear about the wards but I don’t even know how they look. I cannot afford to give birth in a hospital because I need money for my other children. They need to survive. I am poor. There is nothing I can do.â€
Jean says she will continue producing children because she is obliged to do so as a woman.
“After delivery I just take the children for immunisation, otherwise birth takes place in our homes. At times the health workers ask. They want to know why we do not go to maternity wards and we tell them we don’t have money. We thank the traditional birth attendants for helping us. Without them, we would not even have these children. We call them in the night,†she says.
Jean says her eighth-born, who is 15 days old today, is lucky to be alive.
Monica Chileshe and Lenandeta Musheshi are some of the women that have been helping other women deliver safely and they know the story of what happens during delivery.
“We have no lights. No candles, no paraffin. We just lit pieces of paper. One person held the burning paper while I carried on with the delivery,†says Monica.
Tired but not retired, Monica admits that at times there are complications.
“Mostly we manage. We don’t know whether it’s by divine intervention or what but we manage. But if we have a serious complication we take them to the hospital by force,†she says.
“You see, you can know a pregnancy that can have complications. If it’s very big and round, then you know that person has to deliver from a hospital. It’s a dangerous one. Now delivery at hospital becomes a problem for us.
The person has no money and baby wear, which are demanded by government health workers. In villages we just cut chitenge wrappers, which are used as diapers. In town I understand you even buy disposable ones in Poshrite (Shoprite), which you throw after the baby, has soiled them. Here we wash and wash until the baby begins using the toilet on his own.â€
Monica says at times the TBAs ask the same women to provide two gloves.
“If she doesn’t have, then we take it upon ourselves to buy. Government at times gives us gloves but they are of poor quality. I sometimes buy and sell them to the same woman who is about to deliver. Some of these women fail to prepare adequately for their babies. They can’t even prepare candles. If it happens at night, we suffer because now we traditional birth attendants have to look for candles. If there are no candles, we use papers, burn them as we help the woman deliver,†she says.
Monica has seven children, all born in maternity wards.
She however, laments the costs involved in delivering in hospitals.
Monica says people are scared to go to the hospitals and clinics even for ordinary ailments.
“The painkillers we are given free but the other medicine, we have to buy. Registering is K1,000 also. That is a lot of money for a poor person who is sick. If you don’t have K1,000, you cannot be given a card. They will chase you. Even the book, you have to buy it yourself. If you don’t have, you will still be chased. That is the end of you,†says Monica.
Being born is one thing, for the youths of Walale, having a bright future is another.
“They pass but do not proceed to Grade 12. They stay at home because of lack of money to pay for school,†she says.
Monica says the local people in Walale survive on doing some work in Luanshya town.
“At school we are told to pay K20,000 for our children but it’s too much for us. At hospital, you are sick and need K1,000. Then they give you a prescription and you have to buy. What kind of life is this?†she complains.
“The water is contaminated. We have to buy chlorine, which is expensive. It’s only God who looks after us. When we had the mine, most of these youths were employed but now they just roam the streets and drink beer. This is a hive of thieves.â€
Monica says most of the youths of Walale go to Luanshya town to wash vehicles while the young girls are married off at a very tender age.
“Our children are getting married because they need money. There is nothing we are doing. Some are even getting diseases out of it,†she says.
“You think these children are dull? No, it’s only that they do not have money,†she says angrily.
Monica says sickness and funerals are expensive for them.
“We can’t afford to go to Thomson Hospital. If someone is sick, we borrow a wheelbarrow and we are lucky if we get a bicycle. At times we are even lucky if an ambulance is dispatched from Thomson Hospital but it’s rare and even then we have to pay. If there is no money, people just die in their homes,†she explains. “When people die, the hearse is too expensive for us.
It’s K20,000. And burial is also expensive. There is a graveyard for the rich and one for the poor. We just use a hammock for carrying the corpse. We usually carry the bodies at night in a sack. At the other graveyard for those who can afford, the council charges K200,000. For us we bury in Walale.â€
Monica says she is not very worried about the charges for her own burial because if she died she would after all not be there to bear the cost.
For now she has a word for the politicians.
“The politicians are always here telling us lies. They promised to bring beds in the clinic but they have not done so. They promised electricity but there is nothing at the school and the small clinic. We also need to go for night school. We deserve to live,†says Monica.
Lenandeta Musheshi, who once stayed in Botswana, scans the sky for a few seconds, seemingly overcome by anger and opts to remain silent.
Pan Africanism and the Zimbabwe crisis
Pambazuka News
Why all Africans must stand up for universal equality, human rights
and social justice
Rotimi Sankore
First, a statement of principles; Every African is obliged to stand
up for equality, democracy, human rights and social justice – not
just for ourselves as individuals or only in our villages, cities,
countries and regions – but for all Africans across Africa regardless
of gender, ethnicity, race, political or religious beliefs. These
must be the bedrock of genuine Pan-Africanism. All of Africa’s anti
slavery, anti colonial and liberation struggles regardless of their
shortcomings [and yes they had shortcomings] were based on these very
principles and the concept of an Africa United for social and
economic development is nothing but empty rhetoric if it is not based
on them.
Consequently for any body genuinely concerned about the future of
Africa there can be no politics of convenience. To be sure, the
Zimbabwean crisis is not the only crisis in Africa, and this writer
believes that all African’s must engage any crisis that endangers the
social and economic development of Africa on the basis of the above
stated principles – be it in Darfur, DRC – or Zimbabwe.
However, the Zimbabwean crisis is arguably the only ongoing crisis in
which one side (the incumbent government) and its supporters have
mobilised African support and silenced many by asserting more or less
that its critics are sympathisers, supporters or agents of foreign
interests and former colonial masters. This has wrongly narrowed the
framework of the debate on the Zimbabwean crisis into an
oversimplified context of African nationalism and anti colonialism
versus imperialism and colonialism. If the name of Africa is being
invoked in justification of government policy then Africans must have
a position on it. As we sometimes say, you can’t call on your people,
and not expect your people to call on you.
The above in turn underlines an outstanding feature of the crisis –
that the current Zimbabwean government is based on the country’s
liberation movement – which was supported by the majority of
Africans, people of African descent and anti colonialists universally
against the undemocratic minority white Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith
and its supporters. The Zimbabwean government has re-mobilised this
historical support by positioning itself as continuing the liberation
struggle to “reclaim our land”.
By framing issues in terms of: Are you for land reform or not? Are
you for or against white farmers? Are you for or against colonialism?
Are you for Africans or the colonialists? President Mugabe has posed
in a more sophisticated way; the rhetorical statement so crudely
articulated by George Bush that it eventually backfired – “you are
either with us or with the enemy”.
Such “you are with us, or with the enemy” rhetoric regardless of the
cause which claims to serve, its sophistication or crudeness is
dangerous to human rights, to social justice and ultimately to
Africa’s development because it suggests that anything can be done in
the name of defending ‘us’ against the alleged ‘enemy’ or even worse,
that anything can be done to alleged ‘enemies’ in the name of
defending ‘us’. It also suggests that no wrong can be done in the
name of fighting the alleged ‘enemy’ and ultimately that anything but
unquestioning loyalty is betrayal.
The continuously evolving logic of such rhetoric is that the
definition of enemy is elastic and ‘they’ [but not the government]
can be held responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong.
Any acceptance of such a political philosophy by either African
citizens or leaders will stagnate intellectual progress in all fields
and place Africa in a state of permanent backwardness.
We must make no mistake about it – all of human progress – in
science, technology, the social sciences and politics, philosophy and
the arts – is based on challenging and improving the status quo or
building on previous ‘standards’. Put simply, all of human progress
is based on rigorous examination of existing conventional wisdoms and
on dissent. Every African and in this case every Zimbabwean must
therefore have, and exercise the rights to freedom of opinion,
expression, association and assembly without fear of, or actually
being beaten senseless, incarcerated or killed. A situation in which
people face potential sanctions for not toeing the official line –
are assaulted by ‘law enforcement’ agents merely for singing and
dancing [to anti government songs], women are detained for peaceful
protests, passports are seized and lawyers are beaten for
representing clients is absolutely unacceptable. If it was wrong for
minority white regimes to have such policy and practice, it is even
more wrong for a black majority government based on a liberation
movement to do the same.
Africans cannot accept any policies from people on whose behalf we
protested when the same treatment was meted out to them. All Africans
must therefore stand firm against any idea that being in ‘opposition’
means people are not human, or that they are human but don’t have
human rights. It’s a question of principle. All political parties
must be aware of the possibility that they will not always be in
power – including ZANU-PF. Then they will expect their rights to be
defended.
If the state of social and economic development is a key indicator of
the state of affairs in a country, a no less important indicator lies
in the possibility that all citizens can criticise their government
and its policies, offer alternate opinions and ultimately change
their government by civil means if that is the wish of the majority.
No government – not even the governments of or leaders of liberation
movements can arrogate to themselves perpetual wisdom and power.
People can debate indefinitely whether or not the Zimbabwean crisis
is as a result of poor government policies, or has been provoked by
sanctions and dirty tricks campaigns by ‘colonialists’ or both. What
there is no debate about is that there is a political crisis linked
to the apparently indefinite stay in power of President Mugabe. There
is absolutely nothing anti Mugabe about anyone wondering if after 20
years as President another Zimbabwean out of its over 12 million
citizens – whether from his party or any opposition party – cannot be
elected to lead the country.
In Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and other
countries leaders of liberation or anti-colonial movement governments
have stepped down and are still living – Mandela, Kaunda, Chissano,
Nujoma, Mkapa and the list is growing. In Ghana and Zambia where the
last African Union and SADC summits respectively held and the Mugabe
government made it a point to mobilise its supporters there have been
successful changes of the party of government in 2000 and 1991
respectively without the roof caving in on those countries. 20 years
is enough for any President to make contributions to the progress of
his or her country. Nobody needs foreign governments to tell us that.
On the whole African democracy is not perfect but on the balance it
is heading in the right direction. Zimbabwe cannot be an exception to
this progressive trend.
The African Union under the stewardship of Chairperson Konaré
(himself a former leader of Mali that also led by example) has come a
long way from the OAU and it must underline this point. It is a sign
of progress that the AU leadership and many member governments have
so far agreed with African rights campaigners that leaders of
countries with unresolved rights and governance issues cannot Chair
the AU unlike the days when even the worst of despots like Idi Amin
could Chair the former OAU with impunity. The AU and SADC must
continue in the spirit of the AU constitutive Acts, SADC Declaration
and other key principles and discourage the idea that African leaders
must stay in power indefinitely so as to avoid defeat by
colonialists. The colonialists have essentially been defeated. That
is why the country is called Zimbabwe not Rhodesia, and President
Mugabe not Ian Smith has been President for 20 years.
Yes some foreign interests will continue to meddle in Africa, whether
directly or through proxies – this happens in almost all parts of the
world. But the future of Africa is now in the hands of Africans. Our
governments can therefore not adopt the same repressive policies of
the colonialists in the name of continuing the fight against them. It
is important to emphasise that democracy is imperfect universally and
also that the pendulum of power often swings from one end to the
other between ideologies, parties, and factions within parties.
Parties also evolve and change and what they stand for today may not
be what they stood for yesterday or will stand for tomorrow. For
example, the world watched in disbelief during the 2000 Bush versus
Gore election fiasco in the United States which were it to have
happened in Africa under the same circumstances would have been
described as “typically African”.
In the spirit of parliamentary democracy with no term limits, former
Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher whom presided over the last
days of the Rhodesian regime and whom regarded the ANC in South
Africa as a ‘terrorists’ was tempted to go on indefinitely after 11
years as UK Prime Minister until hounded out in tears by anti poll
tax mass protests and her own party. Most recently former Labour
leader Tony Blair under pressure from his own party and the public
barely managed to negotiate a dignified exit after 10 years in office.
In Latin America where some governments would consider themselves as
liberation type governments, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas for
instance lost elections in 1990 to openly foreign backed Contra’s
after coming to power in 1979 on the back of a popular rebellion that
overthrew the Somoza dynasty. By the 2006 the Sandinistas had been
voted back into power. How may people looking at US politics today
would realise that founders of the Republican party in 1854 included
anti-slavery activists and that the Democrats now heavily supported
by African Americans once benefited handsomely from slave owners. The
point here is that majority of African countries have been
independent for only between 13 and 50 years and Africans must take a
longer-term view of political history.
If despite obviously democratic imperfections many African and non
African countries have managed to change leaders and parties of
governments without the world coming to an end, there is no reason
why it is impossible for Zimbabwe to have a future without President
Mugabe in power, or for President Mugabe to live without being in
power. Even Ian Smith leader of the Rhodesian government that
committed countless atrocities against Africans and swore that Black
majority rule would never happen has lived in post colonial Zimbabwe
– and is now a grand old man of 88.
There is nothing personal about upholding democracy; the interests of
the citizens of a country must always come before that of the
leadership of any government. The above underlines the fact that
people can also debate without end about whether the Zimbabwean
economy is collapsing, has already collapsed, or will never collapse.
The fact is that an estimated three million [undoubtedly very Black]
Zimbabweans have fled the country with many living as refugees in
neighbouring countries. They must be running from something. We now
face the debacle of armed racist farmers on the South African
Zimbabwe border fulfilling their racist fantasy by being presented
with opportunities to hunt down and round up Zimbabweans fleeing
across the border in the name of defending South Africa from invading
“illegal foreign criminals”. Even if the present Zimbabwean
government claims it bears absolutely no responsibility and that
drought, withdrawal of credit lines, sanctions or even the cycle of
boom and bust that has caused recessions even in advanced industrial
economies is responsible for the economic misery, the fact is that it
is almost impossible to offer alternatives without being “bashed”.
No one but the government can be blamed for the rash of legislation
that has no other role than to contain, intimidate or suppress
criticism and peaceful opposition. The laws and policies speak for
themselves “Public Order and Security Act”, “Interception of
Communications Act” and so forth. How many people demanding
uncritical loyalty for the Zimbabwean government would happily live
under laws which its just a question of a matter of time before
anyone becomes an arbitrarily victim. It makes no difference if the
foot in the boot kicking you and your rights into a dungeon is Black
or White. A kick is a kick.
‘Sanctions’ cannot be blamed for everything. By way of comparison
Cuba a country of similar population and even greater anti-
imperialist zeal has faced well-documented and comprehensive
blockades, sanctions and invasions [not to mention numerous
assassination attempts against its leadership] by “foreign interests”
over a greater 40-year period and on a scale far surpassing anything
Zimbabwe will ever experience. Despite obvious democratic deficits,
the Cuban government has won grudging admiration of even its critics
because healthy life expectancy in Cuba – at 67 and 70 years
respectively for men and women respectively – has risen and been
sustained at a level equivalent to and in some cases higher than in
the most advanced industrial countries. In Zimbabwe current healthy
life expectancy has sunk to 34 years and 33 years respectively for
men and women, also making Zimbabwe one of the countries in the world
where men are expected to live longer than women.
This is not an endorsement of any section of, or all of the
opposition, or even of hypocritical foreign policy from some
countries – but rather of the right of all citizens including the
political opposition to exist without fear of repression. Just as we
know that being a liberation fighter does not guarantee that anyone
will be the best possible leader in government, we all know that
being an ‘opposition’ movement or leader is not a guarantee that
anybody will do better than those they seek to replace. Regardless,
one of the indisputable conditions for the development of Africa is
that the principles and culture of democracy must be
institutionalised. No one should insult the memory of countless
Africans murdered by colonial settlers to facilitate stealing of
their land by suggesting repressive laws are necessary to implement
or defend land reform. Without doubt land reform is a necessary part
of social justice for Africans, but it must be judicious, equitable
and transparent land reform based on respect for human rights and the
rule of law – not land reform used as a political cudgel to ‘bash’
all critical voices.
I have heard some people argue that the ‘enemies’ of Africa now
crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with such
luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale slavery,
colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its peoples. In
other words, that ‘white farmers’ deserve some of their own medicine.
Not only does such thinking reduce African’s to the moral bankruptcy
of colonialists, it also fails to understand that it risks granting
unlimited and indefinite power to Africa’s actual and imaginary
liberators such that we may all end up be shackled by them. Africa’s
liberation movements drew their moral strength from the fact that on
the balance, they fought for social justice, human rights, equality
and democracy – for all – not for card-carrying members of ruling
parties.
The philosophical algebra of this equation is that there should be no
expectations that these principles can be discarded as inconvenient
while still counting on the unwavering support of all Africans.
Africans must therefore unite for social justice and human rights
across Africa – including in Zimbabwe. Some people also think that
because of either real or imagined ‘western’ hypocrisy we must always
give unconditional loyalty to the Mugabe or any government that
claims to be defending Africa against ‘imperialism’.
The hypocrisy may be real but our primary concern must be the welfare
of Africans, not whether President Bush as part of his politics of
convenience – supports the Musharraf military regime in Pakistan
which was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1999 for overthrowing an
elected government (while simultaneously passing the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Act), or even whether some of the western
media engage in ‘colonial mentality’ reporting which fulfils negative
stereotypes of Africa. Our health care system, education, food and
overall social justice and development must come first. It is
impossible to build on development achievements if everyone must
agree with official policy. Regardless of party affiliation nobody’s
stomach is neutral on the question of hunger. No disease asks for
your party card.
While all Africans with any dignity must remain firmly anti-colonial
and anti-racist, we must also view with scepticism any blanket anti-
western and anti-white rhetoric. Not withstanding that some foreign
governments described the ANC and other liberation movements as
“communists” and “terrorists” or both, while simultaneously
supporting bandit governments such as the Mobutu regime, Africa’s
anti colonial and liberation movements were supported by millions
across the world including from the West. Even some governments such
as the Swedish were proud supporters of liberation movements and post
independence governments long before it became fashionable to do so.
President Mugabe is a former teacher and one of Africa’s most
educated and experienced leaders. After over 2 decades in power, he
does not really need anyone to tell him that it is not only possible
to be in office without being in power; it is also possible to be in
power without moral authority. Once any leader anywhere gets to that
point it is irrelevant what you claim to stand for. What will become
relevant is that you did not stand down when you should have done so
– of your own free will – and in the best interests of your people.
*Sankore is a Pan-Africanist and Human Rights Campaigner.
Please read the interesting article above. It would really be good for those who see Mugabe through the lens of 17 degrees, as though they matter!
Had the founding values of Oasis Forum been observed, the Oasis Forum would have avoided this costly move of being labeled fronts of Chiluba, Sata and Miyanda. This is very bad propaganda if properly managed is bound to kill the oasis Forum. Zambians know what the trio did to the Mwanakatwe draft Constitution and their machination to rape the constitution for an illegal third term.
CHILUBA, SATA, MIYANDA ACCUSED OF BACKING OASIS
By ANGELA CHISHIMBA
FORMER President, Frederick Chiluba, has been accused of forming an alliance with the Oasis Forum to advance his alleged hatred for President Mwanawasa in the constitution-making process.
But Dr Chiluba has described the attacks on him as baseless, unfounded and unwarranted.
Minister of Justice, George Kunda, has also accused Heritage Party president, Godfrey Miyanda, and his Patriotic Front (PF) counterpart, Michael Sata, of participating in the scheme.
“How do you explain the new alliance between the Oasis Forum and people like former President Dr Chiluba, General Godfrey Miyanda and Mr Sata,†he asked.
Mr Kunda said the three were allegedly the main architects of the problems the country was facing in the constitution-making process.
“Why should the Oasis Forum form an alliance with Dr Chiluba? The Oasis was conceived to fight Dr Chiluba’s machinations to go for an unconstitutional third term,†he said.
But Dr Chiluba said in his response that Mr Kunda’s attacks were baseless.
He said this through his spokesperson, Emmanuel Mwamba, who also said Dr Chiluba would issue a detailed reaction later.
Mr Kunda was also astonished that former Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) president, William Mweemba was allegedly still leading the association after the last LAZ annual general meeting when he did not seek re-election.
He wondered why Mr Mweemba was still using LAZ to allegedly pursue his own personal political agenda.
“In my assessment, Mr Mweemba can join any group which has hatred against President Mwanawasa and Government.
He has so much hatred against the current Government and some individuals in Government.
It is clear from this that the constitution review process is now being used as a political agenda to undermine the New Deal government,†he said.
But Mr Mweemba said he was representing LAZ as member of the committee on law reform and research when he spoke at the consultative meeting.
He denied having a political agenda and that if he wanted to be a politician, he would have joined a political party.
Mr Mweemba said when LAZ was asked to comment on the NCC Bill, it was his committee and the association’s constitution review committee that formulated a position.
“Even when we submitted our comments, I went with the LAZ president, Elijah Banda.
I don’t head LAZ anymore,†he said.
And Mr Kunda said South Africa-based lecturer, Professor Michelo Hansungule, misled the public by reading the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) Bill presented to Parliament and not the Act.
He said he was disappointed that Prof Hansungule was not aware that the Bill had been amended to remove the power of the President to appoint members and the chairperson of the conference.
“Professor Hansungule has been on the loose for a long time and his crusade of misleading Zambians on political issues has continued unchecked.
This must now come to an end,†he said.
Mr Kunda accused Prof Hansungule of making generalised political statements without reference to specific legal provisions in the NCC Act and the constitution.
“The constitution review process should be about improving the constitution and not undermining President Mwanawasa and the current Government.
In future, statements from Professor Hansungule will not go unchecked.
And Mr Kunda asked members of the Oasis Forum to read the report and the recommendations of the CRC.
He was referring to an incident where only a few members of the Forum indicated that they had read the contents of the CRC report.
This was during a presentation made by Mr Mweemba.
“Perhaps this explains why some people are resisting going to the constitutional conference.
They would rather continue repeating the same monotonous arguments advanced over the years on the adoption process,†Mr Kunda said.
And Mr Kunda said it was important to debate the contents of the CRC report as some aspects of the draft constitution reflected the commissioners’ own views and not necessarily those of the people.
“The question is: why should a document prepared by 40 commissioners be superior to the wisdom of over 450 NCC members,†Mr Kunda said.
BOYCOTT NCC AT OWN PERIL
By ANGELA CHISHIMBA
ELIGIBLE civil society organisations planning to boycott the sitting of the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) will do so at their own peril, Minister of Justice, George Kunda, said yesterday.
Mr Kunda said in Lusaka that Government would go ahead with the constitution-making process and has since intensified preparations for the sitting of the NCC.
He was speaking at a press briefing, which was also addressed by Minister of Lands, Bradford Machila.
“Government shall not allow a situation where persons not interested in having a new constitution hold the public to ransom and we shall proceed to enforce the law as it is and not as some people would like it to be.
“The position of Government is that the National Constitution Conference Act No. 19 of 2007 as enacted by Parliament will be implemented to the full.
This Act is the only lawful basis for the structure, composition and function of the conference,†Mr Kunda said.
He said the process of appointing members of the conference would start next week.
Mr Kunda also said Government’s constitution review process implementation committee was working on a sensitisation programme aimed at creating public awareness on the conference.
He said the idea was to ensure that members of the public, including those in rural areas, were fully informed about the conference.
Mr Kunda said information on the process would be disseminated in English and some local languages.
He said Government would not accept arguments being advanced by some interest groups that the composition of the conference was unfair.
Mr Kunda said in fact, the composition was far much better and fairer than that recommended by the Wila Mung’omba Constitutional Review Commission (CRC).
“For example, we have removed the CRC recommendation which suggested that the President should appoint 10 eminent persons because of the insinuations that the President already enjoyed too much power.
“It is therefore surprising that the same people, for example, the Oasis Forum, who advocate the reduction of presidential powers should be the same people now insisting on the unfettered implementation of the CRC recommendations,†he said.
Mr Kunda accused the Oasis Forum of advocating an increase in the number of politicians.
“The CRC also recommended the holding of elections in all the 72 districts to elect delegates to the conference, but that the Forum made representations to Government not to follow that but instead include councillors, who were politicians, to be part of the conference,†he said.
Mr Kunda said Government conceded to this suggestion and included one councillor from each district.
“Again to our astonishment, the Oasis Forum has turned around and demanded the full implementation of the CRC report arguing that there are too many politicians.
This shifting of goal posts at each and every turn is confusing the public,†he said.
Mr Kunda said stakeholders made submissions to the parliamentary committee, which dealt with the NCC bill, and that Government included more than 90 per cent of the suggestions.
“As is usually the case, the Oasis Forum has continued to raise new issues even after the enactment of the bill with a view of sabotaging the process,†he said.
And Mr Kunda said Government could not allow all the Wila Mung’omba CRC de-commissioned members to be part of the NCC because it wanted to give chance to other Zambians to participate in the constitution-making process.
And Mr Machila said the country risked having a new constitution after the 2011 elections if a few individuals were allowed to continue misleading Zambians.
“This process will go ahead with or without those who intend to boycott the NCC,†he said.
Mr Machila also said those wishing to take the matter to court were free to do so, as Government had enough capacity to deal with the court process.