I commend President Lungu for breaking his silence on serious and contentious national issues, especially that he has finally expressed his legal opinion by citing provisions in the law. This is how it should be for it will compel others to address the issues and not resort to insults in response.
That said I contend that the President’s reasons for extending the tenure of the former ministers is patently flawed on account of improper considerations. It is wrong to allege that his statement on this matter of public importance is final. In this regard finality rests with our Courts, in this instance the Constitutional Court, which regrettably is NOT functional yet.
To say that the office of the minister does not fall vacant because of Article 116 (3) (e) is to misconstrue the import of the word ‘dissolution’ as well as failing to interpret the whole Article 116. Article 116 (1) states thus “The President shall appoint a prescribed number of Members of Parliament as Ministers.” Firstly, I contend that this provision is prospective, that is it refers to future appointments. If Parliament had intended it to be retrospective or retroactive it would have stated so expressly. Thus Article 116 (3) which the President relied on should be read with Article 116 (1) for completeness of the argument. Secondly, the word “dissolution” must be read with Article 88 (1) as amended which reads thus “The term of Parliament shall be five years commencing from the date that the Members of Parliament are sworn into office after a general election and ending on the date that Parliament is dissolved”. In other words this is a contract of sorts for all MPs elected in the 2011 general election and any others who come to Parliament following a bye-election or presidential nomination to Parliament after that general election. Note that this provision is also prospective, rather than retroactive.
To reinforce my argument I quote Article 88 (6) (a) of CAP 1 (the previous constitution under which all the ministers were serving) which states thus “Subject to clause 9 the National Assembly shall, unless no sooner dissolved, continue for five years from the date of its first sitting after the commencement of this Constitution and then stand dissolved.” Even in this case the five years begins to run following the 2011 general elections.
Thus in terms of constitutional obligations by the State towards its workers known as Members of Parliament, the State should pay them their dues only up to the date of dissolution, which is Wednesday 11th May 2016 from 23.50 hours. Any salary and/or other benefit paid after that date should be deemed as theft of public funds. It is misleading for the President to allege that the Ministers have to hand over their responsibilities. There is nothing for Ministers to hand over because they have no executive function but are mere policy advisors of the President; they cannot hand over any policies because the new government will come with new policies. During the ninety lame duck days remaining to 11th August of the government of President Lungu, no new policies may be initiated. What work will the Cabinet be performing other than campaigning?
Last but not least, there is a moral reason why these former ministers should stop their schemes forthwith. It is immoral for these former workers to be drawing salaries for three months after their term of duty has expired. I believe that they have been paid or are about to be paid what is due to them. The President is excepted because Article 35 (4) provides that “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with this Constitution shall continue in office until the person elected at the next election to the office of President assumes office, unless (a) he resigns his office; (b) he ceases to hold office by virtue of Article 36 or 37, or (c) the National Assembly is dissolved”. It will be discriminatory if other workers in Zambia demand similar treatment but their demand is rejected! Constitutionally, and even under the common law, the President’s threat to act against citizens who want to carry out a citizen’s arrest is intimidation and contradicts his Oath of Office; every citizen is obliged to help to restore and enforce law and order. It is in order for patriotic Zambians to arrest these former government workers if they persist in masquerading as government employees and abusing public resources.
I advise the affected former ministers to politely thank their party president but decline to continue pretending to work when their scheme is to continue campaigning using government resources. President Lungu will not protect them when the day of reckoning comes.
GODFREY MIYANDA,
BRIGADIER GENERAL,
CONCERNED CITIZEN
Mr Miyanda is like that annoying cousin that you could do without but sadly as you are related – you just have to out up with.
Where are you sir – when it matters ?
Join UPND and gain relevance me says
Thanks
BB2014
Mr Miyanda you make sense overall.
But commending the President and then having a go at him- strange.
Lungu is trying something unprecedented. He is either right or wrong. You make a case of both sides.
The latter of your points I wholeheartedly agree. Dissolution of parliament until the law is ironed out should have meant following what previous regimes did.
To ask the ministers to still serve and then ask the law to interprete it as Lungu is doing is breaking the fourth wall ( if as I hope – you know what I mean)
Lungu is in a lot more trouble that he realise.
Saying that UPND’s assembled political personnel are worrying.
To have GBM in the forefront is worrisome on my eyes.
Thanks
BB2014
Superb piece, what more needs to be said?
Yabaaa, ba Changwa bena kuwayawayafye! What kind of law was he studying at UNZA mwebantu? Would I be wrong to suspect copy and paste mwembeshi style of acquired kind law degree? He behaves as though he is a graduate of Kasama’s Lukashya trades, in Carpentry and not UNZA!!
The general has put it very clearly above for those blind pf followers like Kabwili to see. LAZ and even PF’s own made Attorney General have spoken in favour of anguished Zambians over this matter-so when the day of reckoning comes, Kabwili and his batch of dull followers should never come and say they are being victimised.
We thank the General for coming out clean over this matter!!
PF=Patently Flawed, kikikikik. Lungu’s opinion on this issue is Patently Flawed, so many Flaws among pfools, the general told to read that constitution throughly before signing it.
PF=PATENTLY FLAWED. Lungu’s legal opinion is flawed.
A bunch of criminal niggaz prolonging their stay in power.
Chakolwa Samalama is well aware of what he’s doing & he knows he’s wrong. He’s relying on intimidation, deception & the fact he thinks there’s nothing anyone can do about it. In short he’s taking our collective docility for granted.
Edgar won’t be with them in prison plus many of them acquired the virus at government motel and will acquire ma TB and others in prison as they serve their sentences for abusive of national resources.
THERE IS NO ARTICLE 35(4) IN THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. BESIDES HIS STATEMENT IS WRONG WHERE HE QUOTES “Article 35 (4) provides that “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with this Constitution shall continue in office until the person elected at the next election to the office of President assumes office, unless (a) he resigns his office; (b) he ceases to hold office by virtue of Article 36 or 37, or (c) the National Assembly is dissolved”. ACCORDING TO MIYANDA’S CONSTITUTION THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE WHEN PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED. YABA! BAMUKOLWE NGA BAFULA TABUCHA BWANGA CHACINE.
Only because the subject at hand is outside the borders of your understanding of legal matters Mushota!
Grow up!
Makes sense. I think the President should let these guys go from tomorrow.
Lungu has taken the law for granted. the same law will haunt him with his ministers after august. That is purely abuse of powers.
They ARE GONE! Any kind of nonsense from Lungu to change that is clearly illegal and a breech of the Constitution.
As such it is an ACT OF TREASON on Lungus part and also deserves a Citizens arrest.
Why from tomorrow? They should have gone on the day Parliament was dissolved. We should just beat them up because they are not using law to hang on to our jobs. Great Gen Miyanda!
This is the second treasonous event by Lungu. The first was his disclosure of Cabinet proceedings to Newton Ng’uni in the case where they tried to stop Guy Scott from Acting as President. We are counting. Lungu should not blame anyone if he is cited for treason after August 2016.
THERE IS NO ARTICLE 35(4) IN THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. BESIDES HIS STATEMENT IS WRONG WHERE HE QUOTES “Article 35 (4) provides that “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with this Constitution shall continue in office until the person elected at the next election to the office of President assumes office, unless (a) he resigns his office; (b) he ceases to hold office by virtue of Article 36 or 37, or (c) the National Assembly is dissolved”. ACCORDING TO MIYANDA’S CONSTITUTION THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE WHEN PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED. YABA! BAMUKOLWE NGA BAFULA TABUCHA BWANGA CHACINE.
There is no word like “tabucha bwanga” dont blame Miyanda for err Mr Kalanga
Spot on Brig Gen Miyanda what more can one say
Brig. Gen. Miyanda makes a good candidate for the Constitutional Court were ours not of the belief that for one to serve as judge on a “court” entailed that they possess a legal qualification background! The example is appointees to the US Supreme Court
You can see from the mishmash amendment that it was a selfish motive by PF to continue benefiting from GRZ to facilitate campaigns and disadvantage opposition. Total Nonsense from PF and its leader. Its such a shame to have such selfish leaders who can only think about themselves; yes only they increased there salaries; not once while freezing salaries of poor workers. As if that is not enough they start to mock the poor people by saying we have put more money in your pockets. Pure trash!!! we can not continue accepting such mediocrity; NO!!!!!!
General Miyanda is 100% correct. On legal,political and moral grounds the Ministers contracts expired on the day Parliament dissolved They are no longer MPs and cannot be Ministers. Period!
If anyone doesn’t know how appetite for another term begins from our African leaders, this is how it begins. Opposition will face a tough, very tough (emphasis) campaigning season.
Father Miyanda, thank you for your continued shared knowledge, when that day comes, don’t tell them that you told them so because we have eyes, we are witnesses to this ill-regime.
It baffles me knowing that someone out there is happy with Pres Lungu’s stance on his cabinet. Isn’t your gratuity, donor money & salaries enough to run your campaigns? Please Lungu, do the right thing
One must use caution when recommending actions to citizens! Truly BRIGADIER GENERAL, Miyanda knows better than to advise citizens to arrest their public representatives! There are rare times in any country’s progression when it may be necessary to impose a standby cabinet in case of civilian attempts to bring disorder. It is without doubt that in the coming months we shall have terror on our streets. We know some Opposition or rather a particular one will cause any amount of trouble it can muster. Would you have preferred we put the Military In place to keep peace. It’s obvious to me that this us because it us expected a State of a Emergency may need to be declared. Wake up Zambia and stop causing hysteria in Zambia, we have a problem in the political field and the sooner we…
we have a problem in the political field and the sooner we recognise it the better.
I agree with you in toto!
Patriot, you’re abroad & it’s clear that your Tax goes to somewhere else other than Zambia. These are public resources, including Tax for goodness sake. Citizens have every right to stop this madness being promoted by Lungu. This guys [President & MPs] are our representatives, we are the ones that put them in those positions, we pay them for the jobs they carry out. Their works are no longer needed have expired, why should tax payers continue paying for someone who has no job after dissolution of parliament?
Patriot Abroad, please try to reason above partisan lines. Please my bother/sister
@ Patriot Abroad
You are 100% right we have a problem in Zambia!
And that problem has been CREATED by these PF thieves that have become so bold now they think they can carry on stealing Zambian taxpayers money in broad daylight and get away with it!
Are you wetting your pants Patriot Abroad? Coward!
@Patriot Abroad 7 at 3.51 pm, and below 7.1 at 3.53 pm and 8.1 at 4.06 pm. You shock me with your scarecrow politics; whenever citizens voice out their views you respond with a threat. just like the President reacted with a threat against GBM’s statement. This is what I was discussing to show that the President either did not know that in our system every citizen is a policeman and a soldier and is expected in an appropriate circumstances to carry out a citizen’s obligations. Please re-read my article without emotion and you may learn a thing or two. E.G you ask “you prefer we put the military in place to keep peace?” But is this not what President Lungu did when he sent soldiers to Zingalume to keep peace in the alleged ritual killings? Am NOT advocating for civil unrest. The…
@Sparky, I am Zambian, so no matter where my Tax goes I am still entitled to hold that support to the current gov’t. Don’t forget all the taxes given in UK development Aid involves my tax too, just to widen your line of thought!
I think they should be paid just in case we need them to regroup…quickly! You have a point though and your objection us one I secretly harbour ….only for the next 90 days, but please bear in mind we are keeping the same gov’t in August. Please enjoy your hopes…but be realistic.
@Common Criminal, get a life and go Stalk someone else!
@7.6 Godfrey Miyanda, SIR
In no way do I recommend Military Intervention, rather posed a question as to whether that us what we want to happen, especially if we start committing Politicians given authority (though we disagree with it), to being arrested by citizens. I am sorry you have taken offence at my riposte but I honestly feel your recommendation will lead to Anarchy. Far better your suggestion to take a route to Courts, though you reckon we have no such court. I am certain that we have recourse in the Courts than arresting Politicians. What happens to the Cadres fighting in the street in support?? I sincerely hope you were not serious about those arrests. Thank you for your time.
@7.4 Free slave
No our problem is an Opposition that Screams CORRIPTION but NEVER GIVES THE EVIDENCE to support the allegations in the courts.
I like this comment below @18 The President is spot .,,,
But agen.yiu have failed to tell the Zambians how a Cabint Minister can vacate the position.The law is clear the Cabint is an executive wing of Govt.and accountable to the President.The ministers will be drawing salaries as Cabint ministers and not members of parliament.The law does not say cabinet should be dissolved once parliament is dissolved dull HH followers
Me as Zambian I am ready to arrest any minister in a Government Vehicle.I have five targets on the copperbelt and Central.My coligues will arrest more in Lusaka.This is not a threat.From now on awards PF should be ready to counter the people of Zambia in one blood election Zambia has ever seen.We shall rebate ourselves economically as youths.Enough is enough.
Is that not just you responding to a call to Anarchy? Be careful whom you take advice from. Zambian Politicians are the most sinful when it comes to taking power. When they can’t they recommend Anarchy.
Law or no law, Lungu should have exercised leadership in this matter and not self interest. Kaunda, with all his limitations, knew how to read public opinion and not those voices from public media. Intuitive leadership is characteristic of natural leaders who will read the mood and assess their potential pitfalls. Lungu’s enemies giving him sleepless nights are not necessarily HH and team. He is being eaten up from within; individuals I’ll-advising him on important national issues so that he collapses. Likando Kalaluka interpreted this clause two months ago. Why has Lubgu decided to mislead himself?
@JP 9 at 16.09. I agree. We have a leadership problem; we wait for things to go wrong then react and come with the Big Whip which the President says he has. Leadership is about influencing people, NOT whipping them. I petitioned the President BEFORE he assented to the Constitution because I had seen pitfalls in the Acts. He rubbished it by NOT responding. There were we are now; there is a lot that is wrong with the assented Acts. So all that law-abiding citizens must do is to obey the enacted law while seeking recourse to the Courts of the Land, as I have done though I am being dribbled by delays in the Constitution Court. Godfrey Miyanda///
General Miyanda. Nice piece and as always I respect your views. However, if I understand you correctly, the president must allow ministers to leave on moral grounds not according to the constitution. You miss out 1 point though. Which provision of the law allows a ministry to be headed to be a PS. No one seems to answer this question.
A PS is a technocrat who does all the day to day functions of a ministry. A minister is just a policy maker and a politician. No more policy making till after a new government is in place.
Apart from a secretary and security, has a minister got accounts staff, directors and other managers that report to him?
The issue is very clear and straight forward.
@The Bundu 10 at 4.17 pm: 1. You misunderstood. In order of importance I gave first the reasons why the ministers cannot continue after dissolution and I cited Article 116 (1) challenging the President’s Article 116 (3). I contend that 116 (1) is prospective, meaning it refers to future appointments (Pres Sata appointed the first Cabinet). Art 116 should be read with Article 88 (1) which clearly states that the tenure of MPs is for five years from the first date of swearing in after the general election, in this case September 2011 election, when dissolution takes place. I added morality as an additional ground for our Christian President to reflect on. We cannot cure a lacuna by the personal opinion or desire of the President, hence why I asked him not to assent with closed eyes…
THERE IS NO ARTICLE 35(4) IN THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. BESIDES HIS STATEMENT IS WRONG WHERE HE QUOTES “Article 35 (4) provides that “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with this Constitution shall continue in office until the person elected at the next election to the office of President assumes office, unless (a) he resigns his office; (b) he ceases to hold office by virtue of Article 36 or 37, or (c) the National Assembly is dissolved”. ACCORDING TO MIYANDA’S CONSTITUTION THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE WHEN PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED. YABA! BAMUKOLWE NGA BAFULA TABUCHA BWANGA CHACINE.
There will be Armageddon misinterpreted, cause Havoc misinterpreted, going for the throat misinterpreted, and you expect good interpretation of the Constitution from them pfools?
Wait and see how these monsters will be vacating their offices once they realize that EL’s strategy is not working
@Hevi niinga ECL got a 1 at Cambridge and one of the best law students at unza ask hh who was an expant in mwembeshi
Baba, being a book worm and getting a division one at G12 does not amount to being intelligent. In those olden days people used to go to UNZA and do Law or other chikwakwa disciplines despite having failed key subjects such as Maths.
Your Chagwa might have gotten away with a one (obviously having done well in subjects such as History and failed Maths) and done well at UNZA but the fact remains the same, he is very shallow and duller especially on the issues of the economy and that is why he runs away from debates because even simple basic economic terms such as GDP is a junglen to him. How do you expect him to fix the economy when he is clueless even on basic economic principles? Give him another 5 years and Zambia will go nowhere economically because ECL and his followers such as the…
such as the fake loud empty ‘Dr’ have no capacity to turn things round!!
It was very difficult to defend the president against Ugandans, and now we have to defend him from the constitution he swore to protect. I think its nearly impossible to defend him from this, least he digs an hole for himself.
Comment: Selfishness is the order of the day in Zambia. Please spare our future we have better plans for this great Nation.
The problem with Miyanda is that he always brings his ideas late. He is the kind of a guy who would start proposing a lady who is getting married tomorrow. Look at his campaign strategy. He keeps quiet and only come out during elections. You cant tell us what the constitution should have said this time. AS LONG AS YOUR IDEAS WILL BE COMING LATE THERE AS GOOD AS NOT BRINGING THEM OUT.
@Magoye 16 at 4.37: your history of my political activism is warped. I am always raising serious national issues whether there is an election or not and will continue doing so. I never campaign on social media. Remember some ‘battles’ : re-introducing multiparty politics in Zambia in MMD in which I participated; challenging unconstitutional conduct in MMD over the Third Term; challenging successfully that the President had no power to set the date of the election which power was reposed in ECZ (I succeeded because LAZ supported my position, forcing the Government to amend and give the power to the President); fighting for chiefs to stop despotic Presidents interfering with traditional authority, now the President cannot legally interfere in chief’s affairs; challenging NCC which later…
I can see ECL steering us to unrest in Zambia. What is wrong with free and fare campaigns and elections???
MR President, be very careful, Zambia is not uganda and has never been in conflict like MU7 and uganda.
That MU7 had been in power and through wars with uganda and controlls all facets of their government.
But agen.yiu have failed to tell the Zambians how a Cabint Minister can vacate the position.The law is clear the Cabint is an executive wing of Govt.and accountable to the President.The ministers will be drawing salaries as Cabint ministers and not members of parliament.The law does not say cabinet should be dissolved once parliament is dissolved dull HH followers
@The President is Spot on 18 at 4.42: which law is clear according to you? why are you shy to cite it and challenge the provisions that I have cited to challenge the President? Read again my statement above with understanding, then come back to debate intelligently. No one can be a minister without being an MP ( for me to be Minister Without Portfolio I had to be nominated first and then appointed Minister). Godfrey Miyanda///
Nemwe what can you admire from UGANDA? What is good about UGANDA? Do not compare Zambia to that country however desperate you might. we are higher than them in everything you might think of.
But Gen.Yoo have failed to tell the Zambians how a Cabinet Minister can vacate the position.Do not further your opinion.The law is clear .Cabinet is an executive wing of Govt.appointed by President and they are accountable to the President.The ministers will be drawing salaries as Cabint ministers and not members of parliament.Can you tell us which law says cabinet should be dissolved once parliament is dissolved dull HH followers
Reply
@The President is spot on 20 at 4.47 pm: Article 81 (1) provides the term of Parliament as follows “The term of Parliament SHALL BE five years from the date that the Members of Parliament are sworn into office AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION and ending ON THE DATE THAT PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED.” I support LAZ; being an MP has always been the condition precedent to being appointed minister. The term for the outgoing ministers commenced in September 2011 by President Sata’s appointment, ending on dissolution on Wednesday 11th May 2016; this is the law and contract of service applicable to the outgoing ministers. Godfrey Miyanda///
Cabinet is appointed from serving members of Parliament. Since Parliament is dissolved we therefore do not have eligible men and women who can take up positions in cabinet
It would have been better for the leading opposition figure in the name and form of HH to sound out first on this issue. Alas!! We have left it to a no name brand party persona like Miyanda to blow the first trumpet. Abena HH, you must be seen and heard on such issues of relevance. It’s not enough to merely state ati “Chakolwa”
How can he blow the trumpet when he has been blocked by every media house. PF might think they are popular but for me I feel they are typically deceiving Lungu. True results will make Lungu collapse after election day.
@Ba Folosho 21 at 4.47 pm: there is no competition; we are just sharing ideas. Take it from me I am NOT competing against any body. If you appreciate my points take them to your leader and persuade him to embrace them. This is a national crusade that will benefit all if it is won. Godfrey Miyanda///
I compare this to chiluba ‘s failed third term bid,the VP and some ministers resigned .Here ecl is just trying to find ways to postpone the election.To me this shows that ecl is not capable of leading a nation without cabinet whom he seems to rely on.wht are service chiefs for?it can only make sense to keep defence n finance ministers but again zed is not at war n our economy cant be resciasted in two months.
@Planzo 22 at 4.48 pm: Current practice is that all State institutions/departments continue during the 90 days transition to 11th August 2016, with the permanent state employees. No vacuum and no crisis. Any one who abuses his or her authority during this period will be “visited by the law” (courtesy of late Pres Mwanawasa). Godfrey Miyanda///
Surely even if we have all the money can you fight Lungu? My advice is that if you cant vote Lungu better stay home on 11 August to save yourself from embarrassment. Fuel price will soon go down. No load shedding. face the reality
We fought FJT s 3rd term bid, we will fight this one as well.
nomatter grind a fool in a mortor he can’t change lungu and his minsters need to steal in these days remaing
Sections 2(1), 7(1)(2) and 11(1)(2)(3), of ‘The Constitution of Zambia Act 1 of 2006 clearly deals with termination of Ministers appointed as per the 1996 Constitution.
Article 70(2)(b) of the Amended Constitution disqualifies a public officer or constitutional office holder from standing as MP. Accordingly, if they remain Ministers they stand disqualified to stand as MPs.
@Mushota 1 at 3.27 pm: Lady Mushota I stopped reacting to your blogs a long time ago bcoz I rarely allow myself to be in a tiff with ladies. But the topic is too serious to be left to drift with the movements of our President. My two comments on your contradictory blog: 1. You say I have commended and then had a go at the President. He has for the first time provided leadership by giving grounds for his actions supported by legal citations. Am saying no one is justified in responding by insulting him but by challenging his case. He never said anything during the Constitution-making process when leadership was imperative. Leadership is the battle for the hearts and minds of the people (Field Marshal Montgomery). 2. President is not engaged to experiment “precedents” but to defend and…
I am one of the careless whispers on this blog BUT I have always and will always respect General Miyanda ‘s thoughts and clarity in the way he articulates issues. Thanks General GM
Comment: We will follow the law no matter how flawed it is it remains law and no one should bleach it. What is in place is in place. Why are you yapping?
@BE REAL 27 at 5.04 pm: Only dogs yap; and humans know how to spell breach, not bleach. Anyway I am “yapping” because I want my President to FOLLOW THE LAW by observing his Oath of Office, which is so serious that the Constitution demands that incoming President takes it BEFORE assuming office. President Lungu took it pursuant to Article 40 (1996) which says “A person assuming the office of President SHALL, BEFORE ENTERING THE OFFICE, take and subscribe to such oaths as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament”. A president who violates the Constitution can be impeached (removed from office) – it is that serious! Godfrey Miyanda///
Once again this Lungu clown has shown Zambians exactly how selfish and dull he really is.
To call him FAILED LAWYER is a huge understatement. The man does not even qualify to be called a lawyer, and his pronouncements prove beyond all reasonable doubt he is incapable of upholding the Constitution as he swore to do.
Zambia does not need such dishonest rubbish in State House. He belongs in PRISON for violating his Oath of Office and abusing Government assets.
Every patriotic Zambian whatever their political affiliation should stand up and say NO to this thievery!
@19.the law is very clear .it says the president shall continue to be in office till he hands over or is sworn,it doesnt say cabinet.since whn in the history of zed has cabinet be kept after parly is dissolved?All opposition and the general citizens shud file a court injunction to former ministers on this till the courts determ.thats y we hav judges to interpret constitutional clauses which tend to be abused.
Ba General, you are more of a State Counsel than a military man….no wonder you have defended yourself successfully in the High Court without Counsel representation. This is the quality of Sandhurt trained officers….creme dela creme ….top soup!!
….Salt muli Soup!!!
The problem with us Zambians we see wrong when we know that we are not benefiting. First and foremost we should think of what value addition the crafters of the law wanted to achieve before we even talk about ministers salaries. If the value is worthy we should be suggesting how to strengthen it by removing ambiguity not rushing to disobey it.The only wrong that has been seen here is salaries/benefits the ministers will be drawing that’s why no one is even thinking. The President is saying as much as parliament is dissolved meaning that MPs cease to be MPs there is another provision that comes and validates the continuation of ministers just like for the president and the veep. They are all dissolved with parliament but other provisions come in and makes them to continue in their offices…
It’s not just salaries/benefits, those ministers will be using GRZ facilities to campain for PF and hence their jobs using taxpayers money.
@Justo 31 at 5.15 pm: you have tried to defend but without ammunition. Cite the law as I have done, then I may learn from you. This law cannot be changed by President Lungu:
1. Article 81 (1) “The term of Parliament shall be five years commencing from the date that the MPs are sworn into office after a general election (general election was in September 2011) and ending on the date that Parliament is dissolved (which is 11th May 2016)”.
2. Article 116 (1) “the President shall appoint a prescribed number of MPs as Ministers”. This refers to ministers yet to be appointed under the new Constitution; he assented to this Constitution on 5th January 2016 and has appointed no one since; Godfrey Miyanda///.
I think as Zambians we should appreciate when something has been started and move willingly to better or improve on it rather than condemning all the time. President Lungu has been courageous to start something. If there are flaws it is upon us citizens to improve it amicably without insulting. Other leaders have failed to do what he has done!
Law is like that. When one lawyer puts foams his argument you will all nod your heads until the next lawyer puts up his. Lets now wait for Lungu’s counter arguments. If he doesn’t come out to respond miyanda wins
Law is like that. When one lawyer puts foward his argument you will all nod your heads until the next lawyer puts up his. Lets now wait for Lungu’s counter arguments. If he doesn’t come out to respond Miyanda wins
The General reminds me of termites which hibernate until they are awakened from their slumber when the water reaches their holes signifying the onset of the rainy season. The general wakes up when elections come up. It will be interesting to find out around he will raise the required deposit and supporters.
@Senior Engineer RTD 35: I know engineers to be highly organized, focused and disciplined intellectuals. I see no quality of an engineer in this contribution; in fact termites are so organized that when they appear in your home their presence seems to be sudden and devastating yet you dont know where they came from. But you I know you are NOT an engineer, if you are then you are at the bottom of the rung; Godfrey Miyanda///
I accept I am at the bottom of the rung as an engineer and I presume you are at the top of the rung as a politician although in terms of votes in presidential election results you are always at the tail end. There is an old saying which says people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
What does this man do aside from dyeing his hair everyday? He goes into a slumber until it is that time again to cast votes. I am reliably informed that all contestants are given $100,000 just to be on the ballot hence the number you see every election. The day this money will cease, will be the day the man will disappear for good.
If those Universities awarding honorary degrees were fair Miyanda would have 3 of them in constitutional law. He is a great think and intelligent and that is why he can not easily work with average minds.
In what circumstances does a Minister vacate his office ? We do accept Bush Mechanics but no Bush Lawyers. Get behind a desk General !!!
This guy is not being genuine. The only mention of the vacating cabinet position by a minister is guided under article 116:
The office of Minister becomes vacant if—
(a) the Minister is removed from office by the President;
(b) the Minister resigns, by notice in writing to the President;
(c) in the case of a nominated Member of Parliament, the nomination is revoked;
(d) the Minister dies;
(e) another person assumes the office of President; or
(f) the Minister has a mental or physical disability that makes the Minister incapable of performing the functions of that office.
In this case (e) is straight forward. The president at this point can’t just appoint new minister because there is no pool to appoint from. So what would happen in case of an emergence or war? Wouldn’t the…
@NONO 39 at 7.03 pm: article 116 (3) which the President relied on should be read with Article 116 (1) which I contend is prospective. President CANT POINT anyone now because there will be an election in three months. In case of emergency there has always been provision to recall the outgoing Parliament if that becomes necessary! Yes, Article 116 (3) (e) is straight forward but you have NOT understood it. This refers to the one who has been elected, in this case in the 11th August election. Don’t read one provision and conclude. Sorry I cant read rest of your message. Godfrey Miyanda///
@nono, I hope this will put everything to rest. Minister like kambwili should vacate based on Article 116 (f); the Minister has a mental or physical disability that makes the Minister incapable of performing the functions of that office.
How can a minister, despite Presidential Advice, talk about someone eating “amafi”? Mental case. ….and isn’t too much weight not a physical disability? Is obesity not physically challenging for one to function properly?
In this case (e) is straight forward. The president at this point can’t just appoint new minister because there is no pool to appoint from. So what would happen in case of an emergence or war? Wouldn’t the president need to convene cabinet meetings? Ministers have to continue so that there is no vacuum created.
@Nono I too was suggesting the possibility that a President can and should be able if there is genuine fear of Anarchy …to appoint or ask the sitting cabinet to stay to uphold law…! I understand what the article says but It’s failure is to ask whether the decision was taken because of fear of upheavals??
@Patriot Abroad 7.9 at 6.55 pm: allow me to call you my brother. I am never easily offended; in fact I enjoy a robust but intelligent and factual exchange as you are doing because those in positions of authority must pay attention to these cries of their people, many of whom may have been injured in one form or another, hence the insults. I feel that the innuendoes in your statement about chaos based on my statement arises from preconceived prejudice and is actually misplaced; you have repeated this in this last posting; this is what I was and am responding to. I think you are genuinely NOT aware of the obligations of citizens. I shall endeavor to discuss this separately due to space when I answer your question whether I am serious about citizen’s arrest. Godfrey Miyanda///
Thank you again Sir for your time.
Let me assure you that as a certified Paralegal, I do understand the basics of Criminal and Civil Law. I particularly understand Citizens Arrest since I constantly …try to arrest people when they break the law!! I joke about the frequency obviously. Please don’t Labour under the delusion that I am uneducated in basic legal concepts. I truly believe that arresting PF politicians by citizens from Opposition will create tensions and breach Peaceful Pacts taken. Surely you can picture Cadre response?!
President Lungu has been very clear that whoever is aggrieved with the ministers’ stay in office should sue, which all over us citizens are entitled to, but not anarchy being proposed by Gen. Miyanda. Is President Lungu above the law to command ministers to vacate office contrary to the provisions of the law? Taking advantage of ambiguity in law is not a crime but breaking the law is. The ministers are not breaking the law, they are just exploiting the loopholes in law which is not a crime. If ministers sue govt, its the same tax payers money which will be used to compensate the ministers. Wynter Kabimba as Justice Minister tried to pretend to be above the law & the nine former members of the technical committee on drafting the constitution threatened to take legal action against govt &…
Wynter Kabimba as Justice Minister tried to pretend to be above the law & the nine former members of the technical committee on drafting the constitution threatened to take legal action against govt & this could have meant paying them from tax payers money. Morality can’t be relied on because misters are also crying for their legal rights created by the people & not ministers driven constitution. The way forward is to sue or citizens to lobby for amendment of the law.
@True Zambian 42 at 7.43 pm: I am not an anarchist that is why I believe that PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE and advised Pres Lungu through my petition to him NOT to assent with his eyes closed. Apparently he ignored my petition. Please read other responses above and you will find all the answers. Read Article 116 (3) with Article 116 (1) which is prospective and NOT retroactive. I hope that you know that Anarchists don’t believe in the Rule of Law but desire to destroy governments. I am in the Constitutional Court because I believe in the Rule of Law but they don’t want to operationalize the CC, maybe until after elections. Godfrey Miyanda///
When legal luminaries speak, students like ECL should listen attentively
Miyanda no wonder you’re a failed politician. Okay this issue under the courts. But let’s put you now not in prospective but in perspective. We have 3 arms of Government namely the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Only the legislature is dissolved according to your constitution. One thing clear here is that the executive does not dissolve. If it should why is your constitution silent?
@Thorn in the flesh 44 at 8.16 pm: You are definitely lost, LOL: the three arms of government are never dissolved but the MPs, consequentially the ministers, except for the President who is expressly excluded from vacating until he hands over to the new President. The Speaker and his team remain in place and so do the Courts. Learn something from this “failed politician”, Clever One; read again what you misread! Godfrey Miyanda/// NB: what is required is to clean up the mess which was allowed by President Lungu not using his discretionary power to assent by making observations to correct the record lacunae which I had alerted him on. The Constitution is not a person it is apiece of paper, an inert object. Don’t blame it!
You waste so much time and money debating the constitution and its making process yet when its done you have misleading arguments. Okay it turns out that both of you are right. Now since you’re not in power, Lungu is more right. There is no way, that important issue could have been missed. Lungu alone can not be called Government. Here the PF government is in power until 11/7 ala!
The Concourt is not yet constituted so when will the case be heard? The President appoints judges so when will he do so? The man will just delay appointing the Concourt judges until after the elections on 11th August 2016. This is unusual to make a decision to keep the Ministers and then seek interpretation after implementation. Why not seek a legal opinion b4 implementation? He rejected the AG’s legal opnion but now wants a non-existant Court to interpret. This is playing games.
This is indeed playing games! The constitution court is not in place so we don’t expect this contentious issue to be sorted out any time soon and Lungu knows that and he will buy time. Be rest assured that the case will not be disposed off NOT UNTIL AFTER AUGUST 11.
General Miyanda is waffling….he has not indicated circumstances that make the Minister to vacate office….as usual the general wants to relevant at the eleventh hour as has been the case in past elections…..Article 116 (3) is the only provision that gives direction on how a cabinet minister can vacate office
@Alinaswe 48 at 10.29 pm: sorry you have refused to hear/listen so I rest my case with regard to your question in the lots of blogs above in answer to others who asked the same question.
Perhaps you should read the General’s article and other comments here a 100 times to understand the arguments he has put forward
Well said and written sir, you are the only one who ready the constitution . You are genius, you need to open a law firm. Whatever you write or say, is 100% correct. Help the opposition and the Atone General, and these useless constitution lawyers, like the mulondas to understand, well done sir. Keep defending the our beloved country. If only we had 10 of Miyanda type, would change the country.
@Jordan Chulu 49 at 11.13pm: all I can say is many thanx. Godfrey Miyanda///
TO ME IT DOES’NT MATTER. WHETHER MINISTERS STAY IN THOSE POSITIONS FOR 90 DAYS OR NOT. IF YOU DO’NT WANT THEM VOTE THEM OUT. IT HAS HAPPENED IN ZAMBIA BEFORE. UNIP AND MMD WERE STILL ENJOYING THOSE PRIVILEGES AND STILL LOST WHEN PEOPLE DECIDED. THIS DEBATE SEEMS TO BE MOOTED OUT OF JEALOUSY . . ABUSE CAN STILL HAPPEN ANYTIME.ESPECIALLY IN ANTICIPATION OF AN UNFAVORABLE RULING BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE PF IS STILL WALLOPING THE OPPOSITION. ESPECIALLY WITH THIS KIND OF POLITIKING
First of all, I would like to state from the beginning that I am NOT a Lawyer nor have studied Constitutional Law. So my views are simply based on my own understanding and interpretation of the current Zambian Constitution. And my use of excessive CAPS is not meant to “Scream” at anybody, including General Miyanda whose opinions and approach to issues I respect very much. I have used CAPS to distinguish the quotes I have borrowed from the General and the Constitution and my own opinions. So, I beg your pardon in advance.
QUOTE: “To say that the office of the minister does not fall vacant because of Article 116 (3) (e) is to misconstrue the import of the word ‘dissolution’ as well as failing to interpret the whole Article 116. Article 116 (1) states thus
continue…
Firstly, I contend that this provision is prospective, that is it refers to future appointments. If Parliament had intended it to be retrospective or retroactive it would have stated so expressly
Thus Article 116 (3) which the President relied on should be read with Article 116 (1) for completeness of the argument.”
I THINK DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS WOULD HELP:
Retrospective: Looking back on or dealing with past events or situations (other definitions exist.)
synonyms: Backdated, retroactive, ex post facto, etc.
Example: The government introduced retrospective legislation.
Prospective: Likely to happen at a future date; concerned with or applying to the future (other definitions exist.)
synonyms: Potential, possible, probable, likely, future, eventual, in…
continue…
IT IS GOOD THAT GENERAL MIYANDA SAYS ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 166 IS “Prospective” AND NOT “Retrospective”, MEANING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE APPLIES TO FUTURE DISSOLUTIONS OF PARLIAMENT FROM DAY THE CONSTITUTION BECAME LAW OR ASSENTED TO BY THE PRESIDENT. JUST LIKE THE 50% + 1 DEAL, UNDER WHICH THE NEXT ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD. TO THINK THAT THIS PROVISION SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE JUST DISSOLVED PARLIAMENT (as Mr. Miyanda seems to be implying here) IS SIMPLY MISLEADING AND A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE—the entire body of clauses in the amended Constitution became Law/binding on the day the Constitution was signed into Law, unless otherwise stated—implementation is another issue altogether.
@Yambayamba 51 at 1.24 am, to 57.1 at 1.52 am PAGE 1: too long but I will paraphrase. 1. I am not a lawyer just like you but I sense you may be a consultant seeking answers for others; for that pse talk to lawyers. 2. Words: Courts pay a lot of attention to words in interpretation as these tend to change their meaning depending on context. My layman effort: a. “Dissolution” note the tenure of MPs commenced after Sep 2011 election for five years till 11th May 2016; hence dissolution refers to this period of tenure. All ministers are MPs first. 2. Prospective law: Read article 116(1) with Art 81 (1) NOT 88 (1) typed in error but quotation stands. This defines the term based on the LAST GENERAL ELECTION. To page 2 below/……
Sir, I am sorry you feel like I am seeking answers on behalf of others as a “consultant”. This can NOT be further from the truth! My only interests in these matter are personal and educational. The issues you have raised in your write up are very pertinent to the governance of “our Zambia”. So my only interest is to discuss issues intelligently, calmly, and respectfully so we can all help each other come to a common understanding of and respect for our Laws, especially our Constitution.
That said, I still have NOT gotten the answer from you as to when you think the amended Constitution (2016) came into effect. And if I may ask, isn’t there an ADDENDUM/BILL that deals with the transition time between the President assenting to the Law and the dissolution of parliament? If so, what…
QUOTE: Secondly, the word “dissolution” must be read with Article 88 (1) as amended which reads thus “The term of Parliament shall be five years commencing from the date that the Members of Parliament are sworn into office after a general election and ending on the date that Parliament is dissolved”.
AGAIN, I THINK SOME DEFINITION WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE.
Dissolution: The closing down or dismissal of an assembly, partnership, or official body” (other definitions exist.)
synonyms: cessation, conclusion, end, ending, termination, winding up/down, discontinuation, suspension, disbanding, prorogation, recess, etc.
Example: The dissolution of the legislative session.
continue…
I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE IF GENERAL MIYANDA QUOTED THE WRONG CLAUSE BY MISTAKE OR I AM SIMPLY MISTAKEN. BECAUSE ARTICLE #88 TALKS ABOUT “Right to petition and make comments” (88(1): “A citizen may petition the National Assembly to initiate the enactment, amendment or repeal of legislation.”) NONETHELESS, SINCE WHAT HE MEANT TO QUOTE IS CLEARLY STATED, WHAT MR. MIYANDA SHOULD HAVE ALSO PROVIDED ARE SPECIFIC CLAUSES THAT DIRECTLY DEALS WITH THE DISSOLUTION OF CABINET. IF THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE LAW, THE RIGHT THING TO DO THEN IS TO GRIN FROM OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT HELP CLARIFY THE MATTER AT HAND? I FEEL THAT IS THE RIGHT APPROACH TO THESE MATTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
QUOTE: To reinforce my argument I quote Article 88 (6) (a) of CAP 1 (the previous constitution under which all the ministers were serving)…
BUT SIR, WHEN DID THE “previous” CONSTITUTION CEASE TO APPLY AND THE CURRENT AMENDED ONE WENT INTO EFFECT? I THINK IT IS VERY DISHONEST FOR ANYBODY TO QUOTE CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE. THE CURRENT ONE ADEQUATELY DEALS WITH THIS QUESTION, SIR!
QUOTE: The President is excepted [I am sure he meant “exempted” here] because Article 35 (4) provides that “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with this Constitution shall continue in office until the person elected at the next election to the office of President assumes office, unless (a) he resigns his office; (b) he ceases to hold office by virtue of Article 36 or 37, or (c) the National Assembly is dissolved”.
continue…
MR. MIYANDA SIR, BUT WHY, ACCORDING TO THE CLAUSE YOU HAVE PROVIDE HERE, IS THE PRESIDENT STILL ABLE TO REMAIN IN OFFICE WHEN ARTICLE 35(4)(C) CLEARLY SAYS HE SHOULD LEAVE WHEN “the National Assembly is dissolved”? OR ARE YOU ONLY INTERESTED IN THE FIRST PORTION OF THIS CLAUSE IGNORING THE REST? IF SO, WHY THEN IS IT WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RELY ON PARTS OF ARTICLE 116 ONLY (SPECIFICALLY 116(3) (e) “The office of Minister becomes vacant if— another person assumes the office of President”)?
I would also love to hear how the General reconciles the following Articles with Articles 116 (1) and 88(6)(a) if indeed we are to rely solely or in large part on the dissolution of parliament clause alone:
ARTICLE #113: There shall be a Cabinet consisting of the— (a) President; (b) Vice-President; (c) Ministers; and (d) Attorney-General, as ex-officio member.
NOW, PROBABLY THE LEARNED GENERAL CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND OR RECONCILE THIS PROVISION WITH ARTICLE 116(1). IN SHORT, CAN A CABINET FORM A LEGAL QUORUM WITHOUT ITS SUM TOTAL OF THE ENTITIES (AS STATED IN THIS CLAUSE) THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE UP THAT BODY? IS CABINET MINUS MINISTERS STILL A LEGAL CABINET? AND WOULD ITS DECISIONS BE CONSIDERED CONSTITUTIONALLY BINDING IN THE THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT PRESIDENT-ELECT IS SWORN…
AND WOULD ITS DECISIONS BE CONSIDERED CONSTITUTIONALLY BINDING IN THE THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT PRESIDENT-ELECT IS SWORN INTO OFFICE? WITH DUE RESPECT SIR, NOWHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY CABINET SHALL STAND DISSOLVED IN TANDEM WITH PARLIAMENT.
Article #114: The functions of Cabinet are as follows: NOW I REALISE THERE ARE OTHER FUNCTIONS PRESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE, BUT I AM INTERESTED IN 114(f), WHICH STATES; “advise the President on matters relating to the performance of executive functions.”
NOW, IS MR. MIYANDA CONTENDING THAT DURING THIS PERIOD PARLIAMENT STANDS DISSOLVED, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO “advice” FROM HIS CABINET MINISTERS? OR ARE YOU TELLING US THAT DURING THIS PERIOD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH/PRESIDENCY BECOMES A ONE MAN “kamikaze” OPERATION? DON’T YOU THINK THAT THAT’S EVEN MORE DANGEROUS THAN WHAT YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT HERE? AND I AM SURE THE FRAMERS (WHO THE ZAMBIAN CITIZENS) OF THIS CONSTITUTION WERE WISE TO LEAVE THE EXECUTIVE/CABINET FUNCTIONAL DURING THIS TIME.
ARTICLE #115: HERE AGAIN THERE ARE PARTS I AM LEAVING OUT. BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THE VIEWS OF THE GENERAL ON THESE PARTS OF THE THIS CLAUSE; PARTS 115(1), 115(2) AND 115(4)(a) WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS:
“(1) Subject to this Article, Cabinet shall regulate its own procedure. (2) Cabinet shall meet at least once in every month to perform its functions as specified in Article 114. (4) There shall preside at meetings of Cabinet— (a) the President;”
continue…
LOOKING AT THIS ARTICLE, ONE WOULD THINK, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT CABINET MEETINGS ARE NOT SUSPENDED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PARLIAMENT BEING DISSOLVED. THERE ARE THREE MONTHS BETWEEN NOW AND THE GENERAL ELECTIONS, IS MR. MIYANDA THEN CONTENDING THAT DURING THIS PERIOD THE PRESIDENT IS ONLY ALLOWED TO PRESIDE OVER CABINET MEETINGS (WHICH ARE MANDATED BY THIS PROVISION) ATTENDED ONLY BY HIMSELF AND HIS/HER VICE PRESIDENT? OR IS IT MR. MIYANDA’S CONTENTION AND REASONING THAT CABINET MEETINGS SHOULD STOP ALTOGETHER BECAUSE PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED?
@Yambayamba 51 t0 57.1: sorry I posted page 2 at 03.48 continued from my @ 51.3. but I have lost it after a very laborious effort. I cant resume but have enjoyed your challenge. I am disappointed that you labelled me DISHONEST at 53. But 88 (6)(a) CAP 1 whose effect ends 11th May 2016 in terms of the tenure of MPs under the 2011 election has been replaced by Art 81 (1) which is essentially the same in wording but is applicable in the election of 11th August 2016 (prospectivity). No name-calling please. Am done; good morning and byeeeeee! Godfrey Miyanda///
@ Patriot 41.1 at 7.32 pm: just seen your post as I am signing off. No I ddnt consider u uneducated, your language and logic gave the game away. I promised to do a write up but may not now do so. MIYANDA///
ALLOW ME TO INTERFERE IN ZAMBIAN POLITICS SINCE LUNGU ALSO DOES IN OTHER COUNTRIES’ POLITICS. THE POINT IS THAT LUNGU HAS PROVED TO BE A SEROUS LIABILITY IN ZAMBIAN POLITICS AND PEACE. HE SCHEMES VIOLENCE AND THEN BLAMES IT ON OPPOSITION WHAT NONSENSE IS THAT? WATCH PF SERIOUSLY. THE GENERAL IS VERY CORRECT. ZAMBIANS WAKE UP AND RISE ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS AND SALVAGE YOUR COUNTRY! OTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE YOURSELVES TO BLAME COME 11 AUGUST, 2016 FOR ALLOWING THE RULING PARTY RIG ELECTIONS OPENLY WHILE YOU WATCH. VOTING DAY WILL BE TOO LATE. BE FIRM ON BALLOT PRINTING, VOTER ROLL INSPECTION AND OTHER ANTI-RIGGING STRATEGIES ESPECIALLY ON 11TH AUGUST, 2016. WHAT LUNGU IS DOING HAS SURPRISED HIS MENTORS LIKE KAUNDA, MUGABE,MUSEVENI AND BANDA BEYOND MEASURE! YOU ONLY HAVE ONE ZAMBIA AND ONE…
Here we go again. president miyanda, stop boring the nation and go out and campaign for your party. Problem is that you have taken the nation as your de facto classroom, where you play ‘pretend i am a lwayer’ and then mark yourself by the responses you get. If you want to be listened to, get a law qualification otherwise your are just another noise maker. I would rather listen to you telling the nation, or actually reminding the nation, of what YOUR Heritage party stands for. I bet some new voters in Zambia do not know of the existence of the Heritage Party, and its warped manifesto. For God’s sake, you are a president of a party, when are we gonna see you in plot 1?
@The True General 60 at 9.14 am: Completely irrelevant. Discuss the topic then I may respond. Godfrey Miyanda///
Today is 16th May, 2016, when campaigns are officially supposed to start. I am surprised that Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda, A President of a party, is no longer interested in being associated with his Ntemba Party but is now writing as a “Concerned Citizen.
We would like to know if the problem is the ZMK37,500.00 deposit to ECZ. That can be arranged but the bigger problem will be finding a campaign vehicle.
Free Advice: GENERAL, THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED and some political parties have no campaign issues.
Let us know your campaign issues and we will advice citizens on the probability of considering your candidature in 2026.
Stay Blessed
@Kampeni 61 at 10.56: I had signed off at 04.58 this morning.
1. I have explained this before, that when I write articles I do so in my personal capacity and I am free to express my opinion hence I sign as “Concerned Citizen”. Check the LT archives.
2. The topic now is “STATUS OF MINISTERS AFTER DISSOLUTON”. Discuss this and if you have not understood this simple topic move to another page.
3. I am NOT here to campaign but to share with other interested citizens on this serious issue – keep your advice for the appropriate occasion. Gudnite///
I guess the article 116 (3) was written in assumption that ministers will be appointed outside parliament,it is not meant for the current arrangement.
Exactly the people who were proposing were pasting from other constitutions where the cabinet comes from outside parliament. Therefore, at this stage we can’t cry foul and say we meant this or that. We have to accept responsibility for this as Zambians & can either petition parliament to amend or sue the attorney General but not President this is above him.
Not necessarily. Most commonwealth parliament has this provision e.g. UK parliament where cabinet comes from parliament but does not dissolve with Parliament.
@mojo 62 at 10.59: To understand Article 116 (3) relate it to the whole provision.
First, Article 116 (1) provides that “The President shall appoint a prescribed number of MPs as Ministers”. This gives the President the power to appoint ministers from MPs.
Second, Article 116 (3) provides that the office of Minister becomes vacant if another person assumes the office of President. You should read this with Article 88 (1) which provides that “the term of Parliament SHALL be five years COMMENCING from the date that the MPs are sworn in and ENDING on the date that Parliament is dissolved”. The contract of the outgoing MPs and ministers runs from September 2011 to 11th May 2016////.
Who made these provisions in the constitution? Surely I was not represented because I do not agree with anything in it.
voice of voiceless..pf will regret
@Godfrey Miyanda 42.2, Yes you did petition President Lungu not to assent to the new constitution. However, you should have petitioned Parliament under article 88 (1). Expiry of Term for MPs is express, by dissolution of Parliament, that for ministers is express too, when another person assumes the office of President. Using common sense is not permissible at law unless Article 116 (3) (e) was not there then you can use Article 72 (1). Ministers & MPs are different at law just like an egg & a chicken. The fact that a chicken comes from an egg doesn’t mean that former is latter & vice-versa.
Its still your constitutional right to petition the High Court on constitutional matters, refer to (Sibongile Zulu vs ECZ, Attorney General 2016), than agitating for citizens to arrest each other for issues which are provided for by law. The constitution was assented to on January 05, 2016 & in absence of express effective date, the assent date is taken to be effective date unless there are disadvantaged individuals who can petition for relief either proactive or retroactive effect on them.
General Miyanda, sorry my bro, but the times on your comments are suggesting that you did not go to bed, am i seeing right? This is just politics, you are allowed to sleep, you know. Sure from yesterday to this morning mungo blogger chabe akulu, why?
@The True General 66 at 1.01 pm: at first I took you as a serious blogger but I see you have nothing to contribute and hence I will not respond to you. Byeeeeeee///
I tend to agree with General Miyanda and below is what I blogged last week.
“There is no such thing as a handover by ministers to new ministers in the Zambian Constitution. If Lungu wins, he appoints a new cabinet (with or without some of the former names, depending on whether they have retained their seats) If the opposition win, the leader picks his cabinet from those newly elected to the National Assembly. In the Zambian semi-Presidential system, the cabinet is linked to the life of the current legislature and ‘dies’ with it when it is dissolved. This is so that the members of the cabinet may lay themselves to seeking a new legislative mandate in the elections. The only survivors are the President, vice-President and Speaker. The executive powers are bestowed in the President and…
he can exercise them without the ministers”
I think its flawed analysis to base the dissolution of Cabinet on dissolution of an MP. The questions should be is the constitution providing for an exception? Mind you, the President is a member of Parliament (62 (1)) but does not dissolve with the dissolution of Parliament. The Speaker and First Deputy Speaker (72 (1)) also do not dissolve with Parliament. So it is wrong to suggest because the general wording if Dissolution of Parliament then everybody dissolves. The exceptions are provided for and these include cabinet ministers. This is a common practice in Commonwealth Parliament like UK and Canada. Maybe the question should be a moral argument knowing our politicians knack for abuse of resources. Constitutionally, there is no argument, its clear the cabinet remains.
Napheta…
I concur, constitutionally, there is no argument, its clear the cabinet remains. Even morality comes in where the law is silent or doesn’t exist on a topic and the next thing is what should a normal person or moral person should do. In other words morality or common sense are used in situations where law does not provide for. But in this case the expiry of term of cabinet is clear, i.e. when another person assumes the office of President.
I commend CHAGWA for pumping sense into some of the so called learned person. LAW itself is straight forward but when you interpret it from a partisan point of view, it becomes problematic. Sometimes it worth using common sense even though it not common in some lawyers. Those aggrevied let go to the Courts of Law for interpretation. Lest people have fogotten LAW ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA we commoners expect to know and understand the Law better miserably failed failed to convince the SUPREME COURT over the PUBLIC ORDER ACT. surely we need sainity in this country for the to urgue that any jim and jack can just wake and call for public meeting without prior notice to the POLICE can only promote anarchy in the country. Its all common sense. No need to be a lawyer. I know the opposition will cry…
The General is right.
@the president fimofimo you must be very dull to fail to reason with the reality of the contents of the constitution as quoted by the General.
The constitution shows clearly who qualifies to be a minister. Now tell me under what basis are the former ministers qualify to serve as ministers today?
MPs are a reservoir of ministers from which the president picks some to serve.
Since there is no mp now, how should we have ministers?
The constitution does not tell us that ministers may continue serving after parliament dissolution nor give provisions for the president to appoint former ministers to serve as such.
Which constitution is the president using?
May he give provisions in the constitution that expressly state that he should retain the ministers after…
@Mulilo 71 at 3.19: In addition the law is express, to be appointed minister you have to be an MP first. How is it possible how is it possible to have ministers who are NOT MPs????? LOL.
I have read an analysis of the above subject by Elias Munshya, the Zambian lawyer based in Canada. I will take his analysis above Gen Miyanda’s. Has General Miyanda read Munshya’s piece? While Munshya piece can be seen as coming from a Lawyer Miyanda’s is clearly by someone who writes suing common sense. Unfortunately you can not interpret law appealing to what makes sense or emotion.
@Comedians 72 at 10.52: President Lungu relied only on Article 116 (3) (e); I analysed the whole of Article 116 and suggested that it is prospective, meaning it is NOT applicable to the current ministers but to those to be appointed after the August election; I then introduced Article 81 (1), of the 2016 Constitution, 88 (6) (a) of the 1996 Constitution. I focused on the real issue, namely the tenure of office of an MP vis avis a minister and found and argued that they are tied to the life of what I would call the Sata Cabinet which commenced after the September 201 (Article 88 910) and ending on dissolution on 11th May 2016. How can you call this common sense? Trouble is people are partisan and are refusing to see that their idol President did not support his case with much legal…
The Article by Munshya just to help the writer above can be accessed from Zambia reports. I hope Gen Miyanda finds time to read it. It is by far a better analysis of the issue at hand than the Generals.
http://zambiareports.com/2016/05/13/opinion-canada-lawyer-differs-with-laz-cabinet-stays-up-to-august-11/
@ 72.1 I meant to type September 2011 (Article 88 (1))///
@Chalo ni chathu tonse 73 and @Comedians 72: I have now read Munshya’s treatise (Zambia Daily Nation). Two points stand out and are relevant:
1. He reveals and confirms that since the 1996 Constitution ministers have vacated on dissolution; he has not provided any solution.
2. Munshya has NOT discussed Article 116 (1) which I contend is prospective. I have done so and until Munshya and others counter this, my argument that 116 (1) is prospective remains NOT controverted. This is NOT common sense but the provision in the Constitution which begs interpretation.///