Former President Rupiah Banda will again appear for questioning tomorrow after a joint team of investigators failed to conclude their work today.

A relaxed Mr. Banda emerged from the DEC Headquarters under tight security around 13:37 after a three and half hour grilling by the investigators from the ACC, DEC and the Zambia Police.

Mr Banda was flanked by some MMD senior officials including MMD leader Nevers Mumba who was allowed to accompany the former Head of State inside the DEC offices for questioning.

And in interviews with Journalists, Mr. Banda appealed to MMD cadres to be calm.

Mr Banda also emphasized in a brief address to his sympathizers on the need for Zambia to remain peaceful and united.

“May I ask you to please, please remain calm. We have a duty and a responsibility to keep our country together and peacefully, even under provocation we must remain calm,” Mr. Banda said.

[pullquote]“This will give me chance to speak to the various authorities and as you know, we are going to go to court, this is going to be a prolonged affair and if necessary we don’t burn ourselves out. Please once again, may I say thank you and may God bless all of you.”[/pullquote]

“This will give me chance to speak to the various authorities and as you know, we are going to go to court, this is going to be a prolonged affair and if necessary we don’t burn ourselves out. Please once again, may I say thank you and may God bless all of you.”

Joint Government Investigative Team Spokesperson Namukolo Kasumpa told journalists that Mr. Banda’s questioning will continue tomorrow at 10 Hours.

Mrs Kasumpa also revealed that no charges had been laid on Mr. Banda as the investigations are still under way.

She however could not state if there will be any charges that will be placed against Mr. Banda.

And Mr. Banda’s lawyer Sakwiba Sikota refused to comment after his client was allowed to leave and appear again tomorrow.

Scores of MMD and UPND officials and their cadres surrounded the DEC Headquarters to give solidarity to the former President.

Heritage Party President Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda has question the process used to lift Former President Rupiah Banda’s immunity. In a statement released to the media, citing several flaws, General Miyanda questioned the rationale behind the summoning of the former head of State despite the fact that the Justice Minister Wynter Kabimba telling the nation that the Government was ready to go to trial and the investigating wings had completed their work.

Below is the full statement.

STATEMENT BY BRIGADIER GENERAL GODFREY MIYANDA ON THE PURPORTED LIFTING OF THE IMMUNITY OF FORMER PRESIDENT RUPIAH BWEZANI BANDA

An analyst and human rights activist has urged that in view of the purported lifting of the immunity of former President Rupiah Banda (RB) debate be stopped;

I disagree. It is important to continue debate regarding the process in spite of RB’s new status because this is another assault by the executive on one of the pillars of our democracy: the legislature.

Those proceedings were conducted in bad faith as they were predetermined and the Motion itself is flawed.

Bad faith arises because of the questionable process schemed by the Executive, including bringing this contentious constitutional issue on the last day of seating and holding a caucus to instruct the PF MPs and opposition Deputy Ministers how to vote; the issue is not partisan but constitutional and legal.

[pullquote]Bad faith arises because of the questionable process schemed by the Executive, including bringing this contentious constitutional issue on the last day of seating and holding a caucus to instruct the PF MPs and opposition Deputy Ministers how to vote[/pullquote]

Further, some MPs supporting the Motion introduced prejudicial and extraneous matters. Honourable Nkandu Luo gave ‘evidence’ that President Banda spent one million dollars in her Munali constituency. Honourable Panji Kaunda gave ‘evidence’ about his family without formally declaring interest; another MP claimed that for 20 years his constituency has not been developed and that all this time his people had been suffering. These submissions were prejudicial.

These MPs are potential witnesses who should give evidence on oath and be cross examined at the trial. Are these the grounds for lifting RB’s immunity? Was he answerable for what happened 20 years ago? Interestingly why not mention 49 years ago?

The Motion is flawed because it is speculative and inconclusive. It is not for the accused former President to prove his innocence or provide the proof before he is arraigned and prosecuted.

I contend that a motion under Art 43 is like an indictment or a criminal charge in the ordinary courts because the direct outcome of an affirmative resolution is the trial and punishment of the former President. Hence in such proceedings the National Assembly acts as a quasi-court.

[pullquote]Are these the grounds for lifting RB’s immunity? Was he answerable for what happened 20 years ago? Interestingly why not mention 49 years ago?[/pullquote]

I contend that proceedings under Article 43 (3) are akin to a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) in a subordinate court, verifying and determining whether the allegations indicated meet the requirements set in the specific provision under which the Motion has been moved.

I say so because the purpose of a PI in a criminal proceeding is not to try the accused but to establish whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant sending a case to the appropriate court to try the matter because the court conducting the PI has no jurisdiction to try the case but acts as a sieve for another court. The proceedings in a PI are inconclusive, just like the proceedings in the National Assembly, as they do not try the accused but refer him or her to the ordinary courts of the land.

Additionally the ingredients of the Motion were never debated by any of the supporters of the Motion, including the Minister who moved the Motion.

[pullquote]Who informed the GJIT of the resolution, when and how? Did the Speaker or his office communicate to the GJIT in the night for them to summon RB based on the proceedings that were concluded on Friday after 19.00 hours?[/pullquote]

Last but not least the fast-tracking of the GJIT summons to President Banda is suspicious. The Motion was debated on Friday 15th March, 2013 and within hours they had issued their summons that was covered by the media.

Who informed the GJIT of the resolution, when and how? Did the Speaker or his office communicate to the GJIT in the night for them to summon RB based on the proceedings that were concluded on Friday after 19.00 hours?

It is the practice of Parliament to edit the record of proceedings before passing them as a true record. This includes circulating the verbatim record to be corrected by MPs who debated. Has editing been done?

There is no need to summon President Banda to answer questions. The Minister informed the House that the State was ready to proceed to trial because the GJIT had finalized their investigations.

[pullquote]There is no need to summon President Banda to answer questions. The Minister informed the House that the State was ready to proceed to trial because the GJIT had finalized their investigations.[/pullquote]

Did he lie to the members? Besides, Article 43 is intended to prosecute a former President after removing his or her shield; that is why the Motion has to disclose in full what the acts are that bring the allegations within the ambit of that Article.

To interview him may amount to badgering and harassing him. Is the State not ready and do they now want to go fishing for evidence?

THE STATE MUST GO TO COURT WITH THE CASE THEY HAVE LAID BEFORE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WHICH THE MPs ENDORSED AND RESOLVED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, unless they are now not ready! The State should not be allowed to bring other charges that were not determined by the National Assembly.

It is the duty of the accusers to prove their case before he can respond, that is if the court finds him with a case to answer. If there is no case to answer end of story; there are no short cuts in these proceedings.

GODFREY MIYANDA,

BRIGADIER GENERAL,

A VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN

Opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema has demanded that the Electoral Commission of Zambia be dissolved for allegedly failing to effectively administer elections.

Mr. Hichilema said the ECZ has become useless and ineffective and should be dissolved.

He said the recent poor conduct of the Mpongwe and Livingstone bye elections was a clear indication that the current ECZ has no capacity to effectively manage elections.

“The rampant electoral fraud which is going unabated by the ECZ is a matter of serious concern. We have resolved as the UPND to demand that the ECZ be dissolved because it is useless,” Mr. Hichilema said.

“We demand for an independent electoral commission. A situation where the Head of State appoints Commissioners is unacceptable. We would like a situation where the Chairperson of the ECZ is elected from amongst an independent committee.”

Mr. Hichilema said numerous cases of electoral malpractices were reported to the ECZ in the Mpongwe and Livingstone and there was no action taken.

“As far as we are concerned, our candidates Rapson Chilufya and Regina Musokotwane won those elections in Mpongwe and Livingstone respectively.”

He also castigated the Human Rights Commission for rushing to issue a statement that the elections were credible without verifying their sources of information.

“This Human Rights Commission said the elections were free and fair, how do you qualify that when presiding officers from a certain tribe were removed on the eve of the election and replaced with officers from another tribe? How does an election become credible when Ministers were seen dishing out money as people queued to vote?”