Ministry of Youth, Sport and Art’s “new” Projects are mirages for mass Job Creation

By Mwansa Chalwe Snr

Zambia’s various administrations since independence in 1964 – United National Independence Party (UNIP), Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), Patriotic Front (PF) and now the United Party for National Development (UPND) – have all implemented various Youth empowerment programs in order to solve the intractable Youth unemployment problem. These programs include the National Service, Youth Development Fund, Multi-Sectoral Youth Empowerment, Constituency Development Fund, and a myriad of others. They have all failed to solve the problem. This article identifies their flaws, and suggests a 21^st Century approach, which covers the entire Youth empowerment value chain that includes intellectual capital and technology, rather than the concentration on financial empowerment as is the case now.

New Dawn Youth empowerment Programs

The New Dawn Administration have launched various ad hoc, but apparently not well thought out empowerment programmes because they are mere repeats of the failed old ones. In December, 2022, Minister of Youth, Sport and Art, Elvis Nkandu launched three empowerment projects: Internship/graduate Apprenticeship and Volunteer Programme, Youth Connekt Hubs and Digital Platform and the Equipment modernization of the Youth Resource Centres. These initiatives are in addition to the fuel tankers empowerment and the Constituency Development Fund (Youth and Women component). What is crystal clear is that these programmes are very similar to the failed MMD and PF Programmes. There is no evidence of any innovation at all. It follows, therefore, that these initiatives are likely to fail like in the past ones. The Ministry is doing the same thing, and expecting a different result.

It is very easy to prove that the latest batch of “new” Projects were started under the PF administration. They are merely cut and paste initiatives and not credible solutions. The Youth Conneckt programme, for example, is a Rwanda based initiative and was launched in Zambia by the former Vice President Mrs. Inonge Wina in March, 2018.The internship programme is old too. It seems like the technocrats are just coming up with these refurbished projects to hoodwink the President and the public that something is being done to solve the youth unemployment problem. There is completely lack of innovation. They will create very few jobs, if any.

Magnitude of Youth unemployment

In order to put the magnitude of the Youth unemployment problem in context, there is need to highlight a few numbers. The situation has reached alarming and dangerous levels and need emergency action at the very top. Zambia’s youth unemployment rate is estimated to be between 40-60%, and there are about 7.5 million youths unemployed. Furthermore, there are about between 300,000 to 350,000 youths entering the labour market every year. In the past one year, there have been several red flags that have been flashed. During the recruitment exercise of Teachers and Medical Personnel in 2022, there were a total of 100,877 applicants for 30,496 teaching positions, which amounts to a 30% success rate. And for 137,129 applicants for medical positions, only 11,276 were picked which amounts to 8% success rate. There was also a stampede throughout the country for about 46,000 temporary jobs (39,570 enumerators and 6,430 supervisors) for last year national census of population and housing by the Zambia Statistics Agency. And recently, the Minister of Defence Ambrose Lufuma, announced the recruitment of 5,000 service personnel which attracted 200,000 applicants which is 2.5% success rate.

The rational expectation is that it is these numbers that should inform the design of solutions to solve Youth unemployment by those concerned. The latest projects announced by the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Art fall far short of even scratching the surface of the numbers of the unemployed youth. The Ministry’s current solutions do not fit the size of the problem because they are not critical mass solutions.

Flaws in Current and Past Youth Empowerment Programs

There is no doubt that past Youth empowerment programmes, and the recent refurbished ones, by the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Culture, are not going to solve the Youth unemployment problem due to flaws in diagnosis, identification, design and implementation. There seems to be a lack of research in coming up with solutions.

The first flaw is that the youth unemployment problem has not been properly diagnosed by those responsible for solving it. It seems like there has not been any proper and comprehensive research to find out what the main causes are, and how they could be addressed. You cannot treat a disease that you have not properly diagnosed. It would be interesting to ask the technocrats in the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Art to identify and list – off the cuff – the eight main (8) causes of Youth unemployment and what their individual solutions are.

The second major flaw is that the interventions have been mainly focused on financial capital empowerment to the exclusion of intellectual capital empowerment. The experience of the Youth Development Fund (YDF) which was started under MMD in 2000, the Multi Sectoral youth empowerment under PF in 2020, and other finance based empowerment programs have all demonstrated that money alone is not a solution to job creation.

The third flaw is the silo approach to solving the Youth unemployment. The one size fits all approach has been very dominant so far. In the past, there has not been enough recognition of the different Youth demographics. There has been very little attention paid to the fact that the Youth population is diverse, and not homogenous. Solutions are supposed to take into account of this heterogeneity. The envisaged solutions should, therefore, be comprehensive, by first identifying the different Youth demographics and crafting solutions for each of them.

The fourth flaw is that most of these Programmes and Projects’ designs don’t have any feedback loop set up, between the implementing agencies on one hand, and Cabinet Office, State House and the people Zambia on the other. The study of the Youth Development Fund (YDF) by Zambia Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) confirmed this. The Youth Development Fund started in 2000 but there was no strong formal Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework in place to find out how the fund was performing and whether it was achieving its objectives. The first M& E was contracted in 2017 which is 17 years after its commencement.

The fifth flaw was the lack of appreciation of the importance of marketing communications strategy in project design. Budgets are not provided for this component which is vital for wider outreach and higher participation.

The sixth flaw has been the politicization of most these empowerment projects. The evaluation of the Youth Development Fund clearly identified this, as a major cause of failure of the YDF programme.

“The involvement of politicians in the disbursement of funds has negatively influenced the public perception of the Fund, and its potential as a youth economic empowerment vehicle. This is because the Fund is highly linked to the political structures, which make youths think the fund are a political reward or benefit”, ZIPAR study observed.

Private Sector Collaboration Lacking
According to reliable sources, the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Art has not been welcoming to private sector proposed solutions to Youth unemployment, and simply ignore them. This is a major flaw. The sources say that the ministry is sitting on an innovative critical mass youth job creation solution from a private sector company.

In their research on Africa’s youth unemployment problem, the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) has recommended that in order for governments to solve the problem, they need to collaborate with the private sector.

“There is often insufficient consultation with and engagement of the private sector. The private sector is an essential stakeholder in addressing youth unemployment, not only as the engine of job creation but also as a potential partner to implement complex interventions alongside governments”, the AfDB noted in its research of why African government Youth empowerment programs fail.

The reluctance to work with the private sector, who have the practical experience on how JOBS and WEALTH are created, is undermining the New Dawn transformational vision which is anchored on collaboration with private sector. There is no doubt that there are many technocrats who view private sector proposals as encroaching on their tuff rather than being complementary. In the process, the nation is losing out on innovation. The above disconnect between what President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration’s vision is for the Country, and what the government bureaucracy is used to, appears to be apparent. The President has noted the same, and appealed to the newly appointed the Secretary to Cabinet, Mr. Patrick Kangwa, to carry out reforms in the way the Civil Service operates. There is a need for a mind-set and attitude change by technocrats. President Hichilema has demonstrated that for the country to succeed, the public sector and the private sectors have to work together by setting up the Public Private Dialogue Forum (PPDF).This spirit is not trickling down.

“One of the issues that is coming out now, is that, at a higher level, we are doing the right things, saying the right things, but the system is not responding. The system is clogging down things. I think we should address this matter. The narrative at the top must be the same as narrative in the middle and at the bottom,” President Hakainde told Government officials as was reported by Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC).

The 21st Century Approach to Youth empowerment

In order for the Youth unemployment problem to be solved once and for all in Zambia, solutions should be anchored on research – knowledge. There is need to prepare a comprehensive road map based on research findings as to the main causes of Youth unemployment and their respective solutions. This road map should outline the short term, medium term and long term solutions. And in order to ensure that future youth empowerment programmes succeed, the approach to their designs and implementation will need to be changed drastically. The designs should incorporate the following components: marketing communications strategy, technology elements, intellectual capital, private sector participation, financial literacy skills, market linkages and the recognition of the diversity of the youth demographic, in addition to financial empowerment. It should be recognized that the Youth empowerment value chain is much more than financial empowerment.

Conclusion

The New Dawn Administration is aware and conscious of the fact that they are not doing enough to address the Youth unemployment problem. The Finance Minister, Dr. Situmbeko Musokotwane, admitted this, during the 2023 post budget symposium organised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in October, 2022.

“Our government feels that the biggest challenge that we have as a country or the biggest challenge that we have is how to create the jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We are not yet doing enough to absorb the number of young people looking for jobs. We are not doing enough,” he told the Chinese Chamber of Commerce audience.

The New Dawn Government was brought into power by the Youth vote, and may be thrown out of power by the same Youth vote, if they do not meet the aspirations of the millions of youth they promised so much, by starting to give them hope with credible and innovative solutions rather than the discredited initiatives of past regimes.

The current programs and projects announced by the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Art are mere mirages for critical mass job creation. The current projects that the ministry is implementing will have very minimum impact on job creation. These are “brought in dead” initiatives. There is no way they will create the hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs that are required, in coming years. It is, therefore, imperative that both the top Civil Service and Political leadership prevail on the ministry, and demand that it goes back to the drawing board by ensuring that they collaborate with the private sector as per government policy, and come up with fresh, innovative and critical mass solutions to solve Youth unemployment.

The writer is a Chartered Accountant and Author. He is a semi-retired international MSMEs Knowledge Consultant, and an independent financial commentator. He is also an Op-Ed Contributor to the Hong Kong based, Alibaba owned, and South China Morning Post (SCMP). Contact: [email protected]

“Justice though due to the accused, is also due to the accuser. The concept of fairness cannot be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep our balance true.” ~ Benjamin Cardozo, late American lawyer & Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

(Continued from last yesterday)

In the relatively distant past, Dr. Mumba Malila (as he then was) had been part of the government of President the late Levy Mwanawasa who had appointed him as Attorney-General. In that capacity he rendered opinions to the government and, as admitted by himself, had joined the rather populist anti-corruption crusade which, the course of its execution, suffered some substantial setbacks.

Dr. Malila had continued the prosecution of former President the late Dr. Frederick Chiluba, Mr. Faustin Kabwe, Mr. Aaron Chungu, the UK law firm of Messrs. Meer Care and Malik as well as two other UK law firms, in the London High Court. However, the decision of the London High Court could not be enforced in Zambia – the Zambian Courts refused to register it in the absence of a law establishing a mutual obligation on the high Court of Zambia and it’s counterpart the high court for England and Wales, to enforce the decisions of the two high courts in each other’s country or legal jurisdiction.

In 2022, it is Dr. Mumba Malila sitting as Chief Justice and one of the three judges who, almost a decade later, who confirmed the jailing of Mr. Faustin Kabwe, Mr. Aaron Chungu, former Finance Minister Dr. Katele Kalumba and his Permanent Secretary Mrs. Stella Chibanda by then Magistrate Mr. Edward Musona. This conviction of Dr. Kalumba and his fellow accused persons by the Subordinate Court was well before Dr. Malila was appointed to the bench.

As it turns out, two of the Supreme Court Judges who heard and passed the verdict to imprison Dr. Katele Kalumba, that is, Chief Justice Mumba Malila himself and Honourable Mr. Justice Jones Chinyama, were both actively involved in the earlier prosecution or sentencing of the four appellants during their trials at the subordinate court of these four appellants; Dr. Malila was the Attorney General and Mr. Justice Chinyama was a Magistrate, at the time, between 2006 and 2010.

As Senior Resident Magistrate, Hon. Jones Chinyama handled the cases where the former President Frederick Chiluba, Faustin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu were the co-accused on charges they were facing, involving the theft of US $500,000 from the government. The two business executives were found guilty of theft and possession of public funds and were each imprisoned for three years each.

On the other hand, Dr. Chiluba was acquitted on the basis that the State had failed to prove the cases against him, and also noting that Dr. Chiluba, as President of the Republic was not subject the rules which governed the conduct of public officers. He was not a public officer. The then Magistrate Chinyama had, however, found Dr. Chiluba’s co-accused, that is, Access Financial Services Limited former directors Aaron Chungu and Faustin Kabwe, guilty.

Clearly the two judges should not have sat to hear and determine the appeal, in this case as they were largely prejudiced and biased because of their previous roles in these matters. It is reasonable to extend the requirement of a neutral arbiter to a dispute, that is, that no one shall be judge is his own case, to those who had previously prosecuted or heard and pronounced themselves on similar matters against the same accused persons.

BLIND OR AGITATED JUDICIARY TO PUBLIC COMMENTS?

In Chapter IV of his 2011 article, Dr. Malila discussed the question of why the Zambian Judiciary cannot afford to ignore comments about its independence and integrity. Among all arms of Government, it is the Judiciary which must actually adopt the Voltairean principle, “I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

And when opening the 2023 Criminal Session, Chief Justice Malila urged judges to determine cases based on evidence and the law, and not to allow themselves to be influenced by external pressures and factors such as political statements or indeed their own prejudices.

While the Chief Justice is not far from the truth when he stated that there is indeed a risk of push back against the anti-corruption efforts by powerful persons and sometimes by the very individuals being called upon to account or by their proxies, the greater risk though is that of “push forward” of corruption cases even when the evidence is insufficient, is not cogent, is scanty or even non-existent, as appeared to be in one case I closely followed in the new Financial Crimes Courts.

The internal ‘push forward’ in these cases could be motivated by the need for courts to be seen to be doing something in the so-called fight against corruption. It is not inconceivable that some in the Judiciary may want to be seen singing the same hymn with the executive under the guise of fighting corruption, by convicting persons through the use of an easy Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime law, under which possession of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime is sufficient to secure a conviction. After all, it may be reasoned that these cases do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but just suspicion.

The role of the courts is to dispense justice in a fair, impartial manner and without prejudice. This is what we mean when we say Justice is blind. Judges and Magistrates must fairly make decisions based only on the information presented to them, rather than based on personal experiences, or who they like most. The courts are supposed to protect the rights of the people without being influenced by outside forces or the singing, grievances, and recitations by the complainants.

The moment the executive or even the top Judge himself begin to lecture Judges and Judicial Officers, asking them to open their eyes towards what is happening outside the courtroom, in the public sector, or to the public purse and telling them that they have a duty and must restore what was allegedly stolen, is the time when we asking Judges to remove their blindfold. In simple terms, it is asking judges and judicial officers to use our prejudices, likes and dislikes when hearing cases or in passing their verdicts.

It is a fair opinion to state that Chief Justice Dr Mumba Malila is clearly attempting to align the attitude of the Judiciary to the wishes of the Executive branch whose motivation in its pursuit of those accused of corruption can no longer be the conduct of fairer trials and impartial assessment of evidence but merely getting convictions for political expediency and wining international accolades.

Will we see, under the leadership of Mr. Chief Justice Malila, the Judiciary becoming the guardian of the executive branch or the Judiciary becoming the security guard of the Treasury, and not the guardian of citizens’ rights and liberties, including the right of accused persons?

But His Lordship did not forget to also sternly warn the public against what he termed irresponsible criticism, when he said:

“We will not condone baseless attacks aimed at ruining the judiciary with regard to current reforms taking place.”

Dr. Malila said the judiciary was not flattered by criticism which was vicious and irresponsible and would not condone such behaviour. He said the judiciary welcomed constructive criticism and would always adopt well balanced views regarding the performance of the institution.

It is becoming apparently clear that the three powerful arms of government are positioning to insulate themselves from vicious public criticism. The Legislature is in the habit of summoning members of the public who criticise it and subject them to reading apologies they don’t not write themselves.

When a person refuses to read such apology written on their behalf, whose wording they don’t agree with as did Hon Raphael Nakacinda, then they are told to wait for other stern action to be taken. Hon Cornelius Mweetwa suffered some suspension for refusing to apologise but Nakacinda may be unlucky because the Judiciary, which itself is warning the public against vicious criticism, may be asked to send him to prison. There may be no one to defend his right to expression.

I agree with Dr. Malila that the public must offer constructive criticism to the Judiciary. Afterall, the Judiciary is accountable to the citizenry whose judicial power they exercise. But vicious criticism is also not to flatter the Judiciary. Those who use vicious criticism are people that believe options have run out for communicating its messages or the Judiciary is ignoring public comments regarding its performance.

Among the three arms of government, the Judiciary is supposed to be a leader in protecting the right to expression as it did in the case of Roy Clarke whose sharp criticism of the executive, through satire, had earned him deportation which the court reversed. Even though freedom of expression is not absolute, the Judiciary must protect this freedom of expression to the biggest extent possible.

CONCLUSION

It is the conclusion of this author that Dr. Malila has joined the executive in grieving on how corruption cases are taking long, and is now reciting the same verse in warning public officials. Is this a subtle way of asking his carefully selected magistrates at the financial crimes courts and Judges to take note of these external factors even as they hear cases and deliver their verdicts? Is our celebrated Dr. Malila telling Judicial Officers and Judges that they must remove the blindfold?

There can be no due process, no rule of law, no justice without neutrality from our adjudicators or when adjudicators are enjoined to be part of the executive’s anti-corruption drive, largely expecting them to convict or to order that people’s properties be taken away based on the weapons we have put in the law and gifting it to the State, who have now found an easy weapon in the law which doesn’t require them to prove the real crime that could have been committed before convictions can be made and peoples properties taken away in a country with an informal economy.

[Published by the Zambia Daily Nation in three series]