Opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema has demanded that Edith Nawakwi retracts and apologies within 24 Hours for calling him a thief and pays him 3 million dollars as compensation.

Mr Hichilema also wants the text for Ms Nawakwi’s apology to be approved by his lawyers Malambo & Co.

He also wants the FDD leader to put it in writing that she will desist from making the defamatory statements or any similar statements going forward.

“This details that our client has incurred and continued to incite great expense both locally and internationally in order to mitigate the harm that you have caused to him. Our client places the cost of the foregoing, which includes legal costs incurred thus far, at the conservative sum of US$ 3,000,000 which our client hereby demands from you. Our client is amenable to, receiving reasonable proposals as to how to intend to settle the said sum.”

Below is the full Demand

2nd September 2020
Ms Edith Nawakwi
Farm No. LUSAKA

Dear Madam,

RE: DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER – YOURSELF AGAINST MR. HAKAINDE HICHILEMA

The captioned matter refers. We, together with the law firms copied here, act on behalf of Mr. Hakainde Hichilema (“our client”) and have been instructed to write to you as we do below on his behalf. Kindly note our interest in that regard.

Background

1. On 27th August 2020, you featured on a radio program entitled “the Hot Seat” hosted by Zachariah Chavula on Hot FM Radio Station which was also broadcast on Kwithu FM Radio Station (“the program”).
2. It is our understanding that the above mentioned radio stations enjoy immense and widespread coverage in Zambia and beyond, not only by reason of the radio broadcasts they transmit, but also because of the internet and other platforms via which their signal and broadcasts can be monitored from anywhere in the world.
3. Our instructions are that during the program, and subsequently thereafter on other forms of media including Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Television, you made false, malicious and defamatory statements (“the defamatory statements”) against our client whose aim, purpose and effect was, inter alia, to expose our client to hatred, contempt and ridicule; to embarrass him in the eyes of the general public; to lower our client’s reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society; to cause him to be shunned and avoided; and generally to create an impression in the minds of the global community, given our client’s international repute as a businessman and politician, that our client is a thief and/or a person of miscreant behaviour who does not respect the rule of law or deserve to hold public office as President of the Republic of Zambia, for which our client aspires.
4. Consequently, our client has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation, severe embarrassment, harassment, hatred and ridicule in respect of which our client has instructed us to seek reparation from you as we do here below.
   Particulars of defamatory statements
5. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and whilst our client’s right to make any or any further claim against you, in relation to your recent conduct towards him remains fully reserved, our clients instructions are that the defamatory statements were to the effect that:
   1. Our client is or was at the material time a criminal;
   2. Our client involved himself in theft and corruption by alienating a house located on Serval Road in Kabulonga, Lusaka (which you purport belonged to Lima Bank) to himself as liquidator of that institution;
   3. Our client involved himself in undisclosed illegality regarding the receivership of RAMCOZ; and
   4. Our client abused the privatization process in general and in particular with regard to the transaction for the sale of the assets of Mosi O Tunya Intercontinental Hotel in Livingstone and related assets which you allege that our client “sold to himself”.
6. As alluded to above, the allegations contained in the defamatory statements are devoid of any truth. They are malicious and aimed at damaging our client’s hard earned reputation as an astute businessman, as a person worthy of holding office as President of the Republic of Zambia and as a law abiding and God fearing citizen of Zambia, and the world at large, quite aside from being a clear violation of his guaranteed human rights.
7. The defamatory statements were made without due regard for the true factual position regarding the subject matter thereof and in contumelious disregard for the law.
   The allegation that our client is a common criminal
8. As you are aware, our client does not have any criminal record nor has he involved himself in any criminal activity. Should you fail to meet our client’s demands below and should this matter proceed for determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction, you will be put to strict proof on that allegation. Allegations relating to acquisition of property on Serval road in Kabulonga
9. Contrary to your false and malicious allegations, our client has never been a liquidator of Lima Bank nor has he ever purchased any property from Lima Bank in liquidation or otherwise.
10. Had you cared to take keen interest in events as they truly transpired, it would have come to your knowledge that while the Lima Bank liquidation commenced in 1997, the property in issue was acquired by our client in 1995 a good two years prior to the commencement of the liquidation process. Cleary your allegations are false and malicious in that regard.
11. Your allegation to the effect that our client involved himself in theft and corruption is therefore baseless and a purely malicious falsehood.
12. In any event, it is trite that any citizen is entitled to buy leasehold property in Zambia together with any unexhausted improvements thereon. Our client is no exception.
13. Had you exercised even the barest precaution in discharging your duty of care towards our client, you would have conducted a search at the lands and deeds registry to ascertain the true position before uttering the defamatory statements.
14. You may be aware of the age old principle that he who alleges must prove.
    Allegations relating to the Receivership of RAMCOZ
15. You are aware, and the records will show, that our client was never involved in the privatization of RAMCOZ which was sold by Government to the Binani Group of India in 1997 for a consideration of
16. Subsequently, upon failing to meet its financial obligations to ZANACO, RAMCOZ was placed under receivership in 2000. The appointed receiver manager was Mr Christopher Mulenga and not our client.
17. The receivership process was undertaken in accordance with the law and reports rendered to the appropriate stakeholders. Our client is not aware of any criminal complaint having been made against the receiver manager, Mr Christopher Mulenga, in relation to the receivership.
    Allegations relating to abuse of the privatisation process
18. All records relating to the sale of the assets of Mosi O Tunya Intercontinental Hotel in Livingstone and related assets are a matter of public record and will show that, in so far as our client played any role in that process, he did so within the confines of the law.
19. Moreover, we are aware that the Zambia Privatization Agency (“ZPA”), and ultimately Government, like any other seller in a transaction for the sale and purchase of assets, is obligated to, and did, conduct a due diligence exercise on all potential buyers of privatization assets.
20. The foregoing therefore entails that at all stages of the transaction for the sale and purchase of the privatization assets, the ZPA was fully informed on all material particulars of potential buyers, especially such material particulars as were already in the public domain.
21. You may also wish to note that the sale of Mosi O Tunya Intercontinental Hotel and related assets to the successful bidder has greatly benefited the people of Zambia as it is one of the few success stories of the privatization exercise, contrary to the innuendo created by you in the defamatory statements.
22. Your allegations of improper conduct on the part of our client (to the alleged detriment of the people of Zambia) are, despite their malicious venom, therefore baseless both in law and in fact.
    Particulars of harm caused to our client (inter alia)
23. Irreparable damage to our client’s reputation given that you purported to make the defamatory statements from an informed position in your capacity as a former Minister of Finance worthy of being believed on that score.
24. Aggravated damage to our client’s reputation owing to the malice and venom with which the defamatory statements were made and published to a global audience of several million people.
25. Mental distress, anguish and torture.
26. A stain on our client’s candidature for President of the Republic of Zambia in so far as the defamatory statements cast aspersions against our client to the effect that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the highest public office of the land.
27. Harassment at the hands of overzealous state operatives that have declared their intention to maliciously prosecute our client on the back of your defamatory allegations as evidenced by the press statement recently issued by the Chief Government Spokesperson to that effect.
    Our client’s demands
28. Our instructions are therefore to demand the following:
    1. A detailed and unreserved retraction and apology from you to be published in like manner and with equal prominence to the defamatory statements, the text of such retraction and apology to be approved by us;
    2. That you undertake in writing to desist from making the defamatory statements or any similar statements going forward.
29. While our client recognizes that your actions have caused him irreparable harm that cannot be atoned for in monetary terms, you will note that he has been put to great expense and inconvenience on account of your conduct.
30. This entails that our client has incurred and continues to incur great expense both locally and internationally in order to mitigate the harm that you have caused to him. Our client places the cost of the foregoing, which includes legal costs incurred thus far, at the conservative sum of which our client hereby demands from you. Our client is amenable to, receiving reasonable proposals as to how you intend to settle the said sum.
31. 31. Our client’s rights however remain fully reserved.
32. Save as stated in paragraph 30 of this letter, our client further demands, in view of the pressing nature of this matter, that you address his demands within 24 hours hereof, that is to say by no later than Thursday 3 rd September 2020, failing which our client will be constrained to take out proceedings before an appropriate forum so as to protect his interests.
33. Should our client be forced to do this, it will be without further recourse to you and at your cost.
34. Kindly note that owing to the public nature of your actions towards our client, we have been instructed to, and do hereby, avail a copy of this letter to the media for their information by way of a press statement.

Yours faithfully,

MALAMBO AND COMPANY

Opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema has made an impassioned revelation that the PF government wants to arrest him over the privatisation saga and later kill him.

Responding to Chief Government Spokesperson Dora Siliya’s statement that government is studying the matter of Mr Hichilema’s involvement in privatisation, the UPND leader says the investigation is merely a smokescreen.

He charged that Zambians should not be fooled because the issue is not about privatisation but an attempt to get his life.

“Do not be fooled. This is not about privatisation. This is not about alleged criminality. This is not about corruption. They are simply preparing your psyche using these actions as the pretext,” Mr Hichilema wrote on his Facebook page.

“The truth is they want to have access to my physical body so that they can eliminate me. Their plan is to arrest and then kill me. But do l have to die for anyone to be in power?”

He said the PF is getting extremely desperate to win the 2021 elections.

“If offering myself to serve the country that l love so much and growing increasingly popular are grave offences for which l must lose my life, so be it.”

He added, “I am not afraid. Kill me today and more HHs will rise tomorrow. I am prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in defence of public interest, if need be. If anything happens to me, please know that I love you as much as l love Zambia.

Meanwhile, Senior Chief Mukuni has warned that his people are ready for the PF if they touch Mr Hichilema.

Why can’t the PF concentrate on massive levels of corruption, the high cost of living and the runaway Kwacha, and an economy that is in the ICU

In a statement, Senior Chief Mukuni said he is fully aware of the PF machinations to arrest HH over the issue of Intercontinental Hotel, whose transaction was transparent and above board.
“The main purpose of wanting to arrest HH is very clear. It is to offer them an opportunity to detain him and compromise his health, by poisoning him, so that they completely eliminate him from the ballot box in 2021. We will not allow this!”

“The whole scheme is nothing more than Hon. Edith Nawakwi’s Judas style agreement to betray Hakainde Hichilema as a sacrifice for their vision less party. Hakainde Hichilema is a Zambian citizen first, but he is also my subject. Arising from the two preceding factors, his welfare, and most importantly his safety and health are my concerns should they detain him.”

“Therefore, I am sending a categorical warning to the PF that the battle lines have been drawn, and my war shofar has been sounded. We will defend Hakainde Hichilema with all our strength, and we will not allow this humiliation and this abuse of an innocent citizen go further than this. Why can’t you leave Hakainde enjoy his freedoms just like any other Zambian?”

He added, “Why can’t the PF concentrate on massive levels of corruption, the high cost of living and the runaway Kwacha, and an economy that is in the ICU, than direct their energies on one individual whose only offense is to aspire for public office? This kind of injustice must end and we will not allow it.”

The privatization of the InterContinental Hotel and Rainbow Lodge in Livingstone did not meet the required benchmarks of fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective disposal of national assets and should be declared unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, says the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI).

During a media briefing this morning at Mika Lodges, YALI President Andrew Ntewewe raised a number of questions which he said generations will keep asking as to who the actual beneficiaries of the privatized State assets were and what benefit the people of Zambia got from the sale of assets which were built with Zambia’s own money.

The Intercontinental Hotel and Rainbow Lodge whose sale was negotiated by the United National Development Party leader Hakainde Hichilema at the price of US$6.5 million was sold to Sun International Zambia owned Mr. Hichilema and Senior Chief Mukuni, among others.

A few days ago, Mr. Hichilema while answering a question on QFM surrounding his involvement in the sale of national assets that were sold at a value below the normal value of the assets said he was “only 29 years old and the government went to sleep during the process.” But YALI President said it was sad that some promising young people like Hakainde Hichilema who were involved in the evaluation and negotiation for the sale of national assets took advantage of the sleeping government to benefit themselves.

“In the sale of these two properties, according to records from Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) was US$20 million from Victoria Falls Travel Bureau but we learned that our ZPA negotiating team for this transaction, led by Mr. Hichilema, accepted the lowest bid by Sun International, of $5.65m which was increased to $6.5m. While this was a striking drop from the $20m offered by the highest bidder, what was even more striking, even astonishing, was the fact the accepted bid of $6.5m was made by a Sun International whom we have come to learn Mr. Hakainde Hichilema himself is now one of the directors,” said Ntewewe.

Mr. Ntewewe said this is hard to believe and raises a number of questions in the minds of the public whether the negotiation for the bidder was Mr. Hichilema on behalf of Sun International and the seller was the same Mr. Hichilema on behalf of the Zambian Government.

“Was that a negotiation, where both buyer and seller were led by the same person, Mr. Hichilema? What do the courts do when a person accused of benefitting was the person appointed to guard that property? Can we be sure that Mr. Hichilema got the maximum benefit for Zambia in the negotiations when, as a matter of fact, he now has a beneficial interest in the property he negotiated the sale price to the company he is now director?” he questioned.

The organization has argued that the land where Royal Zambezi is situated, directly facing the Victoria Falls from the front and from the back, the former Rainbow Lodge, was perhaps worth $20 million dollars and the addition of the National Park, the value could easily have been $50 million in 1998 for the land and animals in the Park and transiting across the river.

Our negotiating team led by Mr. Hichilema accepted only $6.5 million. This may not be surprising when one is reminded the sum of $6.5 million was being offered by a company in whom Mr. Hichilema now has a beneficial interest as director and the offer was accepted by the negotiating Chairman, Mr. Hichilema on behalf of the seller. It is hard to imagine a more obvious conflict of interest.

The other questions raised by Mr. Ntewewe were whether a sale is considered to have taken place when both buyers, Sun International, had wilfully concealed the fact that the seller was in fact their director. Second, can a sale be considered to have taken place when the seller Mr. Hichilema had wilfully concealed the fact that he was representative of the buyer? In other words, can a sale take place when someone sells to oneself? How does the law view insider trading where a buyer has prior knowledge of the seller’s position? How would the court view Mr. Hichilema’s action as a fiduciary? Can a fiduciary benefit from that which has been entrusted into his/her hands? Was the ZPA negotiating team damagingly compromised by Mr. Hichilema’s position as a Director at the buyer’s company?