Friday, March 29, 2024

The final draft constitution cannot be a consensus document – PF

Share

Sunday Chanda
Sunday Chanda

PF Vice chairperson for media and publicity has said the final draft constitution cannot be said to be a consensus document in its current form and shape.He said it is clear that the Grand Coalition and its political sponsors seek to play to the gallery regarding Article 296.This is in reaction to the Grand Coalitions condemnation of the proposal by President Lungu to unilaterally alter the contents of the draft constitution by deleting Article 296 of the final draft constitution.

Mr.Chanda said it is clear that the Grand Coalition and its political sponsors seek to play to the gallery regarding this particular clause, when they know too well that the final draft constitution cannot be said to be a consensus document in its current form and shape. He said this is also confirmed by the rejection of Article 296 by their royal highnesses from all corners of the country, giving more credence to the continued call for the focus of the Constitution-making process debate to be more on the contents as opposed to the peripheral issues the Grand Coalition and their political sponsors wish to stick to.

Mr.Chanda said Article 296 has a direct bearing on the royal highnesses and not the Grand Coalition and their political sponsors.He said PF does not need to remind the Grand Coalition that the Constitution making process is a consensus building process and not an opportunity for insisting and pushing particular clauses such as the contentious Article 296 down the throats of their royal highnesses when they have rejected it. Mr.Chanda said the royal highnesses have spoken unequivocally and unanimously that they have rejected Article 296 and that is the position the Head of State reaffirmed in listening to them. If the people have spoken as they have on a matter, who are the Grand Coalition to demand otherwise?

Below is the full press release

GRAND COALITION WISHES TO PUSH CLAUSE 296 DOWN THEIR ROYAL HIGHNESSES THROATS – STATEMENT BY SUNDAY CHANDA, VICE CHAIRPERSON, PF MEDIA AND PUBLICITY COMMITTEE

Lusaka, Zambia, 03 June, 2015 – His Excellency President Edgar Chagwa Lungu is a listening President as evidenced by the number of Traditional Rulers he has engaged in the four (4) months he has been Head of State. In the context of Article 296 of the final draft constitution, the President has heard, listened and further understood the misgivings by their royal highnesses in his continued engagements with them. Article 296 has a direct bearing on their royal highnesses and not the Grand Coalition and their political sponsors.

On the same score, it is clear for all to see that the Grand Coalition on the Constitution and its political sponsors are not being candid enough when they elect to misunderstand the spirit and context in which His Excellency President Edgar Chagwa Lungu spoke on the matter. It is therefore a distortion of facts for Grand Coalition and its political sponsors to allege that President Lungu had unilaterally dropped the land clause from the final draft constitution. If we may ask, under which provision of law did the President make that unilateral decision to drop clause 296?

It is clear that the Grand Coalition and its political sponsors seek to play to the gallery regarding this particular clause, when they know too well that the final draft constitution cannot be said to be a consensus document in its current form and shape. This is also confirmed by the rejection of Article 296 by their royal highnesses from all corners of the country, giving more credence to our continued call for the focus of the Constitution-making process debate to be more on the contents as opposed to the peripheral issues the Grand Coalition and their political sponsors wish to stick to.

PF does not need to remind the Grand Coalition that the Constitution making process is a consensus building process and not an opportunity for insisting and pushing particular clauses such as the contentious Article 296 down the throats of their royal highnesses when they have rejected it. Their royal highnesses have spoken unequivocally and unanimously that they have rejected Article 296 and that is the position the Head of State reaffirmed in listening to them. If the people have spoken as they have on a matter, who are the Grand Coalition to demand otherwise? The Grand Coalition promised to consult their royal highnesses regarding Article 296 and we call on them to report back on their findings and resolutions, otherwise they should not muzzle the Chiefs when they speak clearly on a matter that directly concerns them. We challenge the Grand Coalition to go out and reach the chiefs and persuade them to change their stance regarding Article 296 of the Final Draft Constitution and we will be waiting to hear their report.

Lastly, His Excellency President Lungu remains committed to protecting the tenets of democracy and the voices of the people, in this particular instance, the voice of their royal highnesses because “vox populi vox Dei” (the voice of the people is the voice of God). In this regard, the PF in Government discerns the sanctity of the constitution-making process as a duty it shall not take lightly. PF under the leadership of President Lungu shall deliver on the Constitution as promised.

19 COMMENTS

  1. Ba Chanda, that is what the document should be. The gallery is exactly who the majority of the stakeholders are sitting. The concern is that no one party, not PF, not UPND, not MMD, not FDD, not Muliokela, not the Presidency, not the Royal Highness but all Zambians acting together must give birth to the new constitution. What is so difficult here to understand?

    • @Misango yaba…, we all understand everything you have said. But what many of us don’t get is the motives of the Grand Coalition on these matters. For them to make it look and sound as though the President, Edgar Lungu, just woke up one day and decided to drop clause 296 is MISLEADING. Quoting the President out of context and try to create a political storm out of nothing helps no one. It is called a “DRAFT” for a reason. It means this ain’t the FINAL DOCUMENT never to be tempered with.

      The Grand Coalition is being disingenuous by quoting out of context other interested parties in this process. The DRAFT is out so people (Chiefs & the President included) can COMMENT on it. And tweak it where necessary in order to reach a consensus. Nothing WRONG or SINISTER about that!

    • They all know what’s right but they would rather do the wrong thing for short term interest. They think with their bellies. They know that the constitution making process has cost a lot of money over the 50 plus years. They can squander this chance and once an party comes into power will advocate for a new constitution with the help of the donor community. When donors come in the same chaps will come together make money out of the process and billions will be wasted but no constitution. Its time the donors came to our aid to push for a referendum to adopt the constitution instead of leaving it to the corrupt leadership to determine the adoption process. They can’t tell us there is no money and time. They promised a referendum in fact in 90 days for that matter.

    • It is the same as an issue concerning spiritualism. Would you not want to take the views of faith-based institutions into consideration? It affects them directly. If an issue concerns women, will you not attentively consider the voice of the women or you will decide to ignore them. How can you decide to ignore the concerns of the chiefs, are they not Zambians?

      This is what Chanda is saying. The Grand Coalition is deliberately misguiding the people simply because they are a UPND wing UPND and HH card under their sleeve. Unfortunately, we can their card. They will fail like the cartel.

      Clearly, Chanda has explained and you elect to bury your head in the sand to the facts. What is problem, is it the content or the process? UPND and its GC are looking at the process. We want the…

  2. Chanda is correct. We need consensus on the final draft constitution contents. Grand Coalition wants to behave as though the document was cast in stone. Chiefs have rejected a particular clause and that is what the President was speaking to. Thanks Chanda for saying it as it should be!!!!

    • Mr. Kachema, what Mr. Chanda is talking about seems to be as if the Grand Coalition has rejected the input from the chiefs. A deeper look at what the Grand Coalition is saying makes sense. The chiefs are like MPs representing their subjects. The chiefs are expressing what they want not what their subjects want. Some of the chiefs can be as corrupt as some corrupt ministers. Some of the chiefs would like to have excessive power like our president in order to achieve corruption at the highest level. That’s why the govn facilitated the gathering of information from individuals across the country rather than from MPs and chiefs. Hence, referendum is the way to go. Just because I voted for President Lungu does not means I should say yes to any garbage nor not support the Grand when on track

  3. That is why people are calling for the enactment of the new constitution via a national referendum not unilateral decisions. If the chiefs have rejected it let them prove through a national referendum. Period!

    • @Lecarg: Please understand that a Constitution is NOT a single issue document. When a constitution making process is subjected to a referendum, it does not mean that people will be voting for individual clauses in the Constitution—a REFERENDUM in this context is only for ADOPTION PURPOSES, thats it! And not for voting “up” or “down” individual clauses (e.g. 296) in the constitution.

      Which means these clauses better be RIGHTED or tweaked before subjecting the DRAFT CONSTITUTION to a referendum for adoption. And this is what THEIR HIGHNESSES and the President are trying to do. Hope you yourself is fully engaged in this process to make your opinion heard or count. Because these people (Chiefs) some of you are fond of calling uneducated and dull are doing just that!

  4. But how do you take a document that has no consensus into a referendum? There are so many things Zambians have not agreed on currently in the draft. In a referendum people do not vote for articles or clauses but the constitution as a whole. If you take a raw document with controversial clauses, it will be short down and we would have lost an opportunity to have a constitution as a country, besides the cost. Secondly, there is no guarantee that a referendum will vote YES to a new constitution. Thirdly, 50% of all eligible voters must vote for a referendum to hold. We have not dealt with issues of voter apathy. Fourthly, we are not discussing the new things imported in the constitution which don’t exist in the current constitution. Lets debate content!!!!

  5. After the national conference at Mulungushi, the technical committee went and drafted submissions as they understood them. The final draft constitution must be taken to a validation conference to agree on contents before it goes to the referendum. Grand Coalition is just excited! Who do they represent anyway????

  6. Yes sunday chanda but not from your view point.all groups who are currently taking advantage of loopholes in the constitution will fight the clauses they dim reduces their powers such groups are pf,chiefs and some few individuals who are enriching themselves.so to overcome these hurdles its wise to take the referedum path.its a wrong perspection that they will be voter aparthy,bcz zambians will vote not for a party but a core issue ,on the other hand if the referedum is held same time in 2016 then expect shortfalls bcz pipo will vote on party lines.

  7. What does the article/clause of the constitution chanda is talking about say…?

    The constitution is sacred document and it has never been from time immemorial universally accepted by all it rules/govern upon, even in countries of the developed north (western world) not every citizen agrees with some of the articles/clauses enshrined in their constitution.
    I am tired of indaba after indaba at the expense of the majority poor Zambians … Since Chiluba’s Regime imwe sure.
    Please Zambia pass this constitution and let our children, childrens change clauses that won’t fit their time in 100 years time.

    • @Mr Soko: I agree with you. Zambians labour under the fallacy of the Constitution being able to stand the test of time. There’s no such thing! The Constitution should suit the citizens who have to live under it. That’s why there are amendments. For example, the American one was crafted by men who were slave owners and traders 300 years ago but amendments, mainly in the 1960s, have corrected the abuse of Rights of black people.

  8. Careful we Zambians we seems to be braid where are we going,we must open up our mind set,we have eyes,but we can’t see.let’s come together & have one head,for the better Mother Zambia

  9. It is only PF that is playing to the gallery because it is taking advantage of its so called Royal Highnesses concern on the land issue. But one thing to realise is who are the Royal Highnesses in the absence of the common people. Aren,t they the same Royal Highnesses who are busy selling pieces of Their so called Land to the Foreigners. The current way article 296 is needed to remain because it was the body of contetion by the common people that the Royal Highnesses had too much powers on these Lands falling within their jurisdictions. The common people , if anything have suffered on the hands of these Royal Highnesses because they have not been very responsible in the way they handled issue on land insuance to their subjects. We need people to be getting titles for these lands.

  10. The so called Royal Highnesses are very, very corrupt in the way they give land to their subjects. They favour foreigners who give them something in return. Royal Highnesses have been very irresponsible on these lands, because they would just wake up one morning and tell any of their subjects; CAN YOU VACATE THIS LAND. What the close (296) in the new constitution demands is that the subjects of these Royal Highnesses should be able to obtain Title deeds as a way of protecting them from these unprogressive Royal Highnesses. Common people have failed to make meanigful investments on the pieces of land they occupy because they are not very sure what the Royal Highness may think tomorrow. Subjects are not protected in anyway. I am pleading with the president never give Rh too much lee way.

  11. The concerns of traditional rulers are also genuine and legitimate. Even some non Christians are also expressing their own reservations about the Christian Nation clause. However, the starting point ought to be acceptance of President as custodian of the land in the territory. Any challenge to the starting point must follow amendment procedures as laid down in the Constitution. How can the Draft Constitution as a general expression of common governance principles be manipulatedover and over again? There is no need to worship traditional rulers in a democratic republic. Referundum now or never.

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

Discover more from Lusaka Times-Zambia's Leading Online News Site - LusakaTimes.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading