Thursday, March 28, 2024

Zambia’s parentage clause is undemocratic and needs revision

Share

Dr Guy Scott Acting President of Zambia with Madam Dr Charotte Scott on tour of Kasenga School in Luapula Province- Picture by Eddie Mwanaleza/Statehouse 14-01-2015.
Dr Guy Scott Acting President of Zambia with Madam Dr Charotte Scott on tour of Kasenga School in Luapula Province- Picture by Eddie Mwanaleza/Statehouse 14-01-2015.

United Party for National Development (UPND) Kaombwe constituency aspiring candidate Martha Mulenga has urged Government to with immediate effect revise the parentage clause because it is currently undemocratic in a country like Zambia.

In an interview with Pan African Radio staffer Hermit Hachilonde, Ms. Mulenga whose parents originally came from Malawi but renounced their Malawian citizenship stated that the “parentage clause“ is only retrogressive and inimical to the country’s democratic dispensation.

Ms. Mulenga said the controversial clauses only limit the leadership chances of the people with potential to expedite national development by denying them an opportunity to positively contribute to Zambia’s development agenda.

She added that the clauses under article 100 of the constitution are an affront to democracy and do not make sense, hence the need to reverse them to that of the UNIP Government.

“Yes I have told you that my parents were from Malawi, but they denounced their malawianship, they are now Zambians by registration, and I will equally urge Government and maybe when I get to parliament, closely look at that clause.We must look at some these clauses because we might be denying people who could bring potential into Zambia, Martha Mulenga said”

The Parentage clause is a constitutional provision that requires an aspiring presidential candidate in Zambia to be a “third generation” Zambian.

It is alleged that the parentage clause was inserted after the dawn of multi-party democracy in Zambia in 1991 by then the late former president Dr. Fredrick Chiluba whose motive was to prevent Dr. Kenneth Kaunda from running for office again.

Dr. Kenneth Kaunda is the first post-independence leader in Zambia whose father was born in the then Nyasaland now Malawi.

As it stands, the parentage clause has continued to discriminate against people like state house Deputy Minister Mulenga Sata the son of the late president Michael Sata whose mother is believed to be Malawian and Agriculture Minister Given Lubinda whose father is believed to be Indian, among others.

The clause also prevented Lusaka central Member of Parliament Dr. Guy Scott from running as president of Zambia after the demise of the 5th Republican President Michael Sata on an account that his father was Scottish.

21 COMMENTS

  1. This is what the people want. not what you want. afterall UPND and the grabd kolwe were the loudest wanting the whole document not to be debated but rather go thru referendum

  2. No one should reverse the parentage clause. With Zambia getting dual citizenship, it id for national security that this clause even becomes more beautiful.

  3. It was put in place to protect the right of Zambians to rule themselves baring others of other origins. It is therefore Democratic for Zambians, and must remain.

    • It was put in place to bar KK from standing in the 1996 Presidential Elections.You should read the Supreme court decision in the FTJ parentage case(FTJ got caught up in his own web).They simply called that piece of law a sham and dismissed it with the contempt it deserves.However,As usual Zambians have short memories.

  4. Does anyone decide which parents one should have, where they should be born, and where one should be born? If I am born in Zambia of parents born in Zimbabwe, shouldn’t I be entitled to every right that one born in Zambia of parents born in Zambia enjoys? If I am barred from contesting the presidency on account of my parent’s origins, isn’t this a blatant violation of my human rights and clear case of discrimination? How about an orphaned Zambian who does know the origins of his parents (who could very well be both foreign) but who meets all the other qualifications for the presidency? Does he disqualify to contest for the presidency? I am afraid this particular clause may open a whole can of worms in future presidential elections.

  5. RICHARD CHANSA MUSONDA - GRAND PARENTS FROM MANSA , KUNDAMFUMU (MATRIMONIAL), AND GRAND PARENTS FROM MPOROKONSO (PATRIMONIAL). DUEL CITIZEN GOOD. WE ARE COMING AND START SORTING OUT YOURSELVES; ESPECIALLY US IN DIASBORA NEVER CASHED ZAMBIA TAX MONEY. RICHARD CHANSA MUSONDA - GRAND PARENTS FROM MANSA , KUNDAMFUMU (MATRIMONIAL), AND GRAND PARENTS FROM MPOROKONSO (PATRIMONIAL). DUEL CITIZEN GOOD. WE ARE COMING AND START SORTING OUT YOURSELVES; ESPECIALLY US IN DIASBORA NEVER CASHED ZAMBIA TAX MONEY.

    GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY. RED BLOOD RULES BECAUSE THAT IS OUR BIRTH RIGHT BLESSINGS. ZAMBIA NAS BEEN RULED BY FOREGNERS FOR A LONG TIME : DR KAUNDA HIGH JUNKED; CHILUBA – NEVER SEEN THE PICTURE OF HIS PARENTS; SATA- BELIEVE TO BE TAZANIAN. BANDA ALSO FROM ZIMBABWE.
    CHECK HIS EXCELLENCIES DR MWANAWANSA AND MR LUNGU – THEY ARE ZAMBIANS AND HAVE SHOWN COMPASION FOR OUR BELOVED ZAMBIA, AND ZAMBIA POSTERITY.
    PLEASE – GUY SCOTT WE CAN’T CHANGE CONSTITUTION TO SUIT YOU. YOU ARE OLD AND WE GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY. DOT ENTER INTO OUR HOLY SUBCONSCOUSNESS. SAY THANK YOU.
    DOT TAKE US FOR GRANTED. WE NEED TO MOVE FURTHER – EMPOWER ZAMBIANS AND INTRODUCE SPECIALS I.D’S FOR FOURTH GENERATION ZAMBIAN’S PARENTS CHILDREN.
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

  6. This clause is a very beautiful one as it leaves the leadership of the country to genuine and true Zambians who cant run away if things get rough in the country. You can’t have a country where anyone and everyone can become president NO, NO, NO!!!!! Even the USA has restrictions on who can become president, you have to be born in the USA!!! That’s why Arnold Swatzineger could not run for presidency despite him being one of the most successful Governors of California in the recent past. And USA has better border controls than us!!! If we let anyone become president then non-Zambians will continue becoming presidents and pissing on us all the time. So if your parents are not Zambians hard luck just pray that your children can become president in future!!!

  7. The Clause remains. Name 100 countries in the world were an immigrant can become president. Tell me if fourth generation Britons whose grandparents came from Africa can become Prime Minister in UK. Don’t simplify my Zambia with theories you would not dare try in your own lands.

    • Actually, anyone who is resident in the UK and who is a citizen of either the UK or any Commonwealth country (including Zambia) can become Prime Minister in the UK! So even a current Zambian citizen who was resident in the UK could get the job. There is no requirement to be any number of generations settled there. This is a specifically Zambian clause with a political history. I am not saying it is wrong to keep it necessarily but we should get our facts straight!!

  8. Supreme Court Ruling on the Presidential Petition against FTJ(Parentage Clause);-
    “In the not too distant future, there will be second and third generation Zambians descended from ancestors who originated from a variety of continents and countries all over the world which ancestors are now “disqualified” Zambians. We have also pointed out a number of other questions which arise, including whether or not “biological” parents were intended and whether or not persons who were or are non-marital children are thereby excluded. We consider that the point has to be made that the parentage qualifications introduced into the constitution in 1996 pose a number of apparently solutionless problems and difficulties. In giving the example of the adopted Zambian of Chinese origins, we mean no…

  9. disrespect to that great race but illusrate some of the difficulties. We doubt if the framers of the amendments had these problems in mind. If the aim was to provide for indigenous presidents only as suggested by counsel, then quite clearly the language of the amendments actually employed did not and could not achieve this. Had explicit language to that effect been employed, such language might conceivably have run the risk of infringing the non- discrimination provisions in the part of the constitution which is entrenched. This was not an issue here and we make no finding. However, we should mention the case of Akar v Attorney -General Of Sierra Leone (1969) 3 ALL E.R. 384 which we considered during our research. In that case, the appellant was born in 1927 in the former British…

  10. protectorate of Sierra Leone of an indigenous mother and a Lebanese father who was born and bred in Senegal but who had lived in Sierra Leone for the last 56 years, and never been to Lebanon. On the attainment of independence by Sierra Leone on 27th April 1961 the appellant by virtue of Section 1(1) of the Constitution became a citizen of Sierra Leone. Act No. 12 of 1962, by Section 2, purported to amend the Constitution retrospectively to limit citizenship to persons of negro African descent. This, by the definition of the term (defined as meaning “a person whose father and his father’s father are or were negroes of African Origin”)- excluded the appellant. By Section 23 of the Constitution, laws discriminating, inter alia, on the ground of race, were prohibited except, inter alia, in…

  11. on the ground of race, were prohibited except, inter alia, in cases where a disability imposed having regard to its nature and to special circumstances pertaining to persons on whom it was imposed, was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. By a majority of four to one, the House of Lords affirmed the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone and reversed their Court of Appeal by holding that Act No. 12 of 1962 was unconstitutional; it was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 23 of the Constitution since different treatment was accorded to different people and the differentiation was attributable to wholly or mainly to respective descriptions by race. while their Lordships expressly stated with the wisdom or desirability or fairness of passing such a measure, nonetheless they…

  12. commented as follows, at page 393:….
    “In view of the conclusions which their Lordships have expressed they need not refer further to the problems which have been raised. The circumstances that they are posed… is commentary enough of the difficulties which have been created by the scheme of legislation which it was thought appropriate to attempt to adopt.”
    The comment was rather apt. Another point already dealt with but worth noting again was the assertion by the petitioner Mrs. Phiri and other witnesses that there were no Zambian citizens as such prior to independence and that Zambian citizenship and nationality only commenced on 24th October 1964. This assertion which we accept as technically and legally correct means that the constitutional provision regarding parents or anyone…

  13. born prior to independence who are or were Zambian by birth or by descent can meaningfully only be construed as a reference to those who became Zambians on 24th October 1964 or who would, but for their prior death, have become Zambians on that day.

  14. Of course it is a law not fit for the 21st century.
    It is a ridiculous law. You bar people who may have capabilities while you yourself cannot be.
    Hypocrites.

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