In part I of this discussion I gave the “50 % Plus One” provision as one example of a contentious provision that must be clarified and/or justified, if not amended to compel all eligible voters to vote in order to qualify to be classed as a majoritarian outcome. I believe that there are several other contentious examples which alert Members of Parliament can identify and debate; we pay them to debate! It is unfair and naïve and may even be dangerous for the MPs to just pass the whole document without due consideration.

I urge that, because the Government has no position on the Constitution, the Honourable Minister should not move any amendments or even say anything but leave the MPs to make up their minds in a vacuum!

[pullquote]It is unfair and naïve and may even be dangerous for the MPs to just pass the whole document without due consideration.[/pullquote]

The question must now be asked: in making and writing the so-called new constitution, what is it we are trying to defend or protect? Once this question has been answered, it should form the basis for any policies that should guide the passing of the Draft Constitution.As I see it the following are some of the contentious issues that I see in the Draft Constitution:

• Land,
• Defence and Security,
• Media,
• Citizenship,
• Cabinet from outside Parliament,
• Combining the Tripartite Elections with the Referendum,
• 2nd ballot after presidential election,
• Cabinet from outside; Clause 108 (1) (b) which declares that a president would be impeached for a crime under international law (you want this in the Constitution? Can we do the same for the President or Head of say a European state?). All these must be debated and not passed using a rubber stamp.

Land

I place land as the topmost priority; it should actually appear as Part II after Part I ‘Supremacy of Constitution’. We are Zambians because of land; we are indigenous because of land; without land we are nothing and shall inherit nothing. Under Clause 262 (1) Land, Environment and Natural Resources of the Draft Constitution the provision states “Land shall be held, used and managed in accordance with the following principles (c) recognition of indigenous cultural rites”. I accept this; but how can cultural rights be recognised without recognising the indigenous people themselves? Why are we ashamed of the indigenous people? The recognition of the indigenous people, all 73 of them, must be stated unequivocally both in the Preamble and in the body of the Constitution. The principle should be that other persons are welcome and must continue to be protected by the various laws of the land.

[pullquote]Land MUST NOT be vested in the President[/pullquote]

Land MUST NOT be vested in the President because he is just one of the villagers with at most two villages only (maternal and paternal). State House is perceived to be the seat or factory of corruption and seems to be manipulated and controlled by unknown forces. Until this changes and there is an example of discipline at high levels, we cannot and must not entrust this precious God-given asset to an individual. The communities must have a say, the greater say, in how their land is preserved, protected, controlled and managed.

Literary nothing has been said about Defence and Security. Let us hear the debate; why should political parties create parallel Defence and Security units while in opposition and take them into State organs when they win elections? This has been a very dangerous precedent; we may want to learn why after 50 years other nations are coming to train units of army in our barracks.

Someone please explain this provision, who sponsored or promoted it and why after 50 years of independence: Clause 4 (3) “The Republic is a unitary, indivisible, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-party democratic State”. It requires explanation as to its full import.

Public Media must finally be freed; it must not be as it was in the One Party State, a medium only for those in power and their families and cronies. Debate this openly.

I urge and insist that all the 158 MPs debate the Constitutional Bills so we can hear them make sense of the 322 clauses before voting. God bless Zambia, our Heritage!

GODFREY MIYANDA,
BRIGADIER GENERAL,
[8TH DECEMBER 2015]

President Lungu says he is not happy with the current state of affairs where political violence is always recorded during elections.

He says the police must engage political parties, civil society and the church on the importance of adherence to the Public Order Act.

President Lungu says engaging stakeholders will help reduce suspicions that the police is biased towards the ruling party when enforcing the Public Order Act.

And President Lungu has directed the police not to tolerate criminals who disguise themselves as political cadres.

The Head of State said this on Tuesday at State House when he swore in Kakoma Kanganjaas Inspector General of Police.

The President also swore in Deputy Inspector of police Eugene Sibote, Judiciary Chief Administrator Nalishebo Imataa and Ministry of National Planning Permanent secretary Auxillia Ponga.

And President Lungu said he is happy to appoint women in high positions in order for them to contribute to national growth.

President Lungu said the success of the country’s development is anchored on women participation in governance.

He said women in decision making positions must inspire young people especially girls so that they do not see marriage as an option out of poverty.

President Lungu cited the recently held conference on ending child marriage as a forum that has encouraged women to aspire for leadership positions.

And speaking after being sworn in Inspector General of police Kakoma Kanganja pledged to execute his duties with diligence.

He said he will engage all political parties on the enforcement of the Public Order Act.

A CLERGYMAN of Harvest Ministries in Lusaka brought the Boma Court to a stand-still when his wife narrated how he chained her to their bed and beat her with a pick-handle.
Lillian Kangala, 41, of Mtendere, recounted how her husband Isaac Shimutende, 43, also of Mtendere got home from work in a rage and accused her of having sexual relations with his nephew.
The two got married in 1992 and have six children.
Speaking before justices Davies Mpundu and Miyanda Banda in a case in which she sued Shimutende for divorce, Kangala told the court that one day her husband came home fuming, accusing her of cheating on him.
She said her husband pulled her by the neck led her into the house where he started beating her.
“He ordered me to confess to a relationship which never existed,” she said,
She expressed disappointment that her pastor husband could behave in such a violent manner.
Kangala further told the court that Shimutende is a violent and promiscuous man, much to the dismay of the gallery.
Kangala said Shimutende is having an affair with a young church member, adding that he hardly spends nights at home.
She said Shimutende wants to cover up his lewd behaviour by accusing “me of having an affair with his nephew,” she lamented.
And in his statement, Shimutende said when he returned home from Mozambique, his children told him they had caught Kangala having sex with their cousin.
Shimutende told the court that because of that, he now doubts whether the twins they have are his.
He pleaded with the court not to grant divorce because he still loves his wife despite what has happened between them.
Passing judgment, the court granted divorce and ordered Shimutende to pay Kangala K15,000 as compensation.
The court also ordered Shimutende to pay K400 monthly child maintenance.

(DailyMail)

Introduction

According to Article 78 of the Constitution (that is under the Schedule to the Constitution of Zambia Act Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia) the basic function of the legislature is to make laws, amend them or repeal them. The process of law making or the legislative process, in relation to the National Assembly, may be defined as the process by which a legislative proposal brought before it, is translated into the law of the land. All legislative proposals are brought before Parliament in the form of Bills. A Bill is a statute in the draft form and cannot become law unless it has received the approval of not less than a two –thirds majority of the House and the assent of the President of the Republic of Zambia.
The process of law making begins with the introduction of a Bill in the National Assembly and such a Bill can be introduced either by a Minister or a Member other than a Minister. In the former case, it is known as a Government Bill and in the latter case, it is known as a Private Member’s Bill.
For the purposes of this discussion issues shall be narrowed down to address a critical question that has been raised by the Petitioner Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda in his Petition dated 30th November 2015 with regard to the procedure that has been adopted by Government in its quest to “present “the Constitution of Zambia Bill N.A.B Number 16 and the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill N.A B Number 17 to the National Assembly for debate.

What are the issues?

• a) That the question of whether the Constitution of Zambia Bill and N.A.B Number 16 and the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill N.A B Number 17 have been properly presented before the National Assembly and that debate on the two Bills should be allowed in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has not stated the position of the Executive in so far as it relates to their (Executive) stand point on the Constitution.
• b) As a sequel to the foregoing, is the Minister of Justice in order to maintain that National Assembly should proceed to enact the non-contentious clauses without clearly indicating what these non –contentious clauses are and over and above having earlier stated that Government has no position on the matter when GRZ appeared at Committee stage to give their submissions on the two Bills.
• c) If Government has no position on the Bill ,why then are they, through the Minister of Justice proposing to move the House to enact a Bill into law and holding themselves out to be a sponsor for a Bill that they have nothing to do with or rather have already abandoned in principle;
• d) That can Government (i.e Executive) really and rightly so purport that they are presenting or tabling a the Bill in Parliament on which they have no position and are they truly representative of the will of the people;
• e) That when it comes to the stage of debating and/or voting on the clauses in the Amendment Bill will the executive be entitled to vote since they do not have a position in the matter or declare an interest in the matter; and
• f) Other matters raised in the Petition relate to the appointment of opposition Members of Parliament and the framing of the referendum question on the 322 provisions of the Constitution Bill. There is no space here to deal with these two issues but they shall be dealt with in another article.

3. Analysis

These questions are inter-related and are dealt with accordingly.

As earlier stated when a Bill is presented before the National Assembly it is introduced by a Minister and in this case since the Bill is of a legal nature and goes to the core of the proposed constitutional governance of this nation, the initiating Minister is the Minister of Justice.
The main reason as to why there has been a concern raised by the Petitioner is with regard to what happened at Committee stage of the legislative process where the Executive stated that it has “no position” on the matter of “the Constitution Bill and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.” As to whether the position referred to is with regard to the clauses under the two Bills we shall take it as such based on the verbatim transcript at page 2 where the Honorable Chairperson of the Committee intimated that the witnesses that appeared before the Committee failed to reach consensus on a number of critical issues in the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill N.A B Number 17. Despite this statement having being made, the Executive has gone ahead to present a Bill where they have “no position” and have further averred that they propose that the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights and Gender matters to have the Bill withdrawn should be overruled by the House.

The starting point in this discussion is whether the Constitution of Zambia Bill and N.A.B Number 16 and the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill N.A B Number 17 have been properly presented or introduced before the National Assembly and that debate and or vote on the two Bills should be allowed in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has not stated the position of the Executive in so far as it relates to their (Executive) stand point on the Constitution.

It is trite that within our jurisdiction the main Bills that constitute the Government’s legislative programme are announced during the Ceremonial Opening of Parliament and there have been several commitments to enact the new Constitution of the Republic of Zambia.

There are various ways in which Bills are introduced and of significance in this case is what is embedded in the Manifesto of the Patriotic Front which is a social contract that they made with the people of Zambia on the political, social, legal and economic measures that they were going to undertake to improve the lives of the Zambian people once elected into office. This is what precipitated the establishment of a Technical Committee to draft the Zambian Constitution.

The practice in Zambia as in other Commonwealth jurisdictions has been to introduce a Green Paper (i.e. budget legislation) or a White Paper as a preliminary to the actual introduction of the Bill before Parliament. The White Paper usually contains in depth proposals for the legislation to be introduced in Parliament. It is in this document that stakeholders know what the position of Government is and clearly as stakeholders in the legislative process they must surely have a standpoint. The introduction of a White Paper is made by the Minister responsible for sponsoring the subject matter and the introduction usually includes a statement concerning the contents of the White Paper and its implications for future legislation.

From the foregoing one can see that there is a nexus between the sponsor of the Bill who in effect in this case is presenting the Bill in Parliament on behalf of the Executive and the need for them to state what their position is so that they can also engage in a meaningful debate and be amenable to vote on a motion that is tabled before Parliament.

Thus to go ahead and aver that Government has “no position in the matter and go further to present a Bill that has been technically abandoned at Committee stage which is very critical in the legislative process is a clear dereliction of duty and flies in the face of parliamentary practice and procedure with regard to the introduction of Public Bills in Parliament.
In other words if one has “no position” on a Bill as the sponsor of the Bill it would not be right for them to even proceed to debate or vote on a Bill with respect to its form or content.
To go forth and contend that bringing a White Paper before Parliament derails the Constitution making process should be dismissed in the public interest because what is contained in the White Paper are just proposals from the Executive and are ordinarily not supposed to have a bearing on the voting result for as long as there are no machinations to circumvent the principle of democracy, transparency, accountability and good governance.

This takes us back to the issue of the reconfiguration or redesign of Cabinet which was spotted as a maneuver to create a “shadow National Assembly” to ensure that a new Constitution is passed in the National Assembly however correct or incorrect it may be in its content and form. Also regardless of whether the procedural aspects of ensuring that the text is enacted in a transparent and accountable manner that is representative of the will and interests of the people. This unlawful redesign of Cabinet was done by extending an invitation to Deputy Ministers and Provincial Ministers to be a constituent part of Cabinet notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution of Zambia does not recognize them in any form as such.

4. Ramifications

Having established that it is critical that the Executive states what its proposals and positions are prior to introducing the Constitution of Zambia Bill and N.A.B Number 16 and the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill N.A B Number 17 which are of national importance; the question then is; whether the omission is so fatal that the procedure that has been adopted should be declared a nullity? Or should the House be moved before the Third Reading Stage to engage in debate and have a motion laid on the Table to reverse or overrule the decision of the vote at Second Reading so that Government can state its position and allow for debate on the general principles of the Bill?

It is trite as has been stated earlier that the motion to consider the Bills requires Members of Parliament to put the Bills to a vote and since the Executive has stated that they have “no position” should they really be entitled to vote on a Bill they have no position on? Because how can you vote if you have no position or have not been swayed to hold a position?

The other aspect is that; since there was an unlawful reconfiguration of Cabinet where Deputy and Provincial Ministers were invited into Cabinet allegedly as ‘observers’ is it now in order that these junior ministers should vote or consider a matter that is before them in Parliament which came from Cabinet since they are bound by the principle of collective responsibility and consequently have lost their independence which requires them to place the interests of the people above politics. It is contended that having lost their independence by attending and possibly participating in Cabinet meetings junior ministers must now declare an interest or perhaps abstain from voting on the Constitution Amendment Bill when it is out up for a vote . As to whether this will garner or adversely affect the two –thirds majority requirement that again is an issue that is very clear and does not need a great mathematician to solve.

Even if the Executive has taken the “no position” standpoint as a way either to pre-empt the question of independence of junior ministers in Parliament or to hoodwink the people of Zambia into thinking that they are purely a vehicle for spearheading the enactment of the Constitution, the Executive are still duty bound in the spirit of transparency to advise which clauses are contentious or non-contentious and why. This is in addition to providing advice on which three hundred and twenty two (322) possibly non–contentious clauses are going to be enacted coupled with an unqualified justification being given as to why the proposal from the Committee is being ignored when it is clear that there is still no consensus on the critical issues in the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill.

Furthermore it is well known that the sponsor in this effect represents the Executive (Cabinet) and it is in Cabinet where a standpoint is debated and adopted on the Constitution making process and as such the sponsor cannot be said to be representing the will or the views of the people of Zambia since the sponsor has a political agenda distinct from the will and interest of the people. This confirms the reason why during the constitution making process stakeholders have persistently called for debate on the mode of adoption of the Constitution as well as a road map. Sadly the plea fell on deaf ears and it is representative of a clout on democratic governance and transparency for the Executive to come back later in the day and still claim that they have “no position “in the matter.

5. Conclusion

We have attempted to narrow the discussion to the main fundamental issue that goes to the core of the constitution making process vis a vis the legislative process that is currently underway following the petition of one Brigadier Godfrey Miyanda. It is a disgrace that fifty (50 ) years after independence Zambians are yet again being denied the chance to have a document living amongst them that will guide and protect as well as promote their well-being in society. That is, having a Constitution in place that is a document for their development and self-sustainability rather than a political document for exerting power in exchange for patronage.

By Zambian citizen

Today’s recipe is a simple but delicious Lamb casserole.  Lamb is great when it is cooked correctly – it should be soft and tender and literally fall off the bone. Lamb is one of my favourite meats, it can be cooked in so many different ways and today I’m sharing this lovely, slightly sweet, lamb casserole with you.   It needs to be slow cooked to ensure that the lamb is meltingly tender; and does require some preparation the night before, but this will only enhance the flavours, so why not?  But don’t despair, the cooking part is easy, all that you have to do is combine the ingredients and let your oven do the rest.  You can literally sit back with a glass of wine and wait for the casserole to cook to perfection.

Once the lamb is tender and the gravy thickens you can enjoy it with couscous, rice or potatoes and even nshima, if you wish.  If you are not so keen on the sweet taste simply forgo all the sweet condiments, including the apricots, dates and raisins or sultanas.

Ingredients

• 1 tsp cayenne pepper
• 2 tsp ground black pepper
• 1½ tbsp paprika
• 1½ tbsp ground ginger
• 1 tbsp turmeric
• 1kg of lamb, trimmed and cut into chunks
• 2 large onions, grated
• 4 tbsps olive oil
• 3 cloves garlic, crushed
• 2 x 400g tinned chopped tomatoes
• 115g dried apricots, cut in half (optional)
• 55g dates, cut in half (optional)
• 55g sultanas or raisins (optional)
• 600ml lamb stock, or any other meat stock
• 1 tbsp clear honey
• 2 tbsps coriander, roughly chopped (optional)
• 2 tbsps parsley, roughly chopped (optional)

Method

1. Place all the spices in a small bowl and mix them to combine them. Place the lamb pieces in a large bowl and toss them together with half of the spice mix. Cover and leave them overnight in the fridge.
2. The next day preheat the oven to 150 ?C/300 ?F/Gas2.
3. Heat 2 tablespoons of olive oil in a pan. Add the grated onion and the remaining spice mix and cook over a gentle heat for 10 minutes so that the onions are soft. Add the crushed garlic for the final 3 minutes.  Then add the onion mixture to a casserole dish.
4. In a separate frying pan, heat the remaining olive oil and brown the cubes of lamb then add the browned meat to the casserole dish.
5. Add the tinned tomatoes, apricots, dates, and raisins or sultanas, lamb stock and honey to the casserole dish; cover with a fitted lid, place in the oven and cook for 2-2½ hours or until the meat is beautifully tender.

Serving

You can serve the lamb in the casserole dish and sprinkle the chopped herbs over the top for decoration.  Enjoy this gorgeous slightly sweet lamb casserole with freshly cooked rice and a glass of wine.

Kanta Temba is a cake maker and decorator. She is also the owner and founder of Kanta Kakes – cake shop.

You can find her work on www.kantakakes.com.  Follow her on twitter @KantaKakes and Instagram @KantaTemba.

Reacting to media reports suggesting that government has amended the running mate clause in the draft constitution, Mr. Kambwili said he was not aware of any such a move by the Government.

‘We have got our own position as a party and Government on certain clauses. The clauses that we feel are not in the best interest of Zambia, we will go ahead and amend, we have got the right, they also have the right to amend. That is why the Bill is in Parliament for us to debate so that we agree to disagree,’ Mr. Kambwili said.

He added, ‘That is the whole purpose of debate. It is not the question of approving the draft the way it is. If you look at that constitution, if it is approved the way it is, all the money we collect in Zambia will go towards governance, there will be no money to pay civil servants, there will be no money to run the hospitals, all the money will go to pay constitutional office holders and we are not an irresponsible government, we have to be responsible.’

‘We have to look at other issues in the economy so we cannot continue creating political positions at the expense of our people.’

Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda has urged the Civil Society to insist that all the 158 MPs must debate the Constitutional Bills so we can hear them debate before voting. In a statement released to the media, Brig Gen Miyanda said that he disagreed that Members of Parliament must just pass the Constitutional Bills now before Parliament without changing anything.

Below is the full statement

STATEMENT: WHY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT MUST DEBATE BILLS BEFORE VOTING

[By Brig Gen Godfrey Miyanda – 7th December 2015]

I beg to disagree that Members of Parliament must just pass the Constitutional Bills now before Parliament without changing anything. Though our Civil Society have some valid concerns, I believe they are being simplistic to suggest that MPs should just pass whatever is in the Bills. It is true that once the people have spoken their wishes must “in theory” be the command to their representatives to comply with. However the making and writing of a constitution has so many implications on the lives of citizens; there are also some technical and legal aspects that need to be ironed out and harmonised afterwards by the draftsmen to avoid inconsistencies and contradictions in the current and future laws and to ensure that what becomes law is what was intended.

Thus our MPs must debate before voting; our MPs must be like a good surgeon, cutting up each clause and questioning every word that does not make sense. For instance, I would be interested to hear a debate for and against the “popular” majoritarian “50 per cent plus one”. The way it is couched in the Draft Constitution does NOT convince me that it will achieve the majoritarian president which many are alleging it will produce. Clause 47 (1) provides that “Elections to the office of President shall be conducted directly, under a majoritarian electoral system, where the winning candidate must receive more than fifty percent OF THE VALID VOTES CAST…….”. This means that the fifty percent plus one vote is NOT of eligible voters but merely of those who have voted. Let us say that there are five million eligible voters, of which only two million turn up to vote because of apathy; and let us also say that of the two million who have voted five hundred are declared invalid by the Returning Officer. The fifty per cent plus one will be NOT of five million but of 1500 votes, a paltry fraction of the 14 million Zambians! And Civil Society will accept such a winner as the majoritarian president! The only way such a system will usher in a majority president is when all eligible voters are compelled to vote, whether they like it or not. Otherwise this will remain a joke in the Constitution.

Back to debating. Speaking, talking or debating is probably the only justifiable reason that we pay Members of Parliament. Therefore I urge Civil Society to insist that all the 158 MPs must debate the Constitutional Bills so we can hear them debate before voting. Can they talk? Do they understand what they say and/or the laws that they pass or do they just open their mouths to make some sound (like aye, aye, aye) and earn their salary? Can they “parley”? If not they must not be in Parliament.

GODFREY MIYANDA,
BRIGADIER GENERAL,
[7TH DECEMBER 2015]

Chief government spokesperson Chishimba Kambwili said in an interview at the weekend that even if President Lungu was to call for elections now, the Patriotic Front (PF) would still be victorious.

“The opposition political parties making comments on President Lungu to hold early elections have shown that they have nothing to talk about and have realised that the PF is a strong party,” he said.

Mr Kambwili said Zambians now understand that some of the challenges the country is experiencing are not as a result of negligence on the part of Government.

He urged political parties that are calling for early elections to concentrate on issues that can help the country move out of some of the challenges that it is facing.

Mr Kambwili said it is unfortunate that some of the opposition political leaders can talk ill of the country even at an international platform.

He said Zambians will be able to judge for themselves who is sincere about developing the country between Government and the opposition.

Mr Kambwili said if President Lungu called for elections today, the opposition would cry foul when they lose.

Speaking in Isoka yesterday when she received 18 defectors at Katyetye Primary School from the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND), Rainbow Party and the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), Ms Phiri said politics is about numbers and the party in the province should ensure that it works hard to increase the party membership.

Ms Phiri also called old members of the party to embrace the new ones and ensure that they work together with them to strengthen the party.

She also said old members in the party should not feel threatened by new comers joining the party but they should instead feel good and welcome them.

She said she is on her debut tour of Muchinga Province passing through all the seven districts to strengthen party structures ahead of the 2016 general elections.

The deputy Secretary General has since directed all party structures to ensure they go flat out to mobilize the party and recruit more members.

Ms Phiri has also asked party officials to intensify the sensitisation in the remaining days for people to register as voters in order for them to take part in the 2016 elections.

And one of the defectors from Rainbow Party said he decided to re-join the PF because he saw no future in the Rainbow party.

And Ms Phiri has warned individuals who have embarked on early campaigns in various constituencies with seating PF Members of Parliament to immediately stop the practice as they are destabilising the party.

She said all those vying to contest on the party ticket in various constituencies should stop destabilising the constituencies through early campaigns which they have embarked on.